Monday, July 05, 2010

So Many Mistakes, Just One Post...

This post almost seems like one of those old pictures where you were supposed to circle all the mistakes.

The officials couldn’t find the airplanes’ “black boxes” containing flight information, yet they found a paper passport presumably owned by one of the Middle Eastern highjackers—named on a list the FBI compiled with amazing speed, yet no similar names were on the original flight lists the airlines gave to CNN. The passport belonged to a Middle Eastern man, Mohammed Atta, a supposed devout and fanatic Muslim who ate pork, snorted coke, and rented prostitutes.


Let's see:

1. It wasn't Mohammed Atta's passport, it was Satam al-Suqami's.

2. The claims that he ate pork and snorted coke came from Amanda Keller who has since recanted her statement.

Then, some of the other highjackers turned up alive in various parts of the world objecting to having been accused of murder and suicide.


3. It's hijackers, not highjackers, and of course he links to the original BBC report without linking to the update.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.


And what about the lack of military response? Where was the trillion plus dollar security system we US taxpayers paid for? Where were the scrambled jets from Andrews AFB right next to the Pentagon? What about the surface to air missiles that ring the Pentagon lawn?


4. Andrews AFB is not "right next to the Pentagon, and the surface to air missiles that ring the Pentagon lawn exist only in the alleged minds of Truthers.

Even key members of the 9-11 Commission thought the investigation was flawed. Chairman Lee Hamilton wrote in his book Without Precedent—that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail” by the Bush Administration. John Farmer, Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission, wrote on page four of his book, The Ground Truth: “At some level of government, at some point in time, there was an agreement not to tell the people the truth about what happened.” These are presumably the same people with whom the 9-11 Untruthers agree.


Why, yes, yes, I do agree with John Farmer. What did he tell Brad Friedman?

JF: Well, let me just say that I think the [9-11 Commission] report is, uh, extremely accurate, and- and sets forth the facts of 9/11. And we actually did point out in the report the discrepancies between the accounts that were given and what we actually found.


He mentions JREF, and notes this quote from Mark (Gravy) Roberts:
As an example, I ran across a reference by “Gravy” on a JREF forum which refers to “Gage and his gang of lazy, lying, despicable creeps.”


That's unfair of Gravy. I have seen no evidence that Gage and his gang are lazy.

Labels: , ,

179 Comments:

At 05 July, 2010 18:20, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

Some dude said some simliar shit to me at school the other day (passport surviving the crash stuff) and I ripped him a new ass. Felt good.

OT: Im going to go smoke a doobie and "highjack" my weiner. hehehe

 
At 05 July, 2010 19:06, Anonymous paul w said...

Pat, only seven major mistakes?
I think that's an improvement.

 
At 05 July, 2010 20:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Andrews AFB is 12 miles from the Pentagon. At 1500 mph that's 30 seconds away.

 
At 05 July, 2010 20:13, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Andrews AFB is 12 miles from the Pentagon. At 1500 mph that's 30 seconds away."

How far is it in furlongs per fortnight?

 
At 05 July, 2010 20:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...Andrews AFB is 12 miles from the Pentagon. At 1500 mph that's 30 seconds away."

LOL!

%^)

The 9/11 Commission provided the answer: Andrews AFB was not a NORAD base.

"...All the hijacked aircraft were in one of NORAD’s Continental U.S. sectors, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (also known as NEADS). NEADS is based in Rome, New York. On 9/11, it could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters. These were the 2 Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Langley, Virginia." -- 9/11 Commission Staff Statement 17.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, SCUMBAG!

Now get out of here, cretin.

 
At 05 July, 2010 20:52, Anonymous paul w said...

Anonymous said...
Andrews AFB is 12 miles from the Pentagon. At 1500 mph that's 30 seconds away.


Yeah, if a plane was airborne. This is from 911myths:

'According to the 9/11 Commission, Andrews had no available fighters on alert that morning.

"All the hijacked aircraft were in one of NORAD’s Continental U.S. sectors, the Northeast Air Defense Sector (also known as NEADS). NEADS is based in Rome, New York. On 9/11, it could call on two alert sites, each with one pair of ready fighters. These were the 2 Otis Air National Guard Base in Cape Cod, Massachusetts and Langley Air Force Base in Langley, Virginia".
9/11 Commission Staff Statement 17

http://www.911myths.com/html/andrews_afb.html

Anonymous, this was debunked years ago.

 
At 05 July, 2010 21:14, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Andrews AFB is 12 miles from the Pentagon. At 1500 mph that's 30 seconds away.

Because an F-15 is parked on the tarmac at 1500 MPH, right?

Can't you go back to babbling about the missiles at the Pentagon like a good little boy, Petgoat?

 
At 05 July, 2010 21:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat was disputing the fact that Andrews is right next to the Pentagon. At 12 miles away, it's right next to the Pentagon.

 
At 05 July, 2010 22:41, Anonymous slingblade said...

Since we’re stuck in a monetary system that allows a tiny private sector clique to control everything (business, government, military, non-profits, schools, families, etc) by putting everyone else in debt, we’ve been living in financial dictatorship for a long time. It has been a soft PR dictatorship of Hickey-Freeman suits and Saks 5th Avenue ties, Harvard pedigrees and fratboy schmarm. But hard dictatorship has been coming out of hiding for several years, especially since 2001. Not only can the money powers steal trillions from the masses to hand over to themselves, but they can suck the military into conquering poor countries that aren’t subject to their usury vortex system, build Homeland to spy on Americans, and have the CIA assassinate US citizens.

There is no question that full-blown fascism is planned for the supposed land of the free as they try to move us into the new global system. And all the Republicans blaming Obama for it, just like the Democrats who blamed Bush, need to stop being suckers and realize how the politicians are not in charge. The money powers knew 100 years ago they couldn’t subject their wealth and power to the whims of mass political opinion…they learned well from the Teddy Roosevelt days. Ever since, they have built increasing control into the system.

Blame the politicians? Absolutely…each administration takes an incremental step for the money powers. But don’t get suckered into believing a politician from your side of the aisle playing the same old game of flipping between left and right is going to change anything. We’ve been sold on parties just like we’ve been sold on Coke vs. Pepsi–they’re the same.

Find leaders who know their neighbors, who understand the mechanics of a republic vs. empire, who understand the power of those who control all money in our system, rather than repeatedly voting for unhappy, addictive Harvard/Yale elitists who get a rush out of “system managing” the masses for the money powers. Any narcissist who thinks one dude in a distant white house can system manage 308,000,000 people should never come close to actually being in that white house. But that’s who we’ve put in that house for the last several decades.

Luckily people are now breaking free of the PR programming. The choice isn’t left vs. right. It is big vs. small, republic vs. empire.

 
At 05 July, 2010 22:42, Anonymous slingblade said...

Since we’re stuck in a monetary system that allows a tiny private sector clique to control everything (business, government, military, non-profits, schools, families, etc) by putting everyone else in debt, we’ve been living in financial dictatorship for a long time. It has been a soft PR dictatorship of Hickey-Freeman suits and Saks 5th Avenue ties, Harvard pedigrees and fratboy schmarm. But hard dictatorship has been coming out of hiding for several years, especially since 2001. Not only can the money powers steal trillions from the masses to hand over to themselves, but they can suck the military into conquering poor countries that aren’t subject to their usury vortex system, build Homeland to spy on Americans, and have the CIA assassinate US citizens.

There is no question that full-blown fascism is planned for the supposed land of the free as they try to move us into the new global system. And all the Republicans blaming Obama for it, just like the Democrats who blamed Bush, need to stop being suckers and realize how the politicians are not in charge. The money powers knew 100 years ago they couldn’t subject their wealth and power to the whims of mass political opinion…they learned well from the Teddy Roosevelt days. Ever since, they have built increasing control into the system.

Blame the politicians? Absolutely…each administration takes an incremental step for the money powers. But don’t get suckered into believing a politician from your side of the aisle playing the same old game of flipping between left and right is going to change anything. We’ve been sold on parties just like we’ve been sold on Coke vs. Pepsi–they’re the same.

Find leaders who know their neighbors, who understand the mechanics of a republic vs. empire, who understand the power of those who control all money in our system, rather than repeatedly voting for unhappy, addictive Harvard/Yale elitists who get a rush out of “system managing” the masses for the money powers. Any narcissist who thinks one dude in a distant white house can system manage 308,000,000 people should never come close to actually being in that white house. But that’s who we’ve put in that house for the last several decades.

