Saturday, July 10, 2010

Just One of the AE 9-11 Troof Engineers

Uncle Fetzer was griping about the Wikipedia entry on his fruitcake group, and cited an engineer who had joined his group over Jones' jerks.

I was sad to see the breakup of Scholars for 911 truth, but after watching this 14 hour DVD set I chose to join Fetzer's group just to take a stand for the side of the fence that is more in line with my inclination towards free and open thinking and research.

Since I am an engineer I also chose to join Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, even though they have a very narrow focus.


The letter was signed T. Mark Hightower. So I thought I'd Google Mr Hightower and see what I came up with. The third result was his page on the We Are Change NY meetup group. It's not hard to see what he's talking about when he gripes about the narrow focus of Gage's gaggle:

To powerful Jews and their dupes, the whole truth about 9/11 is like sodomy in the synagogue, exposing it is a million times greater sin than committing it. This analogy inspired by revisionisthistory.org and rediscover911.com


Revisionist History is one of those sites on the evil Jooos, while Rediscover 9-11 is a site that contends that those evil Jooos did 9-11.

Labels: , , ,

233 Comments:

At 10 July, 2010 13:31, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Ah, the sweet, sickening stench of anti-semitism from the twoooofer™ crew.

What a surprise.

 
At 10 July, 2010 16:18, Blogger Triterope said...

I was sad to see the breakup of Scholars for 911 truth

Wasn't that like four years ago?

 
At 11 July, 2010 05:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Apparently "free and open thinking" means "thinking unconstrained by logic."

A cursory Google search of some of the names on rediscover911.com turns up a holistic "cleansing coach", an old Jew-hater, a guy with a really funny beard, and a guy who's published several particularly crazy articles on 9/11.

I would desperately love to see a study of people who self-identify as 9/11 Truthers along with age, gender, education level, and profession. Where are are these people coming from? Oh, and family history of alcoholism and mental illness, that should be in there too.

 
At 11 July, 2010 07:55, Blogger Billman said...

Unfortunately, Richard Gage's Testicles, that will never happen because troofers are scared the NWO will know too much about them (while at the same time they don't realize that the government can monitor every electronic communication in the world, so if they ever post anything anywhere on the internet, there's a good bet the "NWO" already knows everything about them. Morons.)

 
At 11 July, 2010 11:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ultimately Fetzer's group does a service by soaking up the energies of unsavory characters the real truth movement won't tolerate.

Did you notice that Fetzer, Barrett, Ranke, and Rodriguez have to go overseas to put on a program at all? They can't do it in the USA. Not only can they not get a microphone at conferences--they're even afraid to show up.

 
At 11 July, 2010 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Ultimately Fetzer's group does a service by soaking up the energies of unsavory characters the real truth movement won't tolerate."

Projecting again, goat fucker?

After all, you've been kicked out of every "movement" you've ever joined.

Bottom line: You're so dishonest, crazy and sexually deviant that the nutters won't tolerate you for a microsecond. Poor goat fucker.

Pathetic.

Seek psychiatric intervention, goat fucker.

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

Hey look, GutterBull is a psychic. He knows the identity and history of every anonymous poster on this board.

Wow! But if he knows everything, then why does he pwn himself so badly when he can't support his claims?

 
At 11 July, 2010 14:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I have provided plenty of evidence to support my claims. Moreover, I've caught you lying so many times now that you simply have no credibility.

Care to explain to us why you invoked Kevin Barrett's name after I referred to you as "psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof"?

Doesn't Barrett call you "psycho sex stalker", too?

Source: 9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

LOL!

So why did you mention Barrett when I never said a word about him?

Come on, goat fucker, lie to us again.

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

 
At 11 July, 2010 14:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I mentioned Barrett because, like the subject of this post, he is a thoroughly discrediting character who is also a signatory to the AE911Truth petition and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth.

You pwn yourself when you claim that Dr. Harris expressed confidence in the NIST report's findings. Your own link shows that he did not. In fact he was skeptical about several of their recommendations.
http://www.asce.org/uploadedFiles/Government_Relations_-_New/writtentestimony102605.pdf

Now, how about you name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You pwn yourself when you claim that Dr. Harris expressed confidence in the NIST report's findings. Your own link shows that he did not. In fact he was skeptical about several of their recommendations.

False. Harris expresses reservations about a few of NIST's recommendations, not the findings that prompted the recommendations. Have an adult read the report to you if you're not sure what that means.

NIST's findings stand unrefuted.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:04, Blogger Triterope said...

GuitarBill is a psychic. He knows the identity and history of every anonymous poster on this board.

It's not that hard. There's only about four of you.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:07, Blogger Triterope said...

You claim that Dr. Harris expressed confidence in the NIST report's findings. Your own link shows that he did not. Now, how about you name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?

Not this shit again.

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

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I mentioned Barrett because, like the subject of this post, he is a thoroughly discrediting character who is also a signatory to the AE911Truth petition and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth."

Another bald-faced lie. That said, should we expect any less from a hardcore psychopath?

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

Oh so Barrett's not a discrediting individual?

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Answer the questions, psychopath:

So why did you mention Barrett when I never said a word about him?

Source: SLC: I knew that if provoked you with the phrase "Psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof" that you'd invoke Holocaust denier Kevin Barrett..

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, You are not even a competent scholar of your own writings. Your own link shows that I brought up Barrett at 14:29, suggesting that your standards of scholarship were appropriate to Barrett's team. You didn't bring up
Barrett yourself until 14:40.

Go sleep it off. I bet you're a real fine example for your kids--of failure.
re

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, You are not even a competent scholar of your own writings. Your own link shows that I brought up Barrett at 14:29, suggesting that your standards of scholarship were appropriate to Barrett's team. You didn't bring up
Barrett yourself until 14:40."


Thanks for proving, once again, the you're a compulsive liar who can't read.

Typical psychopath--he lies first, last and always.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You lie about your own links, your own writings. Easily disproven lies--the desperate refuge of the complete humbug.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's rich. After all, you fail utterly to prove even one of your idiotic assertions.

So why did you invoke Kevin Barrett's name after I called you "psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof", when I never mentioned him?

Wasn't Barrett the first to refer to you as "psycho sex stalker"? Or was that Carol Broulliet.

Did you not sexually harass Carol Broulliet and Willie Rodriguiz?

I stand by my statement: You're a psychopath who uses manipulation, intimidation, sexual and verbal violence to control and intimidate your victims.

Furthermore, you have no conscience or empathy. And in the process, you do as you please, while violating social norms without guilt or remorse. You have no humanity--period.

The consensus among psychiatrists is that psychopathy stems from a specific neurological disorder which is biological in origin and present from birth. Hence, psychopathy is untreatable.

Do the honorable thing, psychopath. End your misery, not only for yourself, but for the sake of your victims.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:18, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Hey look, GutterBull is a psychic. He knows the identity and history of every anonymous poster on this board.

No, just the identity of the "anonymous" poster who is obviously Brian Good, aka Petgoat, punxsutawneybarney Snug Bug, Contrivance, etc.

Jesus, Brian, how dumb/insane do you have to be to continue to pretend that you're not who you are when all of your posts are the same unhinged babblings?

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I invoked Barrett at 14:29, as your own link shows. You "provoked" me at 14:40. Nice trick, a retroactive provocation.

You are out of touch with reality.

You seem to think there's only one guy in the world, Brian Good, who can pwn you. That's silly.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh Mr. Psychopath, I caught you quote mining again.