Luckily people are now breaking free of the PR programming. The choice isn’t left vs. right. It is big vs. small, republic vs. empire.

 
At 06 July, 2010 00:40, Anonymous John E. Smoke said...

I don't see why fighter jets can't break the immutable laws of physics. In the 9/11 Truth movement, the only limit is one's imagination.

 
At 06 July, 2010 03:37, Anonymous bobby deniro said...

any thoughts on the decline of mainstream media? it's in the news a lot lately that print has become increadibly unprofitable. any ideas about the growing distrust the public has for mainstream news?

 
At 06 July, 2010 04:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Pat was disputing the fact that Andrews is right next to the Pentagon. At 12 miles away, it's right next to the Pentagon."

No, no it's not. Because even though you may be correct that it only takes 30 seconds to cover the 12-mile trip at 1500 mph, you're forgetting a few basic facts:

1) The planes have to be in the air to move any faster than about 100 mph, depending on the plane. As already pointed out above, Andrews didn't have any planes in the air - or even prepared to intercept - on 9/11, and it would've taken quite a bit of precious time to get them off the ground to begin with.

2) United States military aircraft are forbidden from breaking the sound barrier over much of the continental United States. This limits their potential approach to ~700 mph, depending on altitude. So your "1500 mph covers the distance in 30 seconds" is already out, as we're talking more than a minute given the rules currently in place.

 
At 06 July, 2010 04:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Pat was disputing the fact that Andrews is right next to the Pentagon. At 12 miles away, it's right next to the Pentagon.

The fail is strong with this one...

 
At 06 July, 2010 04:25, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey slingblade, why don't you eat some french fried potaters and shut the fuck up. This is a blog devoted to 9-11 conspiracy theories, not a blank canvas for drivel you've synthesized from Alex Jones.

 
At 06 July, 2010 04:58, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Pat was disputing the fact that Andrews is right next to the Pentagon. At 12 miles away, it's right next to the Pentagon.

Nobody cares, Brian.

 
At 06 July, 2010 06:45, Anonymous the ghost of tom joad said...

why is it when foxnews or msnbc talks about banksters and end the fed it's news but when alex jones talks about end the fed and banksters it's conspiracy theory?

 
At 06 July, 2010 08:31, Blogger Bill said...

wow...its like 2006 all over again!

 
At 06 July, 2010 09:15, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, SCUMBAG!

Come on Bill, give the poor stooge a break.

To be lying he would have to know what he is talking about, and we all know that is not the case. You can lie when you actually believe what you are saying is true.

Stupidity is a defense mechanism with truthers, See no facts, hear no facts, know no facts, all is good when you live in a delusion.

 
At 06 July, 2010 09:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Since we’re stuck in a monetary system that allows a tiny private sector clique to control everything (business, government, military, non-profits, schools, families, etc)"

Hey, slingblade, those people are called productive Americans. You know, people with skills and talents who get things done. And are a majority of the people. Unfortunately guys like you are of the useless minority. It's not your fault you are not adept enough to be of value to anyone. What is your error is your idea you deserve to make the same amount of money as actual skilled people.

 
At 06 July, 2010 09:37, Blogger avicenne said...

"I read the 9-11 Commission Report, thinking the whole time, 'But you’re missing the point.'"

Hey, you're just like Kevin Costner in JFK, that scene where he's reading the Warren Report. Maybe you'll meet an elderly Walter Matthau type on a plane who'll point you in the right direction, tell you to keep digging, and then Mr X will unfold the true extent of the whole ghastly affair, and then years from now when all the documents have been declassified, The Truth will finally be set free, and we can start again, build a better world.

Yes, these things will happen.

 
At 06 July, 2010 09:39, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"bobby deniro said...
any thoughts on the decline of mainstream media? it's in the news a lot lately that print has become increadibly unprofitable. any ideas about the growing distrust the public has for mainstream news?"

Sure.

They publish nothing but reactionary leftist boilerplate, cover Obama's and the Democrat's ass, and generally hate America.

After a while real Americans start to catch on.

 
At 06 July, 2010 11:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sure.

They publish nothing but reactionary leftist boilerplate, cover Obama's and the Democrat's ass, and generally hate America.

After a while real Americans start to catch on.
ohhh the vast left wing conspiracy rears its ugly head, or was that the right wing...

 
At 06 July, 2010 14:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"ohhh the vast left wing conspiracy rears its ugly head"


Why is that twoooofers™ are so fucking stupid?

 
At 06 July, 2010 16:05, Blogger Triterope said...

why is it when foxnews or msnbc talks about banksters and end the fed it's news

The people who criticize the Federal Reserve on credible news outlets are expert scholars, with decades of education and a comprehensive understanding of global finance, banking, and Fed policy.

People like you criticize the Federal Reserve because you think it's part of a super-secret European banker cabal subject to British admiralty laws and financed by Planet X.

 
At 07 July, 2010 03:32, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Triterope said...
why is it when foxnews or msnbc talks about banksters and end the fed it's news

The people who criticize the Federal Reserve on credible news outlets are expert scholars, with decades of education and a comprehensive understanding of global finance, banking, and Fed policy.

People like you criticize the Federal Reserve because you think it's part of a super-secret European banker cabal subject to British admiralty laws and financed by Planet X.
so alex jones is right?

 
At 07 July, 2010 03:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"ohhh the vast left wing conspiracy rears its ugly head"


Why is that twoooofers™ are so fucking stupid?
why are debunkers statist jerk offs?

 
At 07 July, 2010 03:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"why are debunkers statist jerk offs?"

Statist?

Statist?

Why is that twoooofers™ are so fucking stupid?

 
At 07 July, 2010 04:03, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lazarus Long said...
"why are debunkers statist jerk offs?"

Statist?

Statist?

Why is that twoooofers™ are so fucking stupid?



stat·ism (sttzm)
n.
The practice or doctrine of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.


statist adj. & n.

get a dictionary, the ignorance around here is thick

 
At 07 July, 2010 04:58, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"get a dictionary, the ignorance around here is thick"

You're right, it is, but it's not coming from the direction you think it's coming from.

 
At 07 July, 2010 05:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Triterope said...
so alex jones is right?

Since you're such a whiz with a dictionary, why don't you look up "non sequitir."


non sequitir?..
non sequitir?....

you mean non sequitur?
or is this SLC "cute":)

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

Oh Pat...
the 9/11 Commission Report was an account of the day (National Security Establishment including the FAA, NORAD, Air Force, Commander in Chief, etc, blah blah fail). Check.

the 9/11 Commission reported the lies of various government agencies as facts. Check

the 9/11 Commission was set up to fail. Fail at what? Reporting the truth? Check

"We believe the lies in the 9/11 Comission Report were accurate lies!-Debunkers.

"In revisiting the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks that still haunt America, John Farmer provides a devastating account of how and what government and military officials told Congress, the 9/11 Commission on which he served, the media, and the public 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.' The result is a major, carefully documented and deeply disturbing book, one that deserves the most serious attention of every American concerned about our future."
--Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author.

John Farmer believes that the report is extremely accurate, and sets forth the facts of 9/11. Keep in mind this report that was set up to fail, filtered by a Bush insider, and was essentially an account of the day, not an investigation.

How can intelligent thinking debunkers reconcile the analysis of Farmer's book with Farmer's comment about the 9/11 Commission? ROFLMA@U

Why do you think Farmer would write an entire book showing the report that he worked on 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue'and then contradict his own book in an interview? Is it to protect his credibility within the establishment? Toe the official line for the next career move? Or is he as confused as debunkers are about 9/11?

 
At 07 July, 2010 08:00, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"get a dictionary, the ignorance around here is thick"

Why is that twoooofers™ are so incredibly, so incorrigibly fuckingly stupid?

 
At 07 July, 2010 08:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Why is that twoooofers™ are so incredibly, so incorrigibly fuckingly stupid?

A word of explanation: the fucking moronic asshole twoooofer™ called me a "statist".

HAHAHAHAHAHAQHAHAHAHAQAQAHHAAAA!!!!!11!!!12@@@!~!!!!!

So.

Why is that twoooofers™ are so incredibly, so incorrigibly fuckingly stupid?

 
At 07 July, 2010 08:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Why do you think Farmer would write an entire book showing the report that he worked on 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue'and then contradict his own book in an interview? Is it to protect his credibility within the establishment? Toe the official line for the next career move? Or is he as confused as debunkers are about 9/11?"

Nobody cares.