SOURCE: SLC: QUOTE MINING AGAIN, YOU LYING PSYCHOPATH?

ROTFLMAO!

Keep it up, psychopath for 9/11 troof.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I invoked Barrett at 14:29, as your own link shows."

No, you invoked Barrett because you're obsesses with him, just like you're obsessed with Willie Rodriguiz and Carol Broulliet.

But that's beside the point, psychopath, because I caught you quote mining again.

Now, get down to that thread and issue a formal apology, lying psychpath for 9/11 troof.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

We shall never know which came first, the chicken or the egg, but we definitely know that anti-GENTILISM preceeded "antisemitism". Anti-GENTILISM is the cause of so-called "antisemitism". HUMANITY did not invent "antisemitism" and then wait thousands of years for judaism to appear, just so everybody could "hate" it for absolutely no reason. Judaism codified anti-GENTILISM, their hatred of ALL NON-jews, and the only SANE reaction of any NON-jew is self defense, which the "Tribe" calls antisemitism. judaism consciously chose to separate itself from the Family Of Man, labeling ALL non-jews GOYIM, GENTILE, SHISKA, and infusing judaism's very soul with venom toward ALL NON-jews.

Quote from A Return To Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles. By Marianne Williamson. Pages 190-191

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I invoked Barrett because, like you, his scholarship sucks.

Linking yourself as an authority is bad practice because then when you make a mistake, as you did in your quote-mining bit, you only spread an compound it.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, fuck you.

I never quote mined anything--you bastard. And I source everything I reference.

You, on the other hand...

Now, where's your apology, quote mining psychopath for 9/11 troof?

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't say you quote mined. I said you didn't support your claims. Where are the endorsements of NIST's report by the other 13 people on your list? All you've got is the dubious claim of an implicit endorsement by Dr. Harris--a damningly weak answer.

Apology? I'm terribly sorry that an over-emotional, irrational liar was offended by something I said. It was terribly tasteless of me to try to inject a bit of reality into a debunkers forum.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Where are the endorsements of NIST's report by the other 13 people on your list?"

Again psychopath for 9/11 troof, the report was endorsed by the adoption of the reports' recommendations at all critical levels: Academia, safety and design.

Now, I want you to show me one engineering report that was endorsed by the engineering community, while the reports' findings were subject to heated debate in the engineering community?

You can't?

Then fuck off.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Apology? I'm terribly sorry that an over-emotional, irrational liar was offended by something I said. It was terribly tasteless of me to try to inject a bit of reality into a debunkers forum."

Reality?

You lied.

Read Robertson's words again, fucktard.

Leslie Robertson said, "...Our firm participated, in a small way, by providing information about the basic structure that was constructed."

Now, read the words that you conveniently omitted from you quote:

NIST wrote, "...The contractor shall have no role in the investigation other than providing NIST with the deliverables associated with the above tasks.

"The contractor shall not provide any findings, conclusions, or recommendations from its work on the three tasks. These are the sole and exclusive responsibility of NIST."


Thus, you're lying again--psychopath for 9/11 troof.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I invoked Barrett because, like you, his scholarship sucks."

Says who? A former janitor with a GED and a raging case of psychopathy?

You couldn't spell credibility.

 
At 11 July, 2010 20:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I invoked Barrett because, like you, his scholarship sucks."

I've never known an engineer who doesn't know the UNIX shell inside and out. It's part of the job.

So tell us, psychopath, what does the following shell command do?

ls -l | grep '^d' | sed 's/.* //'

Go for it, Mr. "Engineer".

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

GutterBall, where are the endorsements of the NIST report by the other 13 people on the list who you claim endorsed the NIST report? Are theirs implicit endorsements too?

I did not say Robertson's firm participated in the NIST report. I said they had a big contract with NIST. You denied it, then denied you denied it. They did have a big contract with NIST, and now you're trying to change the subject.

I'm getting retired of your repetitive nonsense. That UNIX is used by engineers does not make UNIX engineering. Your bad logic suggests why your IT job went to a 20-year-old in Mumbai.

 
At 11 July, 2010 22:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're a charlatan. I never said that UNIX is engineering--you fool. Here's what I said,

"...I've never known an engineer who doesn't know the UNIX shell inside and out. It's part of the job."

Obviously, you couldn't make it out of a third year-level engineering lab course (where you'll need UNIX to get to first base).

And in typical goat fucker fashion, you resort to a straw man argument (eg., "...That UNIX is used by engineers does not make UNIX engineering.").

LOL!

"...I said they had a big contract with NIST."

And what level of influence did LERA have?

"...no role in the investigation other than providing NIST with the deliverables associated with the above tasks...The contractor shall not provide any findings, conclusions, or recommendations from its work on the three tasks. These are the sole and exclusive responsibility of NIST."

And you call that diminished and incredibly limited role "big"?

In other words, they had no role beyond providing NIST with information--which only LERA could provide--that allowed NIST to ascertain the state of the building prior to the collapse.

You're worthless--and that's an understatement.

 
At 11 July, 2010 22:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You never said UNIX was engineering, but you offered your knowledge of UNIX as if it were a qualification to support your completely bogus claim that you were an engineer.

LERA's influence over NIST whether big or small was never the issue. NIST's influence over LERA, through what appears to have been a rather sizable contract, is.

You are very confused.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:01, 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 23:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...LERA's influence over NIST whether big or small was never the issue. NIST's influence over LERA, through what appears to have been a rather sizable contract, is."

According to whom? You?

LOL!

Are you trying to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact, psychopath?

So, when will you present a psychiatrist who'll vouch for your sanity, Mr. Psychopath?

Until you can do so, your claims to the contrary are nothing more than effluent.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Poor GutterBall, pwned by someone he thinks is an unemployed janitor. And all he can do is sputter imagined insults about somebody he doesn't even know. That's gotta hurt.

Maybe you could donate your body to science?

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

NIST's influence over LERA is an issue because it means that Leslie Robertson is not an independent engineer. His firm had a sizable contract with NIST. I know stuff like that is really hard for you propellor heads to understand, but think about it.

My sanity is not an issue, but only your feeble attempt at an ad hominem attack after you have been utterly unable to support your specious claims.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:13, 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 23:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, you vomit on your own shoes and call it giving me medicine.

Pathetic.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:26, 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 "logic" when it's used against you?

Pathetic.

So where's your evidence that you're sane, psychopath?

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

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, you lack the intellectual horsepower to recognize that the same question (unproven sanity) applies equally to you. The point is of no interest to anyone but you.

Let's talk about NIST, and the strange fact that no independent engineers that endorse its report can be found, though hundreds can be found who criticize the report.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, psychopath.

Where's your evidence, provided by a qualified psychiatrist, that proves that you are, in fact, sane?

Until you can provide evidence to the contrary, we're forced to conclude that you're a psychopath.

Now, get to work, psychopath.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, you lack the intellectual horsepower to recognize that the same question (unproven sanity) applies equally to you. The point is of no interest to anyone but you."

Oh, really? No kidding?

Psychopath, you lack the intellectual horsepower to prove that the engineers I listed for you don't endorse the NIST Report--which is proof positive that you're a psychopath.

Since you're unable to provide evidence that proves that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report, let alone provide evidence that confirms your alleged "sanity", it's safe to conclude that you're, in fact, a lying psychopath.

Now, until you can provide a psychiatrist who backs your claim of sanity, we're forced to conclude that you are, in fact, a psychopath.