 
At 07 July, 2010 08:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...Why do you think Farmer would write an entire book showing the report that he worked on 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue'and [SIC] then contradict his own book in an interview?"

The answer is obvious, dissembler for 9/11 troof.

Answer: you're lying about Farmer and quote mining in order to "substantiate" your idiotic argument again, scumbag.

That said, John Farmer believes that Al Qaeda is REAL, that they DID attack us on 9-11, and they are trying to attack us again.

John Farmer is no truther--no matter how vociferously the "9/11 truth movement" quote mines his statements or misrepresents the content of Farmer's book, troofer scum.

Here's Farmer testimony from March 2009 to a congressional hearing about a proposed commission on torture:

"...Composition. The commission should be independent and nonpartisan in composition. Bipartisan commissions can reach nonpartisan results; the 9/11 Commission, under the leadership of Governor Kean and Congressman Hamilton, succeeded in that respect."

Farmer continues, "...Powers. The scope of the inquiry will determine what powers the commission will need to employ. Essential to any investigation, however, will be the ability of the commission to compel cooperation. Compulsory process is essential; it was vital to the success of the 9/11 Commission, and its lack - as in the context of the Armenian investigation - can be a real handicap. So at a minimum the commission should be given subpoena power."

Source: United States Senate: Testimony of John J. Farmer, 4 March 2009.

So, he clearly thinks the 9-11 Commission was a success. Thus, I doubt that anyone who reads Farmer's book honestly (an impossibility for troofers) will find Farmer's book all that sympathetic to their nut-bar claim that the official version is almost entirely untrue.

Now, crawl back into your bomb shelter, dissembler for 9/11 troof.

 
At 07 July, 2010 08:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo! Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof,

Don't you owe us an apology for lying about the ASCE documents I presented yesterday? After all, the congressional testimony found therein PROVES that the ASCE "expressed confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism."

Now, get your worthless, lying @$$ back to that thread an issue a formal apology--you lying sack-of-shit.

Source: SLC: Dr. Harris' Congressional testimony

 
At 07 July, 2010 09:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 July, 2010 09:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Revelatory-Farmer makes shattering new sense of the day's events and exposes the true disarray and arrogance in the military and government responses." -- William Langewiesche, author of American Ground and The Atomic Bazaar.

Thus, Farmer's book doesn't agree with or substantiate your nut bar ideas, Anonymous. On the contrary, his book exposes the cover your ass mentality of "military and government" officials aligned with the Bush administration.

And why should this surprise anyone? After all, name one instance where the incompetent and arrogant Bush administration ever admitted a mistake.

 
At 07 July, 2010 09:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, where did Anonymous get the passage, which reads, "was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue"?

Read on, and his never ending dishonesty will be exposed to the light of day.

Publishers Weekly wrote, "...Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, updates the commission's report in this thorough and bipartisan analysis. Drawing on newly declassified records and recent investigative reports from the departments of defense and transportation, the author concludes that the failure to detect and prevent the attack lay in the [bureaucratic] nature of modern government. Most significantly, rules proscribing information-sharing within and among agencies meant that no one had complete access to all available intelligence or information—typical bureaucratic inertia that presaged the government's bungled response to Hurricane Katrina. Farmer faults the disconnect between decision-makers and operational employees, concluding that leadership was irrelevant on 9/11 and the official version of events WAS ALMOST ENTIRELY, AND INEXPLICABLY, UNTRUE. Farmer's conclusion that bureaucratic government does not adapt fast enough to changing missions to be effective is not original, but in his careful exegesis of the events of 9/11, he transcends easy generalizations to expose the fault lines in contemporary governance and point the way to fundamental reform." (Emphasis added -- ed)

BUSTED QUOTE MINING ONCE AGAIN, Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof!

Thus, you owe us another formal apology, Anonymous.

Now, get to work on that apology, dissembler for 9/11 troof.

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

 
At 07 July, 2010 09:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Sorry, I forgot to add my source for the Publishers Weekly quote.

Source: Amazon.com: The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11.

 
At 07 July, 2010 10:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, where did Anonymous get Haynes Johnson's quote?

Source: amazon.com: The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11.

Notice that the thoroughly dishonest troofer includes Johnson's quote, but he carefully omits the Publishers weekly quote (because it provides context, which the self-serving dissembler, Anonymous, doesn't want you to read) and all passages that contradict his lies. For example, Anonymous omits the passages written by Douglas Brinkley, Bob Kerrey, Jim Dwyer and William Langewiesche.

Thus, you're exposed again, quote miner.

Now, where's that formal apology, scumbag?

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

 
At 07 July, 2010 10:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Conclusion

Clearly, John Farmer never said, "...was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

In fact, those are the words of Publisher's Weekly (as I demonstrated above), not John Farmer.

Now, where's that formal apology, dissembler for 9/11 troof?

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

 
At 07 July, 2010 12:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And what's that sound coming from the 9/11 troof camp?

*crickets*

%^)

 
At 07 July, 2010 12:58, Blogger Billman said...

sus christ, Anonymous... did you honestly think noone here would call you out on your lies and bullshit?

"Waaah! Waaaah! Right wing conspiracy! Waaah! Debunker cult! Waaaah! But but but, BUSH! Illegal war! Waaah! Here's a quote I mined that proves it! I am so smrt!"

THIS kind of whiney lying ad-hominem twisted bullshit, is why the troof movement is a fucking laughing stock taken seriously only by the INSANE.

...Or when there's a slow news week and it's time for the semi-annual "equal news time for nut-jobs" story. Last time it was "Proof Atlantis was off the coast of Flordia because some crackpot thinks a bunch of rocks are stone anchors!" so who knows, maybe 9/11 troof will come around for the next time...

 
At 07 July, 2010 14:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And get this folks: Breaking news from the FBI.

FBI MOST WANTED FUGITIVE

UNLAWFUL FLIGHT TO AVOID PROSECUTION - FIRST DEGREE RAPE OF A HAMMOND B-3 ORGAN

The ArseHooligan

Photograph taken in 2004: The ArseHooligan.

Aliases: "Walt", "A Real Veteran", "shit-for-brains", "Mikey", "Hair lip the Infamous", "What? Me think? No way!", "Chester the Hammond Molester".

Date of Birth: Unknown. But since when are asshole babies counted by the Count Registrar?

Place of Birth: New York City (alley following a botched partial birth abortion).

Height: 4'7"

Weight: 100 lbs (soaking wet).

Build: Puny.

Occupation: Crash dummy.

Hair: None.

Eyes: Black (cross-eyed).

Complexion: Zits.

Sex: Hermaphrodite.

Race: inhuman.

Nationality: ex pat Saudi Arabian.

Scars and Marks: Everywhere.

Remarks: The ArseHooligan speaks fluent gibberish and has a Masters Degree in International Stupidity. He is an avid golfer, snowboarder, nose picker, ass sniffer, salad tosser and ditch digger. The ArseHooligan enjoys being the center of attention and has been known to frequent gay bars and nightclubs where all-night Hammond B-3 organ rape raves are conducted for fun and profit. He enjoys showing off his 2" pecker to young girls, boys and Hammond B-3 organs.

The ArseHooligan has alleged ties to the United Kingdom, though this claim is subject to heated dispute.

Additionally, he may be in the possession of a brain; however, he's never used it.

THE ARSEHOOLIGAN IS WANTED FOR FIRST DEGREE RAPE OF A HAMMOND B-3 ORGAN ON OR AROUND JUNE THROUGH JULY OF 2010.

CONSIDERED ARMED AND EXTREMELY STUPID.

IF YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION CONCERNING THIS DEGENERATE, PLEASE CONTACT YOUR LOCAL FBI OFFICE OR THE NEAREST U.S. EMBASSY OR CONSULATE.

REWARD


The FBI is offering a reward of up to $100,000 for information leading directly to the arrest of The ArseHooligan.

July 2010.

 
At 07 July, 2010 15:36, Blogger Triterope said...

non sequitir?....

you mean non sequitur?


Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.

 
At 07 July, 2010 16:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keeping inline with "So Many Mistakes, Just One Post..."

From comments section on the BBC update story page.
* 6.
* At 01:29 PM on 27 Oct 2006,
* Ray wrote:

"The only comment I want to make is that there isn't much in a name. The fact remains that at least 6 of the 19 "hijackers" were and are alive, (according to BBC reports by the way). Even if they were not, it would not matter because there is much bigger and much more solid evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. Please read books by David Ray Griffin and Jim Marrs; those are some of the best books I have ever read. Please use your own minds instead of being spoonfed by CNN and other government owned media. The building s could not have come down due to fire; it was impossible. I am not saying that, experts and eye-witnesses are. They were brought down using explosives unless the laws of physics stopped being true that day! An airliner DID NOT hit the pentagon; if it did, how come we never saw even one part of it? Flight 93 did not crash cause of the passengers, it was shot down, according to the US Airforce pilots who talked about it to media, but of course you never will see those reports on national TV! Just do your own research and you'd know too just like I do. I know it is very hard to believe all this; it was for me too! I never believe things blindly even religious things but the evidence is there whether you care to see it or not! Those (like me) who care to do their own research, and investigate the truth for themselves, know better . Just think, would you not want to know that what the government is telling you was REALLY true had your kid died on 9/11?"

THEY'RE FUCKING NUTS!


DT

 
At 07 July, 2010 17:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guitar Bill-You have failed to reconcile the book with John's public statements about the Commission. You have ignored that very important point and I know why. It is very clear you haven't read his book as I have as well as a pulitzer prize winning author has which is why I quoted him. That is not quote mining as you want to claim. It's a review by a pulitzer prize winner. You state I'm lying? Where?
So instead of quote mining from a report that has nothing to do with John's comments and the premise of his book why not:

1. come up with your own wonderful reason why your arguing about a person's viewpoint as layed out in a book that you haven't read.

2. and when you confuse yourself trying to figure that out, maybe you have a coherent thought on why John Farmer in public comments contradicts his own book.

BTW, this is a different anonymous who hands you your ass to you every time I decide to chime in on this crappy blog.

Save your poo poo about torture and simply explain why John would make public comments that contradict his own book.

Oh wait, you can't!

Now your NORAD drivel-which goes back to what John Farmer was discussing in his book.
"The 9/11 Commission provided the answer: Andrews AFB was not a NORAD base.According to the 9/11 Commission, Andrews had no available fighters on alert that morning."

See Bill, this is the problem when you rely on a report that is based upon lies and misinformation.
1. You don't need to be on "alert" to get into the air in a short amount of time. How do I know? Friends with Wright-Pat AF pilots and common sense.
2. NORAD has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

No fighters at Andrews??

Numerous Units at Andrews - There are, however, many units at Andrews that may be participating in exercises. Among more than 60 separate organizations located at the base are units from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. [DC Military (.com), 6/2001; GlobalSecurity (.org), 11/15/2001] These units include Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 (VMFA-321), which flies the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet, and Naval Air Facility, Washington, DC, which has numerous aircraft available, including the F/A-18 Hornet. [DC Military (.com), 2/9/2001; DC Military (.com), 6/2001]

So yes, GB, there were units at Andrews AFB only a few miles away that should have been in the air minutes after the second tower was hit. Why weren't they? Perhaps it was all a part of the numerous exercises that provided the confusion cover and lack of an effective response to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attack.

Now figure out why fighters at Andrews launched at 10:38 yet were requested by the secret service to launch around 9:04.
Why do you think the two training fighters weren't recalled from their mission until 10:38?

“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11. We owe the truth to the families of the victims of 9/11. We owe it to the American public as well, because only by understanding what has gone wrong in the past can we assure our nation’s safety in the future.”-Dean John Farmer

 
At 07 July, 2010 17:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guitar Bill-You have failed to reconcile the book with John's public statements about the Commission. You have ignored that very important point and I know why. It is very clear you haven't read his book as I have as well as a pulitzer prize winning author has which is why I quoted him. That is not quote mining as you want to claim. It's a review by a pulitzer prize winner. You state I'm lying? Where?
So instead of quote mining from a report that has nothing to do with John's comments and the premise of his book why not:

1. come up with your own wonderful reason why your arguing about a person's viewpoint as layed out in a book that you haven't read.

2. and when you confuse yourself trying to figure that out, maybe you have a coherent thought on why John Farmer in public comments contradicts his own book.

BTW, this is a different anonymous who hands you your ass to you every time I decide to chime in on this crappy blog.

Save your poo poo about torture and simply explain why John would make public comments that contradict his own book.

Oh wait, you can't!

 
At 07 July, 2010 17:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Response to Guitar Bill From the other Anyonmous Continued:

Now your NORAD drivel-which goes back to what John Farmer was discussing in his book.
"The 9/11 Commission provided the answer: Andrews AFB was not a NORAD base.According to the 9/11 Commission, Andrews had no available fighters on alert that morning."

See Bill, this is the problem when you rely on a report that is based upon lies and misinformation.
1. You don't need to be on "alert" to get into the air in a short amount of time. How do I know? Friends with Wright-Pat AF pilots and common sense.
2. NORAD has the authority to order units from the Air National Guard, the Air Force, or other armed services to scramble fighters in pursuit of jetliners in trouble.

No fighters at Andrews??

Numerous Units at Andrews - There are, however, many units at Andrews that may be participating in exercises. Among more than 60 separate organizations located at the base are units from the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force Reserve, and Air National Guard. [DC Military (.com), 6/2001; GlobalSecurity (.org), 11/15/2001] These units include Marine Fighter Attack Squadron 321 (VMFA-321), which flies the F/A-18 Hornet fighter jet, and Naval Air Facility, Washington, DC, which has numerous aircraft available, including the F/A-18 Hornet. [DC Military (.com), 2/9/2001; DC Military (.com), 6/2001]

So yes, GB, there were units at Andrews AFB only a few miles away that should have been in the air minutes after the second tower was hit. Why weren't they? Perhaps it was all a part of the numerous exercises that provided the confusion cover and lack of an effective response to the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th attack.

Now figure out why fighters at Andrews launched at 10:38 yet were requested by the secret service to launch around 9:04.
Why do you think the two training fighters weren't recalled from their mission until 10:38?
y.

 
At 07 July, 2010 17:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The other anyonmous kickign guitar bill's ass part 3

“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11. We owe the truth to the families of the victims of 9/11. We owe it to the American public as well, because only by understanding what has gone wrong in the past can we assure our nation’s safety in the future.”-Dean John Farmer

P.S.
Guitar Bill-Clearly, John Farmer never said, "...was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

You dumb fuck, I quoted who said that in my original comment (--Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author.)and never attributed that quote to Farmer.

What did I say about farmer?
John Farmer believes that the report is extremely accurate, and sets forth the facts of 9/11. I said that Bill! Me! Where am I lying?
Are these the lies and dishonesty you were referring to?

And yet John Farmer states:
“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11...."

Farmer documents that the official version of the story is almost entirely untrue because the story was based on false testimony by the WhiteHouse, CIA, FBI and NORAD.
How fucking STUPID are you??!!?!?!?!!

You wasted all that fucking time looking shit up when all you had to do was READ my entire comment. But nope, you jumped on your debunking train and right off the fucking tracks.
P.S.
Guitar Bill-Clearly, John Farmer never said, "...was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

You dumb fuck, I quoted who said that in my original comment (--Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author.)and never attributed that quote to Farmer.

What did I say about farmer?
John Farmer believes that the report is extremely accurate, and sets forth the facts of 9/11. I said that Bill! Me! Where am I lying?
Are these the lies and dishonesty you were referring to?

And yet John Farmer states:
“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11...."

Farmer documents that the official version of the story is almost entirely untrue because the story was based on false testimony by the WhiteHouse, CIA, FBI and NORAD.
How fucking STUPID are you??!!?!?!?!!

You wasted all that fucking time looking shit up when all you had to do was READ my entire comment. But nope, you jumped on your debunking train and right off the fucking tracks.


Now you can offer me an apology for calling me a liar. The truth still stands...your fucking stupid.

Again, it was fun handing your ass to you yet again and watching you fall all over yourself.

But again, you can't reconcile his support of the 9/11 Commission with his book. Go read the book when it comes out as a comic and get back to us.

Here goes the logic for you:
A: 9/11 Commission Report based upon false testimony, false facts, ommissions, etc.
B: Farmer outlines and details some of the false testimony, false facts, etc. in his book.
C. John Farmer still believes A is accurate and factual despite direct knowledge of B.

Why?

But how does one state a report is STILL factual and credible despite pointing out the lies and false testimony the report was based upon in the first place???And this guy is the Dean of a University. LOL!
See the condrum your in scumbag? As a OS conspiracy theorist your forced to accept this illogical nonsense.