What's the matter, psychopath, you don't like the foul taste of your own specious "logic" when it's used against you?

Cry me a river, psychopath.

Now, where's that certificate that verifies your sanity, psychopath?

And while you're at it, it should be child's play for you to prove that the engineers I listed don't endorse the NIST Report. Right?

I'm waiting patiently for your evidence.

Now, get to work, psychopath.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:11, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I don't have to prove that the names that you list haven't endorsed the NIST report. You have to back up your claim that they did. And you haven't.

I did show that Dr. Harris did not endorse the NIST report in the statement you cited.

You're just digging in deeper, idiot.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, I don't have to prove that the names that you list haven't endorsed the NIST report. You have to back up your claim that they did. And you haven't."

The Hell you don't.

You made the claim that they don't endorse the NIST report; thus, the burden of proof is yours.

"...I did show that Dr. Harris did not endorse the NIST report in the statement you cited."

No you didn't, psychopath. You quote mined his words, as I've already proven.

Now, since you're unable to provide evidence that proves that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report, let alone provide evidence that confirms your alleged "sanity", it's safe to conclude that you're, in fact, a lying psychopath.

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

And where's your proof, provided by a qualified psychiatrist, that you're not a psychopath?

I'm waiting patiently.

Or don't you care for the taste of your own medicine?

Yum, yum! Have another bite, psychopath ( or was that pendejo?).

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your pathetic attempts to shift the burden of proof on me show the bankruptcy of your position.

You claimed that independent engineers supported the NIST report. You haven't demonstrated that.

Prove you case, poofster.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The meth smokin' psychopath whines, "...Prove you [SIC] case, poofster [SIC]."

"...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...

"...You claimed that independent engineers supported the NIST report. You haven't demonstrated that."

Yes, I proved my claim when I pointed out that they endorse the NIST Report by adopting its recommendations. Got it, 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 00:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I seem to have missed the part where you showed that all 14 of the names you listed were associated with Dr. Harris's testimony. Do you mind backing that up?

Also, there's the question of Willie's willie. Who exactly do you think made homosexual overtures to the con-man William Rodriguez, and how do you know?

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I seem to have missed the part where you showed that all 14 of the names you listed were associated with Dr. Harris's testimony. Do you mind backing that up?"

Moving the goalpost again, psychopath?

Another tacit admission of failure on your part.

Don't you have an under-aged boy's meat to poof?

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 yours.

Or is it difficult to type with your hand's and lips wrapped around Willie's virtual pecker?

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

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I missed the part where you connected all 14 engineers to the adoption of NIST's recommendation. I only saw the testimony of Dr. Harris. So where's the endorsement of the other 13?

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:10, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You're making a complete fool of yourself, GutterBall.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No psychopath, you're stonewalling.

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

I'm waiting patiently for your "answer" (read obfuscation).

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't need to prove anything. You need to show that your 14 engineers endorsed the NIST report as you claimed. You have not done so.

Support your claim!

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:19, 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 01:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't need to prove that. You need to prove your claim that they support the NIST report.

You can't do it. That's why you must resort to absurd, salacious, and self-discrediting ad hominems that suggest significant projection and reaction-formation factors.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I don't need to prove that."

Oh yes you do, mister logical fallacy.

Now, get to work.

"...You can't do it. That's why you must resort to absurd, salacious, and self-discrediting ad hominems that suggest significant projection and reaction-formation factors."

Whining again, Mr. Psychopath?

Well, I can tell you that whining won't get you much sympathy around here.

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


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

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Mr. Strawman GutterBall I never said the 14 engineers you listed were opponents of the NIST report, so your demand that I prove they are is a logical fallacy.

You said they endorsed the NIST report but you have failed to prove it.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Mr. Strawman GutterBall I never said the 14 engineers you listed were opponents of the NIST report, so your demand that I prove they are is a logical fallacy."

On the contrary, you IMPLIED (is that word familiar, hypocrite) that they are opponents of the NIST report.

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 01:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I never implied that your 14 engineers were opponents of the NIST report and your demand that I prove that they are opponents is irrational.

Prove your claim that they support the NIST report. You can't.

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:04, 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 02:09, 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 02:13, 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 02:16, 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 02:22, 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. "

You're a hypocrite, aren't you?

And for your information, pud huffer, you don't make the rules.

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

And remember, psychopath for 9/11 troof, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:50, Anonymous Anonymous 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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More lies, jackass?

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 03:02, Anonymous Anonymous 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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 03:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Trying to conflate "demand" with "imply"?

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 03:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I did show that Dr. Harris did not endorse the NIST report in the statement you cited.

That's inaccurate. But this entire issue is a red herring. Failure to expressly endorse the report means nothing. Can you show us some precedent for "failure to endorse" equalling "opposition" within the engineering community? Of course not.

And if there were some sort of widespread express endorsement going on, you whackjobs would just point at that and call it "unprecedented" and claim every endorsing engineer was bought off, etc. Oh wait, you're already doing that: anybody whose firm has ever worked with NIST is "tainted".

How about this: can you find a single engineer who opposes NIST's findings and who is untainted by AE911Truth? I've noticed you tend to ignore my questions, possibly because I ask tough ones that you can't answer. Try facing me just this one time. I'm sure you're not a spineless pussy in real life, so don't be one online either. Just answer me.

 
At 12 July, 2010 08:22, Anonymous Arhoolie "Solitary" Vanunu said...

Who's a bigger hater than the Insane Yuppie.He better never show up in NYC without an AK-47,twelve bodyguards and his posse from the fern bar.I don't hear Trite 'n Dopedup complaining about the hate speech regularly doled out by the Wackiest Ship in the Cult's Navy.You slouches save your whining for your own ass-whippings.It's bad form,in a cult,to call out your fellow acolytes,I know,but this has gotten absurd.Is the Fretboy even allowed in San Francisco?

 
At 12 July, 2010 08:29, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Who's a bigger hater than the Insane Yuppie.He better never show up in NYC without an AK-47,twelve bodyguards and his posse from the fern bar.I don't hear Trite 'n Dopedup complaining about the hate speech regularly doled out by the Wackiest Ship in the Cult's Navy.You slouches save your whining for your own ass-whippings.It's bad form,in a cult,to call out your fellow acolytes,I know,but this has gotten absurd.Is the Fretboy even allowed in San Francisco?

English, please.

 
At 12 July, 2010 09:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"English, please."

Happy to accommidate:

"The tabloid for a stovepipe is cantankerous. The fire hydrant plans an escape from a graduated cylinder of a bullfrog the insurance agent around a cheese wheel, or a tabloid about a jersey cow has a change of heart about a flatulent garbage can. When a judge flies into a rage, the wisely cosmopolitan apartment building feels nagging remorse. Sometimes the accidentally miserly avocado pit procrastinates, but a twisted turn signal always makes love to a slyly gentle submarine!"

Hope that helps.

 
At 12 July, 2010 09:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your childish spamtrum only spotlights the shameful fact that you can not back up your claim that independent engineers have endorsed NIST's report. You can't name a single one. You are trying to bury that fact under obfuscation, but it's plain as cold gray dawn.