Have a good day scumbag! (no offense) BTW, are you answering for Pat now, because my original comment was addressed to him. Nevermind, you can't fucking read and comprehend anywa

 
At 07 July, 2010 17:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The other anonymous kicking Guitar Bill's Ass part 3
“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11. We owe the truth to the families of the victims of 9/11. We owe it to the American public as well, because only by understanding what has gone wrong in the past can we assure our nation’s safety in the future.”-Dean John Farmer

P.S.
Guitar Bill-Clearly, John Farmer never said, "...was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

You dumb fuck, I quoted who said that in my original comment (--Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author.)and never attributed that quote to Farmer.

What did I say about farmer?
John Farmer believes that the report is extremely accurate, and sets forth the facts of 9/11. I said that Bill! Me! Where am I lying?
Are these the lies and dishonesty you were referring to?

And yet John Farmer states:
“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11...."

Farmer documents that the official version of the story is almost entirely untrue because the story was based on false testimony by the WhiteHouse, CIA, FBI and NORAD.
How fucking STUPID are you??!!?!?!?!!

You wasted all that fucking time looking shit up when all you had to do was READ my entire comment. But nope, you jumped on your debunking train and right off the fucking tracks.
P.S.
Guitar Bill-Clearly, John Farmer never said, "...was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue."

You dumb fuck, I quoted who said that in my original comment (--Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author.)and never attributed that quote to Farmer.

What did I say about farmer?
John Farmer believes that the report is extremely accurate, and sets forth the facts of 9/11. I said that Bill! Me! Where am I lying?
Are these the lies and dishonesty you were referring to?

And yet John Farmer states:
“At some level of government,” says Dean Farmer, “at some point in time, a decision was made not to tell the truth about the national response to the attacks on the morning of 9/11...."

Farmer documents that the official version of the story is almost entirely untrue because the story was based on false testimony by the WhiteHouse, CIA, FBI and NORAD.
How fucking STUPID are you??!!?!?!?!!

You wasted all that fucking time looking shit up when all you had to do was READ my entire comment. But nope, you jumped on your debunking train and right off the fucking tracks.


Now you can offer me an apology for calling me a liar. The truth still stands...your fucking stupid.

Again, it was fun handing your ass to you yet again and watching you fall all over yourself.

But again, you can't reconcile his support of the 9/11 Commission with his book. Go read the book when it comes out as a comic and get back to us.

Here goes the logic for you:
A: 9/11 Commission Report based upon false testimony, false facts, ommissions, etc.
B: Farmer outlines and details some of the false testimony, false facts, etc. in his book.
C. John Farmer still believes A is accurate and factual despite direct knowledge of B.

Why?

But how does one state a report is STILL factual and credible despite pointing out the lies and false testimony the report was based upon in the first place???And this guy is the Dean of a University. LOL!
See the condrum your in scumbag? As a OS conspiracy theorist your forced to accept this illogical nonsense.

 
At 07 July, 2010 18:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I just proved where you got the quotes.

Source: amazon.com: The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11.

Now, tell us liar, why did you omit the passages written by Publishers Weekly, Douglas Brinkley, Bob Kerrey, Jim Dwyer and William Langewiesche?

I'll tell you why.

Because you're a quote miner and a compulsive liar.

Face it, Anonymous, YOU ARE OWNED.

Come on, lie to us again.

Or will you be a man, and admit that you're a liar and a quote miner?

I won't hold my breath, because you're a coward and a liar.

 
At 07 July, 2010 18:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...You dumb fuck, I quoted who said that in my original comment (--Haynes Johnson, Pulitzer Prize winner and best-selling author.)and never attributed that quote to Farmer."

Really? No Kidding?

Your anger betrays your motives, Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof.

Then why did Johnson's quote contain quotation marks?

"..."In revisiting the tragedy of the 9/11 attacks that still haunt America, John Farmer provides a devastating account of how what government and military officials told Congress, the 9/11 Commission on which he served, the media, and the public 'was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue.' The result is a major, carefully documented and deeply disturbing book, one that deserves the most serious attention of every American concerned about our future." -- Haynes Johnson.

It's obvious that Johnson quoted Publishers Weekly, not John Farmer, as the following proves beyond a doubt:

"...Farmer faults the disconnect between decision-makers and operational employees, concluding that leadership was irrelevant on 9/11 and the official version of events was almost entirely, and inexplicably, untrue." -- Publishers Weekly.

Source: amazon.com: The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11.

Thus, it's clear that you were trying to pass off the words of Publishers Weekly as those of John Farmer.

Conclusion: Anonymous is a liar and a quote miner with ZERO CREDIBILITY.

So, tell us, Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof, how does it feel to know that your credibility can, once again, be measured in negative engineering units.

 
At 07 July, 2010 19:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"1. You don't need to be on "alert" to get into the air in a short amount of time."

Ummmm.......

Yes it does.

"On alert" means fueled and armed.

Otherwise your F-15 just flys by and waves at the terrorists.

Which proves you're a moron.

Once again.

 
At 07 July, 2010 19:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous dissembles, "...You have failed to reconcile the book with John's public statements about the Commission."

Moving the goalpost again, jizzmop?

No doubt, for all you lack in intellectual honesty, you try to make up for your shortcomings with pure audacity.

Face it, you're owned.

And remember Anonymous dissembler for 9/11 troof, you have the right to be my bitch.

OWNED!

 
At 08 July, 2010 00:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LL wrote, "...'On alert' means fueled and armed.

"Otherwise your F-15 just flys by and waves at the terrorists.

"Which proves you're a moron.

"Once again."


ROTFLMAO!

Thanks, LL! You rock.

 
At 08 July, 2010 01:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Once again, 9/11 troof is

Shot Down In Flames.

Ain't it a shame, to be shot down in flames?

ROTFLMAO!

 
At 08 July, 2010 01:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, you girls are so anxious to get down to QED that you really don't care much about reality, do you?

What makes you so nervous about 9/11?

 
At 08 July, 2010 01:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response, Glenn? (or was that "MaxBridges"?)

So what was that you were saying about "critical mass"?

ROTFLMAO!

Oh, by the way, your mom's famous.

Whole lot of Rosie.

And let me know when you'd like me to expose you and your "beard", "Craig Hawley", prevaricator for 9/11 troof.

LOL!

 
At 08 July, 2010 06:16, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous said...
Wow, you girls are so anxious to get down to QED that you really don't care much about reality, do you?"

[blinks in astonishment]

A twoooofer™ using the word "reaity".

The mind boggles.

 
At 08 July, 2010 07:37, Blogger avicenne said...

"What makes you so nervous about 9/11?"

The fear that a delirious mob of moronic hairsplitting losers posting pointless anonymous comments on the internet will somehow expose the Evil Plot that the former leader and his wingman devised to further their perverted designs for World Domination.

 
At 08 July, 2010 07:42, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"....the Evil Plot that the former leader and his wingman devised to further their perverted designs for World Domination."


Yeah, think about it.

Why DID Dr. Evil retire?

 
At 08 July, 2010 07:59, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'What makes you so nervous about 9/11?'

The fact that 19 young Arab men from middle-class backgrounds - and with comfortable and prosperous lives ahead of them - decided that they would commit suicide on behalf of a deranged death cult, and take as many innocent people as possible with them.

Oh, there's also the fact that they weren't alone. After all, five years ago four like-minded individuals decided to kill themselves - and 52 other people - in my home town.

That's what worries me. And if you weren't retarded, it should worry you too.

 
At 08 July, 2010 10:11, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Wow, you girls are so anxious to get down to QED that you really don't care much about reality, do you?

YES!!!!! Brian Good calling us girls again! Oh, it's just like old times.

Brian, you wouldn't know reality if it gave you a list of 273 unanswered questions.

What makes you so nervous about 9/11?

Who is "nervous" about 9/11? It's been almost 9 years since it happened, and most intelligence reports say al Qaeda is a shadow of its former self.

Please try to make sense when you type, Petgoat.

 
At 08 July, 2010 11:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

IF Dr. Evil retired, maybe it was because his work was done--it looks like he could rely on others to carry it on. On the other hand, what makes you think he retired?

sackcloth, your belief that 19 muslims tried to kill as many people as possible is silly. Many actions were taken to MINIMIZE casualties. They could have flown flight 11 into a nuke plant and killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. They could have hit the buildings at 10:30 instead of 8:46 when there were 50,000 people in the towers instead of 18,000. They could have blocked the escape exits at the WTC through fire, explosives, or poison gas and multiplied the number of dead. They could have flown flight 77 into an occupied wing of the Pentagon.