RGT, the testimony of Dr. Harris nowhere supports the notion that Harris endorsed the NIST report. The notion that associating with AE911Truth is a "taint" is absurd. Association is entirely voluntary, and since no remuneration is involved, there is no danger of conflict of interest. I can think of a couple of engineers I know of who oppose the NIST report and are not members of AE911Truth. There is good reason to suppose there are many more who for various reasons wish to keep their opinions to themselves, or who have avoided signing because they take issue with some of Gage's claims or
do not want their names associated with lunatics like Kevin Barrett.

 
At 12 July, 2010 09:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Back for another ass whoopin', retard?

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whoopin'? No, no thank you sir, you'll have to find somebody else to whoop your ass. I don't swing that way.

I'll just stand back and let you whoop your own ass since you seem so determined to do it.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

Well cornhole, I'm still waiting for you to present the name of one engineer who opposes the NIST's conclusions--and troofers don't count, they're "tainted", as we all know.

So, where's your evidence, psychopath?

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:21, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please advise as to the nature of the "taint" put on an engineer by truther associations. What conflict of interest is involved?

By contrast, the taint of NIST associations quite clearly creates a conflict of interest making the remarks of NIST associates such as Leslie Robertson suspect. NIST awarded big contracts; they continue to award big contracts.

Say, Mr. Engineer, did you ever think of offering your services to NIST?

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:37, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, your childish spamtrum only spotlights the shameful fact that you can not back up your claim that independent engineers have endorsed NIST's report. You can't name a single one. You are trying to bury that fact under obfuscation, but it's plain as cold gray dawn.

False. He has backed up his claims. Stop lying, Petgoat.

RGT, the testimony of Dr. Harris nowhere supports the notion that Harris endorsed the NIST report.

False.

The notion that associating with AE911Truth is a "taint" is absurd. Association is entirely voluntary, and since no remuneration is involved, there is no danger of conflict of interest.

False. Anyone who has joined AE911Truth obviously has an axe to grind and is putting petty personal vendettas above disinterested scholarship.

By contrast, the taint of NIST associations quite clearly creates a conflict of interest making the remarks of NIST associates such as Leslie Robertson suspect. NIST awarded big contracts; they continue to award big contracts.

False.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Yorker, if somebody in the truth movement lied as blatantly and incompetently as you, I'd suspect that they were deliberately trying to hurt us. That your colleagues here at SLC do not suspect that speaks poorly of their powers of perception, judgment, and reason.

 
At 12 July, 2010 11:01, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, if somebody in the truth movement lied as blatantly and incompetently as you, I'd suspect that they were deliberately trying to hurt us. That your colleagues here at SLC do not suspect that speaks poorly of their powers of perception, judgment, and reason.

My, such squealing! Your insane babblings are useful, Petgoat. They make me know I'm on the right track about 9/11.

 
At 12 July, 2010 15:18, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Please advise as to the nature of the "taint" put on an engineer by truther associations."

It means that said individual is a short bus riding, window licking conspiratard.

And you can lick my taint.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:07, Blogger Triterope said...

you can not back up your claim that independent engineers have endorsed NIST's report

You know what I realized today, Brian?

Arguing with you is like arguing with a woman.

It is.

Your thought process is exactly the same as a woman's when arguing with a man.

You show up with a problem. We've given you the answer ten times already, but you don't want the answer. You want to talk and talk and talk and talk about your feelings relating to the problem. And logic is not going to be any kind of obstacle to that end.

And every fucking conversation about every fucking thing in the universe is going to turn right back into another discussion of your problem. And your feelings. And what you want. Yackety yackety yack.

Now I know why you irritate me so much; you remind me of every fight I've ever had in every relationship I've ever been in.

I think I'll call you Briana from now on.

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

What I want is a straight answer to a simple question:

Name one independent engineer who endorsed the findings of the NIST report on the structural failure of the WTC.

What I get is lies: Claims that statements made three years before the report was released are endorsements of the report. Claims of implicit unstated endorsements, claims of unstated community endorsement. Lies about people who are not independent.

Why is it necessary to lie about Leslie Robertson or Dr. Harris to answer the question? Why don't you have thousands of registered engineers flocking to endorse the NIST report?

Because it's a crock, that's why.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Impressive insights, Triterope.

Bravo! Well done, sir.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath wrote, "...What I get is lies."

What were you saying about "grammar", psychopath.

Still working on that plural thingy?

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath prevaricates, "...Why is it necessary to lie about Leslie Robertson or Dr. Harris to answer the question? Why don't you have thousands of registered engineers flocking to endorse the NIST report?"

Right!

Then perhaps you can explain why the NIST Reports' recommendations were adopted at all levels of the engineering community: Academic, safety and design?

I guess the engineering community gave a non-endorsement endorsement.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall you just make a fool of yourself.

Here's the grammar: What I want is results, what I get is excuses.

NOT

What I want are results, what I get are excuses.

You are really an idiot. All you want for christmas are your two front teeth, eh?

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous said...
What I want is a straight answer to a simple question:"


No you don't.

You want confirmation of your insane beliefs.

And you will never ever ever get it here, you retarded marmoset.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:24, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
GutterBall you just make a fool of yourself."

No, he makes a fool of you.

Over and over and over again.

And you not seeing that is part of your insanity.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Here's the grammar: What I want is results, what I get is excuses...NOT...What I want are results, what I get are excuses...You are really an idiot. All you want for christmas are your two front teeth, eh?"

But that's not what you wrote, liar.

Here's what you wrote,

"...What I get is lies."

Here's what you should have written:

"...What I get are lies."

You really are a liar, psychopath.

Would you like an education for Christmas--you trailer park educated psychopath?

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:50, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Name one independent engineer who endorsed the findings of the NIST report on the structural failure of the WTC.

He already has, Petgoat. You lose. Again.

What I get is lies: Claims that statements made three years before the report was released are endorsements of the report. Claims of implicit unstated endorsements, claims of unstated community endorsement. Lies about people who are not independent.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

Why is it necessary to lie about Leslie Robertson or Dr. Harris to answer the question? Why don't you have thousands of registered engineers flocking to endorse the NIST report?

He didn't lie. Also, why don't we have thousands of registered engineers flocking to endorse the theory of gravity? You haven't named a single one yet.

Because it's a crock, that's why.

False.

GutterBall you just make a fool of yourself.

False. The only person here (other than the knucklehead who doesn't use the spacebar) making a fool of himself is you, Petgoat.

What I want is a straight answer to a simple question.

No, what you want is attention to feed your personality disorder. This is why you stalk Barrett and Rodriguez and Brouillet. That's why you never stop posting gibberish here, because people actually respond to you. It doesn't appear to matter that we're here to make you chase your tail and laugh at it.

You are really an idiot. All you want for christmas are your two front teeth, eh?

Are you upset, Petgoat? I mean, you're squealing like a little girl.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, you just make it worse and worse.
Or should I say "make them worse and worse"?

I bet your favorite TV show are "24".

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall grammar:

"The problem with the country today are all the liars."

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...The problem with the country today are all the liars."

I never wrote that sentence.

Link, please.

Put up, or shut up.

The psychopath continues to lie through his teeth, and scribbles, "...make them worse and worse?"

I never wrote that sentence.

Link, please.

Put up, or shut up, psychopath for 9/11 troof.

 
At 12 July, 2010 18:17, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GB, you just make it worse and worse.
Or should I say "make them worse and worse"?

I bet your favorite TV show are "24".


You're squealing like a little girl, Petgoat. Seek professional help.

 
At 12 July, 2010 18:39, Blogger Triterope said...

What I want is a straight answer to a simple question:

And you have been given a straight answer.