 
At 08 July, 2010 11:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous--Al Qaeda apologist for 9/11 troof.

 
At 08 July, 2010 11:48, Anonymous Marc said...

" Anonymous said...
IF Dr. Evil retired, maybe it was because his work was done--it looks like he could rely on others to carry it on. On the other hand, what makes you think he retired?

sackcloth, your belief that 19 muslims tried to kill as many people as possible is silly. Many actions were taken to MINIMIZE casualties. They could have flown flight 11 into a nuke plant and killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. They could have hit the buildings at 10:30 instead of 8:46 when there were 50,000 people in the towers instead of 18,000. They could have blocked the escape exits at the WTC through fire, explosives, or poison gas and multiplied the number of dead. They could have flown flight 77 into an occupied wing of the Pentagon."

No, they hijacked the flights that they did because they had done their homework and knew that those early flights would have the fewest passengers, so they would have the fewest potential problems taking over the planes.

KSM said that the reason that the WTC was targeted was because Al Qaeda figured that that it was the one place where they could kill the most Jews.

As for limiting casualties, had the buildings collapsed even a half hour ealier the death toll would have been much higher.

The Pentagon was the secondary target, AA77's primary target was the White House. They couldn't find it as they passed over and that is why they pulled that tight 180 degree turn and came back for the Pentagon. They would have hit it from another side had they struck it on their initial approach.

The Air Force jets already in the air at the time of attack were armed with wax bullets only.

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

More goodies from Planet Petgoat:

sackcloth, your belief that 19 muslims tried to kill as many people as possible is silly.

Right, killing nearly 3,000 people in less than 2 hours is not trying to kill as many people as possible. Jesus, I don't think the Battle of Verdun had casualty rates that high.

But you know what you're talking about, Petgoat. All those hours mopping floors have made you into a counter-terrorism expert.

They could have flown flight 11 into a nuke plant and killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands. They could have hit the buildings at 10:30 instead of 8:46 when there were 50,000 people in the towers instead of 18,000. They could have blocked the escape exits at the WTC through fire, explosives, or poison gas and multiplied the number of dead. They could have flown flight 77 into an occupied wing of the Pentagon.

They could've used the Death Star to blow up the entire United States! They could have released a super-secret deadly virus that could have wiped out the entire western hemisphere.

Please, Brian. Seek professional help. It's no good for you to continue to be a complete joke like this. You still have time to fix your life.

 
At 08 July, 2010 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Source: SLC: Brian Good's Greatest Hits.

LOL! What a mook.

 
At 08 July, 2010 14:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"sackcloth, your belief that 19 muslims tried to kill as many people as possible is silly."

And your belief that they didn't is insnae.

The rest of your post proves it.

 
At 08 July, 2010 14:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"They could have flown flight 11 into a nuke plant and killed tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands."

Google "containment building", you fucking asshole moron al Queda dick sucking retarded marmoset.

 
At 08 July, 2010 19:44, Anonymous New Yorker said...

sackcloth, your belief that 19 muslims tried to kill as many people as possible is silly.

Also, Punxsutawney Petgoat Good conveniently leaves out the 1993 attack (many "truthers" do) where Ramzi Yousef intended to knock one tower into the other, and then have both of them collapse over lower Manhattan. How many people do you think they were trying to kill then, Petgoat?

 
At 09 July, 2010 12:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow what a bunch of confirmation-biased rationalizations. There were simple means of multiplying the death toll. Any idiot who gives it a half hour's thought can devise plans for killing masses of citizens--and living to kill again and again. Huge death tolls were not the point.

 
At 09 July, 2010 12:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Also, they had no way of knowing that the towers would collapse. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a four-engine 707 flying ay 600 mph.

 
At 09 July, 2010 14:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Brian Good" dissembles, "...Also, they had no way of knowing that the towers would collapse. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a four-engine 707 flying ay 600 mph."

"...ay [SIC] 600 mph"

What were you saying about sloppy, "Brian"?

Here's the truth--sans your never ending lies:

"...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.

"...600 mph"?

Bullshit! The buildings were designed to take an impact from a jet traveling at no more than 180 mph.

BUSTED LYING TO US AGAIN, TINKERBELL!

Now, enjoy your plate of crow, compulsive liar for 9/11 troof.

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

Why should I eat your crow, Bill?

All you have to do is google... 600 mpg 707 wtc ... and you get City in The Sky quoting a 1964 white paper on the design criteria of the WTC.

"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Your problem, Bill, is that you've been hanging around in the kiddie pool for too long. Don't you know the water's not clean here?

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

"...Why should I eat your crow, Bill?"

Why not, poofter for 9/11 troof?

After all, you've been eating the contents of men's shorts since you were a boy.

%^)

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

Oh, and your quote is not sourced.

Thus, you're lying, petgoat.

No source, no juju.

Now go to Hell.

 
At 09 July, 2010 17:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

City in the Sky, p. 131

quoted here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/design.html

 
At 09 July, 2010 19:30, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Wow what a bunch of confirmation-biased rationalizations. There were simple means of multiplying the death toll. Any idiot who gives it a half hour's thought can devise plans for killing masses of citizens--and living to kill again and again. Huge death tolls were not the point.

Of course, you have evidence to support your assertion that "huge death tolls were not the point", right Brian? Here on planet earth, people tend to back up their assertions with evidence if they want to be taken seriously.

Also, they had no way of knowing that the towers would collapse. The buildings were designed to take a hit from a four-engine 707 flying ay 600 mph.

Nobody cares, Brian.


"The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

How do you investigate a building that doesn't exist? This paper was written in 1964, before a single steel beam was in place.

You know the levees of New Orleans were designed to withstand a category 3 hurricane too, right?

Your problem, Bill, is that you've been hanging around in the kiddie pool for too long. Don't you know the water's not clean here?

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 10 July, 2010 05:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"How do you investigate a building that doesn't exist? This paper was written in 1964, before a single steel beam was in place."

A 707 couldn't fly at 600 MPH, either.

Non-existent building, non-existent plane.

Must be Brian Good.

 
At 10 July, 2010 08:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Stillborn Short, the 707 at 600 mph was a design criterion, and even if it's true that a 707 could not fly that fast, that's irrelevant to the fact that it's a design criterion. I'm sorry if you can't understand such simply things.

 
At 10 July, 2010 08:56, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Stillborn Short, the 707 at 600 mph was a design criterion, and even if it's true that a 707 could not fly that fast, that's irrelevant to the fact that it's a design criterion.

Hey Brian, can you tell me how one is supposed to investigate a building that doesn't exist?

Deliberately ignoring me isn't scoring you any points, pal. It just shows how much I've gotten under your skin exposing you as a delusional liar.

 
At 10 July, 2010 16:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Any idiot who gives it a half hour's thought can devise plans for killing masses of citizens--and living to kill again and again.

You mean like Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab? Or the 1993 World Trade Center attackers? Or Richard Reid? Or Hussein Mikdad? Or Faisal Shazhad? Or any of a dozen other failed attacks?

 
At 11 July, 2010 06:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

".... even if it's true that a 707 could not fly that fast...."

It is true, and it means that you have proved yourself to be full of shit.

Again.

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

New Yorker I guess you don't understand the concept of design criteria--which involves the investigation of the proposed structure of a proposed building.

TR, the fact that several ill-conceived and plots have failed does not change the fact that any idiot can dream up simple unexploited techniques for causing mass casualties.

Stillborn Short, your inability to understand the difference between design criteria and reality explains why you are so terribly confused about 9/11.

 
At 11 July, 2010 13:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...New Yorker I guess you don't understand the concept of design criteria--which involves the investigation of the proposed structure of a proposed building."

Another blatant lie.

A design criteria is a specification that designers strive to meet while deigning a system, structure or device.

Again, are lies and deception all you have, goat fucker?

 
At 11 July, 2010 13:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, GutterBull, the psychic know-it-all, is determined the pwn himself today! How's the weather there in PsychicLoon Valley, Bull? Having a nice afternoon with the beautiful wife and kiddies?

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

Here we go again, when goat fucker is caught lying, he immediately CHANGES THE SUBJECT.

Pathetic.

 
At 11 July, 2010 14:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

BitterGull, the actual flight speed of a 707 has nothing to do with the fact that one design criterion of the WTC was a strike from a 707 at 600 mph. That's the subject.

But you just want to gossip about an anonymous internet poster.

 
At 11 July, 2010 15:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...BitterGull, the actual flight speed of a 707 has nothing to do with the fact that one design criterion of the WTC was a strike from a 707 at 600 mph. That's the subject."