Now shut the fuck up, Briana, or acknowledge that you're just here for the attention and drama.

 
At 12 July, 2010 18:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TR, I have not been given a straight answer. You have not names a single independent engineer who has made a statement endorsing the findings of the NIST report. Not one. Instead Gutterball lied in trying to pass out published statements from 2002 as an endorsement of a 2005 report, and tried to claim implicit endorsements from Dr. Harris. Why is it so difficult to find someone who will say something nice about Dr. Sunder's report? That bad, huh?

 
At 12 July, 2010 19:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Instead Gutterball lied in trying to pass out published statements from 2002 as an endorsement of a 2005 report, and tried to claim implicit endorsements from Dr. Harris."

I never tried to pass the documents off as being written in 2005. Do you ever tell the truth?

And what's wrong with an implicit endorsement? After all, the NIST verified their hypothesis. So it doesn't matter if the documents were written in 2002 or 2005, because the result is the same--your protests to the contrary notwithstanding.

Got logic?

 
At 12 July, 2010 19:10, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I have not been given a straight answer.

Yes, you have.

That you don't understand the answer is not the rest of the world's problem.

 
At 12 July, 2010 21:39, Anonymous New Yorker said...

TR, I have not been given a straight answer. You have not names a single independent engineer who has made a statement endorsing the findings of the NIST report. Not one. Instead Gutterball lied in trying to pass out published statements from 2002 as an endorsement of a 2005 report, and tried to claim implicit endorsements from Dr. Harris. Why is it so difficult to find someone who will say something nice about Dr. Sunder's report? That bad, huh?

Speaking of Dr. Sunder, have you finally stopped lying about "essentially in free-fall"? That used to be my favorite of your endless babblings that demonstrated your appalling ignorance of anything related to 9/11.

 
At 13 July, 2010 00:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pray tell, GB, how did NIST "verify their hypothesis"? I never said you tried to pass off 2002 documents as written in 2005. You tried to pass of 2002 documents as applicable to a 2005 report. You are very dishonest.

OK, NY, I'll bite. Dr. Sunder told NOVA the towers came down in 11 seconds and 9 seconds. Do you deny that's freefall?

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath wrote, "...I never said you tried to pass off 2002 documents as written in 2005. You tried to pass of 2002 documents as applicable to a 2005 report."

Only one problem, psychopath, that's not what you wrote.

Here's what you wrote,

"...Instead Gutterball lied in trying to pass out published statements from 2002 as an endorsement of a 2005 report."

Indeed, one of us is very dishonest (and it's not me. by the way). Now, if can only figure out who's dishonest.

Try again, illiterate psychopath for 9/11 troof.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Pray tell, GB, how did NIST 'verify their hypothesis'?"

By agreeing with them after the fact.

Do you have trouble with past and present tense, psychopath?

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, you verify a hypothesis by agreeing with it? Gee, that doesn't sound very scientific.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're hopeless, psychopath.

Try a course in scientific logic.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

By the way, when will you get down here and take my test, illiterate psychopath for 9/11 troof?

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:51, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, so now the IT guy is not only an engineer, a musician, a grammarian, and a psychologist, he's also an expert in scientific epistemology as well! Wow! How do you ever find time for your wife and kids?

 
At 13 July, 2010 02:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Unfortunately, you've never been to a university.

Had you done so, you'd know that there's a little thingy called "breadth and distribution requirements."

Try it some time, charlatan.

 
At 13 July, 2010 04:30, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh, so now the IT guy is not only an engineer, a musician, a grammarian, and a psychologist, he's also an expert in scientific epistemology as well!

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Oh, that is priceless.

Nobody spends more time feigning mastery of an impossible variety of subjects than you, Brian. It is the defining trait of 9-11 Truthers.

One minute they're an expert in how obscure explosives work. The next minute they're instructing NORAD how they should have reacted. The minute after that they're insurance fraud investigators. Then they're experts in voice morphing technology. Then they're telling you what color smoke should be. Then they're physics experts, whose ability to perform precise calculations is completely unhindered by the vagueness of the givens.

Hell, you just said:

Dr. Sunder told NOVA the towers came down in 11 seconds and 9 seconds. Do you deny that's freefall?

Hey Brian, you wanna tell us what education you have that allows you to make such determinations? And such an educated person as yourself is cleaning floors for a living?

 
At 13 July, 2010 04:39, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"OK, NY, I'll bite. Dr. Sunder told NOVA the towers came down in 11 seconds and 9 seconds. Do you deny that's freefall?"

They didn't and it's not.

You got coclslapped over this before, briana, and I really can't believe you're repeating your insanity.

"What a maroon"
-Bugs Bunny

 
At 13 July, 2010 04:41, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Oh, you verify a hypothesis by agreeing with it? Gee, that doesn't sound very scientific."

That'd be because you don't know science.

Which you prove every day.

 
At 13 July, 2010 06:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for proving, once again, the you're a compulsive liar who can't read.
Typical psychopath--he lies first, last and always.


From the other anonymous....

Guitar Bill gets owned again and issues his pad response when getting owned:

"Your a liar and a psychopath and a goat fucker and a jizz mop. My kids would be so proud of me."

Without of course supporting such drivel.

 
At 13 July, 2010 06:23, Anonymous New Yorker said...

OK, NY, I'll bite. Dr. Sunder told NOVA the towers came down in 11 seconds and 9 seconds. Do you deny that's freefall?

So you're still lying. Dr. Sunder didn't say that, Brian. You're just too stupid/ignorant to understand what he did say.

Oh, you verify a hypothesis by agreeing with it? Gee, that doesn't sound very scientific.

Nobody cares, Brian. You lose, as always. Why don't you go back to babbling about the widows?

Seek professional help, Brian. Babbling endlessly to a bunch of people who laugh at you all day isn't helping.

 
At 13 July, 2010 09:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill, I know all about the distribution requirements. That's why I have a hard time believing that someone as ignorant as you has the degrees you claim.

LL, so 9 seconds isn't freefall?

New Yorker, two thirds of what you say is blatant lies. If your colleagues had any integrity at all they would make you stop.

Sunder says in this interview that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

 
At 13 July, 2010 09:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And GB, you illiterate goof, it's "two thirds of what you say is blatant lies", not "two thirds of what you say are blatant lies."

I bet you are severely misinforming your kids, which is likely to badly interfere with their social development. If you're not careful they'll grow up to be arrogant know-it-alls who are allergic to reality--just like you.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:05, Anonymous Arhoolie "No Nukes" Vanunu! said...

As if it wasn't obvious that the Debunker Cult is a bunch of Neanderthal ostriches,along comes the DopeyTrite guy with the assertion that arguing with "anonymous" is like "arguing with a woman"!!! It's been so cute to watch the cult implode like #7 when a mere few "Truthers" come on board to administer a much need ass-whupping to the internets foremost Hate Cult! Yeah,and those nast Viet Cong attacked our ships at the Gulf of Tonkin,right jerkoffs?

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go ArseHooligan! Go!

Keep working on it, son! At this rate, I predict that you'll produce a coherent sentence in 2047 (keep your finger's crossed).

I'm rooting for you!

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:36, Anonymous Arhoolie V. said...

The hapless,feckless "Git",relegated to nipping at the heels of his masters,throws in the towel and trudges off to his therapists office.Oh well,at least he finally folded his battered tent.Best,Arhoolie

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

In your case that would be "pitch a tent".