You can't properly define design criterion, as I've already proven, Mr. Psychopath.

Here's the truth--sans your unsourced lies and obfuscation.

"...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 rated 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.

(The aforementioned quotes are sourced above, in a previous post to this thread).

Make no mistake, you're a clinical example of a psychopath.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

City in the Sky p. 131 quotes the
1964 white paper: "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."

Go to Amazon.com and you can look inside the book and see.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So now the amazing polymathic Mr. GutterBall is not only an IT whiz, mathematician, psychic, and fortune-teller, he's even a psychologist as well!

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course if he really had an ounce of psychological insight he wouldn't embarrass himself so badly.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

City in the Sky is bullshit.

For example, the authors claim that many of the people who jumped from the towers were pushed to their deaths by their coworkers. Yet, the authors fail to substantiate that claim.

Now, I've given you testimony from the Tower's chief structural engineer, and his testimony directly contradicts the claims made by Glanz and Lipton.

Thus, you're lying again.

But should we expect any less from a psychopath?

Now, go away, psychopath, because I'm finished with you--you pathetic, despicable excuse for a human being.

Again, put the revolver into your mouth, and squeeze the trigger, because it's the only path to peace that you'll ever find.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where in City In the Sky did they make that claim?

Leslie Robertson is not an independent engineer. His firm LERA had a big contract with NIST.

Name an independent engineer's endorsement of the NIST report.

Your inability to support your own points and your hateful personal attacks better discredit your arguments than anything I could say.

 
At 11 July, 2010 16:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Leslie Robertson is not an independent engineer."

Another bald-faced lie. Robertson had nothing to do with NIST.

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.

Robertson is the Principal for Leslie E. Robertson Associates R.L.L.P.

Thus, he's and independent structural engineer.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Name an independent engineer's endorsement of the NIST report."

For the 100th time, psychopath, here's the list.

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

Now, I want you to name one psychiatrist who can vouch for your sanity.

You can't?

Then I stand by my statement: You're a psychopath. And all I need to do is reference your anti-social behavior.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:04, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker I guess you don't understand the concept of design criteria--which involves the investigation of the proposed structure of a proposed building.

I understand it perfectly, Petgoat. You're the one who can't make heads or tails of things like the scientific method, remember?

BitterGull, the actual flight speed of a 707 has nothing to do with the fact that one design criterion of the WTC was a strike from a 707 at 600 mph. That's the subject.

Which has absolutely no relevance to anything unrelated to your desperate attempts to keep the "truther" nonsense alive in your head. It's the only thing that gives your life meaning.

City in the Sky p. 131 quotes the
1964 white paper: "The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact."


Nobody cares, Petgoat.

Name an independent engineer's endorsement of the NIST report.

Name an independent engineer's endorsement of the theory of gravity.

Also, seek professional help, Petgoat.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, Leslie Robertson's firm LERA had a big contract with NIST.

Your guy Mr. Phan got a lot of awards from NIST.

All you've got is a list of names. You haven't shown where any of them have endorsed the NIST report. Back up your claim, please.

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:24, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Name an independent engineer's endorsement of the theory of gravity, Petgoat. What are you waiting for?

 
At 11 July, 2010 17:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, Leslie Robertson's firm LERA had a big contract with NIST."

Source? Where's your source, psychopath?

No, Robertson's firm had no such contract with NIST, as the Jones/Robertson interview proves.

Again, I can source my claims, and all you offer is unsourced lies and opinion.

 
At 11 July, 2010 18:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychpath dissembles, "...GutterBall, Leslie Robertson's firm LERA had a big contract with NIST."

Bullshit!

Read it and weep, psychopath.

INTERVIEWER: "...I want to ask if you support the conclusions of the NIST report, and if so, why?"

LESLIE E. ROBERTSON: "...Yes, I do. I support the general conclusions of the NIST Report. It was prepared, by the way, not just by NIST, but by a series engineering firms around the country, who provided advise and assistance to NIST in their investigations. It was reasonably thorough and amounted to, as I recall, about $16 million of effort. Our firm participated, in a small way, by providing information about the basic structure that was constructed [because his firm was the only firm with the relevant information required by NIST--ed]...The project was designed for the impact of a...ah...we call it a low-flying, slow flying Boing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time. Actually the intercontinental version. 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 rated speed at that altitude." -- Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center Towers.

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

Now, what were you saying about "Leslie Robertson's firm LERA had a big contract with NIST."?

More proof that you're a psychopath, who lies without conscience or remorse.

 
At 11 July, 2010 18:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

SB1341-03-W-0332 isn't a big contract, Mr. Confirmation Bias?

"(1) to digitize structural data from original computer printouts; (2) to develop reference structural analysis models that capture the intended behavior of the structures including modifications as a result of major tenant alterations and the 1993 bombing event; and (3) to analyze the baseline structural response under design wind and gravity loads. This project will not analyze the aircraft impact damage to the towers, the structural response of the towers to the fires, or the collapse sequence of the towers.

"There are no existing models of the towers with the level of detail to be developed here. The reference structural models will be used to provide a basis for and comparison with more detailed and refined models to be developed independently in other parts of the NIST investigation for the analysis of (1) aircraft impact damage to the towers, (2) the structural response of the towers to the fires, and (3) the collapse sequence of the towers."

[url]http://wtc.nist.gov/solicitations/LERA_Award.htm[/url]

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Quote mining again, psychopath?

Why did you conveniently omit the following passages?

"...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."


Source: NIST: Contracts--LERA.

QUOTE MINING AGAIN, YOU LYING PSYCHOPATH?

Now, get out of here--you quote mining psychopath.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I left those paragraphs out because they have nothing to do with the point--that there was a major contract between NIST and Leslie Robertson's firm, which contract you deny exists.

I'm sure glad you're not on the truther side, GutterBall. Like Barrett, Rodriguez, Ranke, and New Yorker, you discredit yourself and any cause you try to help.

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...I left those paragraphs out because they have nothing to do with the point--that there was a major contract between NIST and Leslie Robertson's firm, which contract you deny exists."

Bullshit! I never denied anything.

Read Robertson's words again, fucktard.

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

Now, read NIST's words again:

"...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.

Now, where's your apology, psychopath?

 
At 11 July, 2010 19:54, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I'm sure glad you're not on the truther side, GutterBall. Like Barrett, Rodriguez, Ranke, and New Yorker, you discredit yourself and any cause you try to help.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

 
At 11 July, 2010 21:07, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, the issue was Leslie Robinson's lack of independence from NIST. His firm had a big contract with NIST. You denied it. You said "Bullshit!" I showed that they did have such a contract, and you accused me of quotemining and tried to shift the issue to direct contributions to the report.

You are either really really stupid
or you're dishonest and dumb.

 
At 11 July, 2010 22:57, 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 23:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't seem to recognize that I am making points about Leslie Robertson, and the fact that no independent engineers can be found who will speak up in support of the NIST report.

Whereas you are only trying, and failing, to make points against me.

 
At 11 July, 2010 23:21, 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.

 
At 12 July, 2010 00:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, my sanity is not in question here. However, your connection with reality seems to be rather tenuous.

Better get some sleep. You got that high-paying job to get to in the morning, after all, right?

riiiiiiight.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:20, 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, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Better get some sleep. You got that high-paying job to get to in the morning, after all, right?"

In fact, I telecommute, as do all high-level security engineers. And my wife and I can rise from bed at any time we wish.

So mind your own business, psychopath.

But I digress...

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

I'm waiting patiently for your answer.

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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

 
At 12 July, 2010 01:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

On the contrary, I've proven my case.

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

Now, get to work, psychopath.

After all, psychopaths don't require sleep. So, get to work.

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

Where did you prove your case?

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:09, 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 (your "logic").

Do you see how your idiotic circular logic works?

Got causality, psychopath?

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

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You dodged the question.

Where did you prove your case?

 
At 12 July, 2010 02:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Moving the goalpost again?

After all, I'm merely using your brand of "logic".

Got causality, psychopath?

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

You need to prove your case.

He did. Now name one engineer who has endorsed the theory of gravity. If you are so sure all independent engineers endorse the theory of gravity, you should be able to do so easily, and yet you refuse to say so. What are you scared of?

 
At 12 July, 2010 05:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
You dodged the question.

Where did you prove your case?"

On every thread where you post your insane rants, you apoplectic dung beetle.