Concentrate, and some day you'll produce a coherent sentence.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"LL, so 9 seconds isn't freefall?"

No, you stupid, moronic illiterate chimp, they didn't fall in 9 seconds.

You are trule a Person of Fail, briana.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Arhoolie "No Nukes" Vanunu! said...
As if it wasn't obvious that the Debunker Cult is a bunch of Neanderthal ostriches,along comes the DopeyTrite guy with the assertion that arguing with "anonymous" is like "arguing with a woman"!!! It's been so cute to watch the cult implode like #7 when a mere few "Truthers" come on board to administer a much need ass-whupping to the internets foremost Hate Cult! Yeah,and those nast Viet Cong attacked our ships at the Gulf of Tonkin,right jerkoffs?"

As the peaceful W. Vaughan Wartburg once said,"Ask not what
your country can live for you, ask what you can paint for your
country." Obviously, the brilliant Albert Beguin felt
similarly-- he wrote about things as varied as bones to fruits
of knowledge, from the followers of Socrates to the monks.
Such thoughts should not be taken at face value, however.
Rather, one should paint, and not accept too quickly the conclusions drawn in Michelangelo's David without understanding its most important tool: finger paint!

 
At 13 July, 2010 14:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LL, NIST says in the FAQs that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Sunder says the same thing to NOVA.

 
At 13 July, 2010 15:59, Blogger Triterope said...

And GB, you illiterate goof, it's "two thirds of what you say is blatant lies", not "two thirds of what you say are blatant lies."

** facepalm **

 
At 13 July, 2010 16:11, Blogger Triterope said...

the assertion that arguing with "anonymous" is like "arguing with a woman"!!!

No, I said arguing with Brian was like arguing with a woman. I was pretty clear about that, you walking case of fetal alcohol syndrome.

 
At 13 July, 2010 16:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

TR, you illiterate good--a noun clause subject requires a singular verb.

"Two thirds of what you say" is a noun clause. And no, two thirds is not more than one.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Psychopath,

Thanks for proving, once again, that you're an illiterate.

Keep up the good work, twit.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...And GB, you illiterate goof, it's 'two thirds of what you say is blatant lies', not 'two thirds of what you say are blatant lies.'"

There's only one problem, psychopath. I never wrote that sentence YOU WROTE THAT SENTENCE

No doubt, psychopath, you're lower than a snake's belly.

When will you learn, that you can't lie about me and get away with it, psychopath?

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never said you wrote the sentence, oh raging Muffy McKong.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

What's this psychopath?

"...And GB, you illiterate goof, it's 'two thirds of what you say is blatant lies', not 'two thirds of what you say are blatant lies.'"

Now lie and tell us there's another "GB" who posts to SLC.

Go for it. I double-dare you.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I was quoting myself, Mr. premature knee-jerker.

You live in the prison of your own illusions, assumptions, beliefs, and irrationality. Have you ever considered Dianetics?

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:46, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, you illiterate good

Illiterate Good could be your full name.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:50, Blogger Triterope said...

a noun clause subject requires a singular verb. "Two thirds of what you say" is a noun clause. And no, two thirds is not more than one.

That wasn't what I was facepalming about.

 
At 13 July, 2010 18:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I was quoting myself, Mr. premature knee-jerker."

You're not just stupid, you're audacious.

That's quite a winning combination, psychopath.

Tell us, have you ever told the truth?

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

"Anonymous said...
LL, NIST says in the FAQs that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Sunder says the same thing to NOVA."

They didn't moron.

Do I to post the video, AGAIN, to show the world what a spittle-slathered polyp you truly are?

 
At 13 July, 2010 18:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LL wrote, "...Do I to post the video, AGAIN, to show the world what a spittle-slathered polyp you truly are?"

Brilliant! Thanks, LL!

That explains why the psychopath is such an asshole.

 
At 13 July, 2010 19:21, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, two thirds of what you say is blatant lies. If your colleagues had any integrity at all they would make you stop.

I don't lie, Petgoat. Also, I don't have "colleagues" here. I don't know any of the other people who laugh at you here. The only thing we have in common is sanity.

Sunder says in this interview that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Stop lying, Petgoat.

LL, NIST says in the FAQs that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Sunder says the same thing to NOVA.

False.

 
At 13 July, 2010 20:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sunder says in that interview 1 minute in that tower one fell in 11 seconds and tower two in 9 seconds.

The FAQs and section 6.14.4 of NCSTAR1 both say the building fell "essentially in free fall".

Your claims to the contrary are a bald faced lie.

 
At 13 July, 2010 20:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

FACT: The South Tower fell in 14.5 seconds.

FACT: The North Tower fell in 19.2 seconds.

 
At 13 July, 2010 21:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's not what Sunder says, and not what NIST says. So maybe now you understand why no independent engineers will endorse their report?

 
At 13 July, 2010 22:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...So maybe now you understand why no independent engineers will endorse their report?"

Care to substantiate that assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the psychopath for 9/11 troof), shit-for-brains?

 
At 13 July, 2010 23:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whenever I ask a debunker to provide the name of an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report, instead of doing so they lie.

 
At 14 July, 2010 01:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I answered your question, liar.

Do you honestly believe that repeating the same lie again-and-again adds weight to your specious argument?

Let's cut to the chase shall we, psychopath?

I'm an advocate of the Socratic Method, so given your alleged "engineering skills", it should be child's play for you to answer the following questions.

[1] Define the difference between temperature and heat?

[2] Tell me, what's a spandrel?

[3] Tell me, what's a truss seat?

[4] What's the difference between a butt plate and a splice plate?

[5] Tell me, what's a box column and how does it differ from a standard column?

[6] In terms of fire science, are columns encased in concrete superior to columns that employ spray-on fire retardant? Why?

Concerning the truss assemblies:

[6] What's the difference between a knuckle, web and a cord?

Concerning the steel employed in the construction of the towers, define the following:

[7] How does 36 ksi steel differ from 70 ksi steel?

Concerning the towers.

[8] Each tower was 64 meters square, standing 411 meters above ground, and each tower weighed roughly 500,000 tons. What's the height-to-width ratio?

And don't forget to show your work, psychopath.

[9] Lightweight concrete was used in the construction of the towers. Can you name the aggregate used in lightweight concrete?

Once we've established a baseline (ie., do you know enough about the towers to have an informed conversation), we can debate, provided that you understand the aforementioned concepts.

I'll wait patiently for your answers.

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

Now, get to work, troofer.

 
At 14 July, 2010 04:53, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Sunder says in that interview 1 minute in that tower one fell in 11 seconds and tower two in 9 seconds.

False.

The FAQs and section 6.14.4 of NCSTAR1 both say the building fell "essentially in free fall".

False.

Your claims to the contrary are a bald faced lie.

If you learned how to read, Petgoat, you'd stop making such a fool of yourself by babbling pointlessly about Dr. Sunder and "essentially in free fall".

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:00, Anonymous Mordechai,still in Solitary (Why?) said...

Answer this one question,Yuppie Plonker:is it a coincidence that the floors with the biggest fires (which started rather mysteriously) in #7 were the floors which held all the evidence in the government's cases against Enron and Worldcom? This will be first step on a journey of coincidences that you have apparently tucked away in your trunk full of crazy.Best,Arhoolie

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan dissembles, "...Answer this one question,Yuppie Plonker...[blah][blah]."

Answering a series of questions with a question is a cop out, charlatan.

Thanks for proving, once again, that you're unqualified to discuss this subject in any depth.

Have a nice day, gasbag.

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I can answer most of your questions off the top of my head. They're only distractions from the point: New Yorkers lies about Dr. Sunder's statements that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and about about NIST's statement that the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

And you have not linked a quote from a single independent engineer endorsing the findings of the NIST report.

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, GutterBall, your alleged qualifications have nothing to do with the fact that you lied, and you're trying to change the subject from lies to qualifications.

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, I can answer most of your questions off the top of my head."

Then get on with it, fraud.

The psychopath dissembles, "...Also, GutterBall, your alleged qualifications have nothing to do with the fact that you lied...[blah][blah]."

Troofer tactic number 1: When your back's against the wall, change the subject.

Troofer tactic #2: When confronted with questions that you can't answer, accuse your opponent of fraud, without providing a shred of evidence to substantiate your idiotic assertions.

So, when will you accuse me of persecution, and compare yourself to Galileo?

You're as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap, psychopath and fraud for 9/11 troof.

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

 
At 14 July, 2010 10:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not changing the subject. You're changing the subject. You can not back up your claim that independent engineers endorsed NIST's report. You were forced to rely on your own opinion that Dr. Harris implicitly endorsed it, and since Harris was working with NIST on the recommendations he can hardly be regarded as independent.

You are persuing the disinformation tactic of throwing a distracring spamtrum and then trying to claim you proved the point you never proved.

The fact that you need to lie to defend the official reports is quite telling.

 
At 14 July, 2010 10:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, GutterBall, I'm not going to answer your questions until you tell New Yorker to stop lying. Your silence in the face of such bullshit is very dishonest.

 
At 14 July, 2010 10:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'm not changing the subject. You're changing the subject. You can not back up your claim that independent engineers endorsed NIST's report."

False. Still in denial, asshole?

Face it, you lost the debate--period.

"...You were forced to rely on your own opinion that Dr. Harris implicitly endorsed it, and since Harris was working with NIST on the recommendations he can hardly be regarded as independent."

False.

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

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

"...You are persuing the disinformation tactic of throwing a distracring spamtrum and then trying to claim you proved the point you never proved."

False.

I'm in the process of proving that you don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.

And your inability to answer my elementary questions lends credence to my claim that you're unqualified to discuss this subject.

"...The fact that you need to lie to defend the official reports is quite telling."

There you go again, giving your lies advanced billing as fact.

You wouldn't tell the truth to save your life.

Why?

Because, as I've said in the past, you're a psychopath.

Now get to work, charlatan.

 
At 14 July, 2010 10:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Also, GutterBall, I'm not going to answer your questions until you tell New Yorker to stop lying."

Don't hold your breath, psychopath.

Translation: I can't answer your questions, so I'll hide behind specious nonsense and claim persecution.

So, when will you compare yourself to Galileo?

"...Your silence in the face of such bullshit is very dishonest."

False.

Who are you to talk about dishonesty, psychopath?

Here's a new word for you: Duplicity.

 
At 14 July, 2010 11:01, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
GutterBall, I can answer most of your questions off the top of my head."

How does all that information fit on a point?

"New Yorkers lies about Dr. Sunder's statements that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and about about NIST's statement that the towers came down "essentially in free fall"."

They didn't, in either particular.

And just because you're insane, repeating a lie over and over again will not make it real.

 
At 14 July, 2010 11:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
I'm not changing the subject."

Yes you are.

GB caught your nuts in a vice and now you're squirming trying to escape.

Pathetic, actually.

 
At 14 July, 2010 11:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Also, GutterBall, I'm not going to answer your questions...."

Squirm squirm squirm, you pathetic little worm.

 
At 14 July, 2010 11:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LL wrote, "...How does all that information fit on a point?"

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

ROTFLMAO!

%^)

 
At 14 July, 2010 12:52, Anonymous Arhoolie Vanunu said...

The "Git" and the Pornboy,a comedy team in the off season and the biggest pair of pussies this side of Paddy and Jerkoff JamesB.

 
At 14 July, 2010 12:57, Anonymous Arhoolie Visiting Mordechai you know where said...

Nuttier than Mel Gibson,as pathetic as Lindsey Lohan,as dumb as a bag of hammers,the Debunker Cult devolves into a group of shitheads waging a life and death battle with their erstwhile ally......Shyam Sunder!! You really can't sink lower than this (sorry Pornboy and Git,you jus don't rate jackshit).Will the sociopaths adjust? You can bet dollars to Sackdoily's collection of empty gin bottles they won't!! Anything on Anthony Shaffer lately? Oh yeah,he's not a "truther",got ya.

 
At 14 July, 2010 14:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The ArseHooligan, fugitve from justice, whines, "...The 'Git' and the Pornboy,a comedy team in the off season and the biggest pair of pussies this side of Paddy and Jerkoff JamesB."

You're not fit to wipe LL, Pat and James B's collective ass for a living, ArseHooligan.

Tell us, tough guy, did your parents have any children who lived?

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

 
At 14 July, 2010 15:59, Blogger Triterope said...

You are persuing the disinformation tactic of throwing a distracting spamtrum and then trying to claim you proved the point you never proved.

OK, Brian, let me make sure I understand the above sentence... YOU are accusing someone ELSE of doing these things?

 
At 14 July, 2010 20:21, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorkers lies about Dr. Sunder's statements that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and about about NIST's statement that the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

I don't lie, Petgoat. You're either lying about Dr. Sunder and "essentially in free fall" or you're too stupid and ignorant to understand them. Either way, you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously when you babble about these topics.

I'm not changing the subject.

False.

You're changing the subject.

False.

You can not back up your claim that independent engineers endorsed NIST's report.

False.

Also, GutterBall, I'm not going to answer your questions until you tell New Yorker to stop lying. Your silence in the face of such bullshit is very dishonest.

I don't lie, Petgoat. GuitarBill knows this. The only one here lying is you.

Of course, I can forgive you these lies if you answer me one question:

When you came up with your "meatball on a fork" model, were you high on rubber cement or model airplane glue?

 
At 14 July, 2010 23:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, you have utterly failed to prove your claim that independent engineers have endorsed the NIST report.

You are reduced to lying and enlisting the aid of liars to try to cover your tracks. If you guys had the truth on your side, you would not need to resort to such cynical tactics. It angers me that people like you labor to keep the Jersey widows from the truth they deserve.

 
At 15 July, 2010 03:12, Blogger Alice Thomas said...

Thanks for sharing
website design
professional seo
website optimizer
logo design

 
At 15 July, 2010 06:20, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, you have utterly failed to prove your claim that independent engineers have endorsed the NIST report.

False. You lose Petgoat, as always.

I mean, just look at this guy:

http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood

Does anyone actually expect this guy to ever be right about anything? Just look at him! HA HA HA HA HA!

It angers me that people like you labor to keep the Jersey widows from the truth they deserve.

YES, JERSEY WIDOWS!!!!! Brian Good is baaaaaack!

Also, the widows have no questions.

 
At 15 July, 2010 06:31, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It angers me that people like you labor to keep the Jersey widows from the truth they deserve.

YES, JERSEY WIDOWS!!!!! Brian Good is baaaaaack!"


YAAAAAYYYYYY!!!!!

When you've lost the debate, change the subject!

SCCCRRREEEECCCHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Don't hurt your back moving those goalposts, boron.

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

Boron dissembles, "...GutterBall, you have utterly failed to prove your claim that independent engineers have endorsed the NIST report."

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 09:46, Anonymous Arhoolie from New York said...

"I don't lie,Petgoat.GuitarBill knows this".One more for the collection of imbecilic quotes to be carved into the Main Hall at the World Headquarters of the Debunker Cult! You couldn't even make up shit that stupid."New Yorker" you are the biggest moron at this cult.Amnd that includes the Troglodyte and Nico Haupt.Bravo,Dogboy!!!

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, that you seem to find it necessary to call Dr. Harris in search of a statement supporting the NIST report shows that your claims that you had already provided such a statement are a lie.

You're really not very bright, are you? I bet you still haven't figured out why you can't find work.

 
At 15 July, 2010 09:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Grab your ankles, Boron.

After all, your desperation is palpable.

ROTFLMAO!

 
At 15 July, 2010 10:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill, I'm sure you've heard the joke about the rock promoter whose marriage was annulled on grounds of non-consummation. It seems he spent the entire honeymoon sitting on the bed telling his bride how great it was going to be.

So instead of chortling about your impending victory, how about you tell us what Dr. Harris has to say. And how about asking him to post it publicly--like on his website, or on a Youtube--because your say-so is less credible than Kevin Barrett's.

But remember this. Even if Dr. Harris says exactly what you want (and in a form that you can prove it) it will be a pyrrhic victory because it only goes to show that all you can find is ONE engineer who will endorse the NIST report.
You have way too much time on your hands. Pretty damn pathetic.

 
At 15 July, 2010 10:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Why don't you get on the phone and call Dr. Harris, psychopath?

After all, I gave you his number.

Only one problem we can't trust you to tell the truth about the content of the phone call.

(There's another opinion: You call him, and report what you find. And you better tell the truth, because I WILL contact him, today.)

Now, grab your ankles, psychopath.

 
At 15 July, 2010 10:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why should I call Dr. Harris? Whether he endorses the NIST report or not, it's still not a public endorsement, and it's only one man so either way he's proving MY point, not yours.

What's this "grab your ankles" thing, GutterBall? I'm not familiar with this. Is that a reference to your athletic career?

 
At 15 July, 2010 11:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

T-minus 20 minutes and counting until Dr. Harris returns from lunch.

Prepare to eat crow--you son-of-a-bitch.

Yo Psychopath, I hear your mommy crying. It's time for her daily ration of Alpo.

 
At 15 July, 2010 11:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, if all you can find is one engineer endorsing the NIST report, that proves MY point, not yours. Also, I wouldn't want to argue the point in as unsophisticated and self-deceiving a group as this, but Dr. Harris can hardly be characterized as independent of NIST since he is invested in the recommendations he worked to get adopted, and thus would not want to cast any doubts about their validity.

So how about you spend the 20 minutes trying to find a public statement by another engineer, an independent one, who endorses the NIST report?

 
At 15 July, 2010 12:22, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, if all you can find is one engineer endorsing the NIST report, that proves MY point, not yours.

WHAT "point"? You've never made a "point" about anything related to 9/11. It's just endless irrelevant babbling about meatballs and pyroclastic flows and widows and Dr. Sunder.

Also, I wouldn't want to argue the point in as unsophisticated and self-deceiving a group as this, but Dr. Harris can hardly be characterized as independent of NIST since he is invested in the recommendations he worked to get adopted, and thus would not want to cast any doubts about their validity.

Nobody cares what you think, Petgoat.

 
At 15 July, 2010 12:59, 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 13:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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 14:06, 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 phone number. Go for it, eunuch.

I have nothing to hide.

You, on the other hand...

Sorry, psychopath, but you lose again.

Another epic failure for the 9/11 troof movement.

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

He doesn't have a website--you git.

Source: Google.com: JR Harris & Co

Website: n/a

Source: celinea.com: JR Harris & Co.

What was that you were saying, eunuch?

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No website. Oh, well. So where are you going to find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report publicly?

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've already done so, eunuch.

When will you pull your head out of your ass and acknowledge reality?

 
At 15 July, 2010 14:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What independent engineer have you named who endorsed the NIST report publicly?

 
At 15 July, 2010 15:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, Brian, squirm and run for the exist--you pathetic weasel.

Face it, weasel for 9/11 troof, you lost the debate again.

And no amount of squirming and lying will save you from your latest epic failure.

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

What independent engineer have you named who endorsed the NIST report publicly?

C'mon, Petgoat. Give it up. Can't you go back to babbling about widows and calling us girls?

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

What independent engineer have you named who endorsed the NIST report publicly?

You can't answer, because the answer is none.

All you can do is issue lying claims of victory. You pwn yourself, poofter, whoop whoop whooping you own ass for everyone to see.

 
At 15 July, 2010 16:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous said...
What independent engineer have you named who endorsed the NIST report publicly?"

[sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk

sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk

sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk]

 
At 15 July, 2010 17:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Those aren't independent engineers.

 
At 15 July, 2010 17:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Those aren't independent engineers."

[sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk

sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk

sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk]

 
At 15 July, 2010 17:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, you're bored by the fact that you can't name one independent engineer who publicly endorses the NIST report.

Thinking people find that interesting.

 
At 15 July, 2010 17:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Thinking people"?

Who would that be, weasel?

Because from where we're standing, "thinking people" certainly doesn't include you.

Squirm, "Brian", squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 15 July, 2010 17:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Name the engineers, GutterBall. Name the independent engineers who publicly endorse the NIST report.

You can't. Why is that?

 
At 15 July, 2010 18:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

[sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk

sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk

sssnnnnoooorrrre....snkkk snkk snkkk]

 
At 15 July, 2010 20:19, Anonymous New Yorker said...

You can't answer, because the answer is none.

And nobody cares.

All you can do is issue lying claims of victory. You pwn yourself, poofter, whoop whoop whooping you own ass for everyone to see.

Seek professional help.

 
At 15 July, 2010 21:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right, NY. Nobody here cares that you can't name one independent engineer who publicly endorses the NIST report.

And that more effectively tells the story about y'all and NIST than I ever could.

 
At 15 July, 2010 22:07, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Right, NY. Nobody here cares that you can't name one independent engineer who publicly endorses the NIST report.

Yes, that's what I said. Nobody cares. GuitarBill named one, and you rejected it. I'm not here to do your research for you, Brian.

And that more effectively tells the story about y'all and NIST than I ever could.

Yes, that story being that you're an insane loser who is used by normal people here for comic relief.

 
At 15 July, 2010 23:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Harris has not publicly endorsed the NIST report, and any claim by GutterBall that he implicitly endorsed an implicit endorsement is as silly as the bogus claims of Rodriguez, Barrett, and Ranke.

 
At 16 July, 2010 05:27, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Dr. Harris has not publicly endorsed the NIST report"

Yes he has, as repored by GB.

LOOOOSSSSSSERRRRRRRR.

 
At 16 July, 2010 06:16, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Dr. Harris has not publicly endorsed the NIST report, and any claim by GutterBall that he implicitly endorsed an implicit endorsement is as silly as the bogus claims of Rodriguez, Barrett, and Ranke.

Nobody sane cares whether Dr. Harris has explicitly and publicly endorsed the report. It makes no difference either way to anyone sane. To a lunatic looking for something, anything to confirm his delusions, of course it makes a difference. The fact that you cling to this thin straw so desperately shows how little substance there is to any of the claims made by "truthers".

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home