 
At 12 July, 2010 09:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

New Yorker, many engineers in AE911Truth specifically endorse the laws of physics, which include the Law of Gravity. Ronald Brookman, S.E., said "I believe in the laws of physics and I use them every day."

GutterBall, you have not proved your claim that independent engineers endorse the NIST report. You have not even supported your claim that Dr. Harris did. The fact that you must imagine an implicit endorsement shows the poverty of your claim.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you have not proved your claim that independent engineers endorse the NIST report. You have not even supported your claim that Dr. Harris did. The fact that you must imagine an implicit endorsement shows the poverty of your claim."

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).

Don't think, psychopath, it may sprain your brain.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:53, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, many engineers in AE911Truth specifically endorse the laws of physics, which include the Law of Gravity. Ronald Brookman, S.E., said "I believe in the laws of physics and I use them every day."

I said independent engineers, Brian. Anyone who is a member of AE911Truth has ipso facto rejected the laws of physics, and thus has rejected the theory of gravity.

Please name an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity. You can't do it.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:55, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, you have not proved your claim that independent engineers endorse the NIST report.

False.

You have not even supported your claim that Dr. Harris did.

False.

Also, you haven't called us squealing girls in a while. Please do so, Brian. It always makes me laugh.

 
At 12 July, 2010 10:58, 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.

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

The psychopath scribbles, "...GutterBall, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues shows. There is no danger of death or injury from the adoption of excessively conservative recommendations."

Are half-truths all you have, psychopath?

On the contrary, psychopath, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues sticks out like a sore thumb.

Engineers are obliged to complete a project at the lowest cost. Thus, "excessively conservative recommendations" are anathema to the engineering community.

However, you've provided no evidence to substantiate your claim of "excessively conservative recommendations."

Now, if the NIST Reports' recommendations are "excessively conservative", why are the reports' recommendations adopted at all levels, including academia, safety and design?

FACT: Your facts are just so much effluent.

 
At 12 July, 2010 12:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, you're shifting the goalposts from avoiding loss of lives to holding the line on costs.

You have not demonstrated that NIST's recommendations were adopted to any serious degree. This is in keeping with your general inability to support your claims.

 
At 12 July, 2010 13:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You have not demonstrated that NIST's recommendations were adopted to any serious degree."

Wrong again, fucktard.

The new World Trade Center 7 is 52 stories and stands 266 meters from the ground-level. The new building is universally regarded as the safest skyscraper in the United States. The new building employs a host of safety features that represents the prototype for new high-rise construction. All of the new safety features are derived DIRECTLY from the NIST Report.

The new building features 60cm thick concrete-reinforced escape routes and elevator shafts. The stairways are much wider and are illuminated by florescent markings, which permit faster egress of the occupants during emergencies. Again, all of the new safety features are derived DIRECTLY from the NIST Report.

The building employs the latest impact resistant fire-retardant, which protects the building's columns and trusses. Once again, the new impact resistant fire-retardant features are derived DIRECTLY from the NIST Report.

So, what were you saying about "[y]ou have not demonstrated that NIST's recommendations were adopted to any serious degree", fucktard?

No doubt, psychopath, if you had a brain in your empty head, you'd be dangerous.

 
At 12 July, 2010 13:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Squeal squeal squeal! That's the sound of Gutterball running in his spamster wheel.

Gee GutterBall, would it kill you to cite a source?

Wider stairwells, impact-resistant fire-retardant, 60 cm walls? These are substantive changes that demonstrate industry-wide confidence in the NIST report? How do we know it's not just Larry Silverstein's PR stuff to try to make prospective tenants comfortable in a potential death trap?

Seems to me I heard they were having a hard time filling the new building. Did they ever get enough tenants?

Don't you have a serious report about the recommendations that tells which ones were rejected?

 
At 12 July, 2010 14:32, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Squeal squeal squeal! That's the sound of Gutterball running in his spamster wheel.

You forgot to call us girls, Brian. C'mon buddy, you're forgetting to call us all a bunch of squealing, giggling girls and how what we say makes you know you're right.

 
At 12 July, 2010 15:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath scribbles, "...Wider stairwells, impact-resistant fire-retardant, 60 cm walls? These are substantive changes that demonstrate industry-wide confidence in the NIST report? How do we know it's not just Larry Silverstein's PR stuff to try to make prospective tenants comfortable in a potential death trap?"

Read the NIST Reports' recommendations, shit-for-brains.

wtc.com wrote, "...The building will incorporate advanced life-safety systems that exceed New York City building code requirements and create a new standard for high-rise buildings. In addition to structural redundancy and dense and highly adhesive fireproofing, the building will include biological and chemical filters in the air supply system. To assume optimum egress and firefighting capacity, extra-wide pressurized stairs, multiple backups on emergency lighting, and concrete protection for all sprinklers and emergency risers will be provided, in addition to interconnected redundant exits, additional stair exit locations at all adjacent streets, and direct exits to the street from tower stairs. All of the building's life-safety systems - egress stairs, communication antennae, exhaust and ventilation shafts, electrical risers, standpipes, and elevators - will be encased in a core wall that will be three feet thick in most places.

"This building is being designed to facilitate emergency response with enhanced emergency communication cables and will include a dedicated stair for use by firefighters. These safety measures can be used in conjunction with enhanced elevators, housed in a protected central building core, which will serve every floor of the building. In addition, protected tenant collection points will be located on each floor. To satisfy security concerns, the building's setback distance from West Street (Route 9A) was increased from 25 feet to an average of 90 feet in June 2005.

"These safety features will sit on top of a base (clad in glass prisms) that includes the building's lobby, which will feature 50-foot ceilings. The 102-story building will feature a main lobby entry on Fulton Street for office tenants, with additional entrances on the West and Washington Street sides for observation deck visitors and restaurant diners, respectively."


Source: wtc.com: 1 World Trade Center--Safety.

(Now, before you retype the same message from another thread, allow me to answer your next specious question.)

And no, I refuse to sit here and retype stuff out of the NIST Report (After all, I'm employed, and, as a result, I'm very busy) that you can read by opening a pdf file and engaging your alleged brain.

Tell us, does your live-in mommy still wipe your ass and tuck you in at night?

If not, then why don't you learn to use a search engine and answer your questions on your own--you annoying, acephalic pedant?

 
At 12 July, 2010 15:50, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I knew it wouldn't be long before GutterBall pulled the disinfo op's favorite stunt: referencing a 500-page document and saying "Your answers are all in there."

But they aren't. Because what's in there is NIST's raw recommendations, not the recommendations as adopted.
Your claims are full of holes, BitterGull. You can't reference a document that explains which recs were adopted and which ones were not.

So you really don't know what you're talking about. You proceed on the circular reasoning that the engineers' respect for NIST caused them to adopt the recommendations and the adoption of the recommendations proves the respect, but you can't even prove the recommendations were adopted.

Why not just keep it simple and quote some qualified independent engineer to the effect that the NIST report is credible? Oh right, you can't find one who said anything like that.

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"But they aren't. Because what's in there is NIST's raw recommendations, not the recommendations as adopted."

SCCRREEEEEECHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

That's the sound of goalposts being moved, ladies and gentlemen.

brian is to intellectually dishonest to admit he's gotten a severe cockslapping here, so he tries to shift the argument.

Good job, boron, good job!

 
At 12 July, 2010 16:39, Anonymous New Yorker said...

I knew it wouldn't be long before GutterBall pulled the disinfo op's favorite stunt: referencing a 500-page document and saying "Your answers are all in there."

You could try reading it, Brian. It's not like you have things like work or family to occupy your time.

But they aren't. Because what's in there is NIST's raw recommendations, not the recommendations as adopted.

Game. Set. Match. GuitarBill wins, and Brian Good, as always, loses.

So you really don't know what you're talking about. You proceed on the circular reasoning that the engineers' respect for NIST caused them to adopt the recommendations and the adoption of the recommendations proves the respect, but you can't even prove the recommendations were adopted.

You lose, Brian. GuitarBill wins. It's over. Accept reality.

Why not just keep it simple and quote some qualified independent engineer to the effect that the NIST report is credible? Oh right, you can't find one who said anything like that.

False. Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:00, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LL I didn't move the goalposts. GutterBall claimed that the adoption of the recs was proof of the engineers' respect for the NIST report. Thus it is the recs as adopted that are the issue, not the recs as proposed. And in fact the difference between the two, which GB seems unwilling or unable to discuss, is a measure of the engineers' disrespect for NIST.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...And in fact the difference between the two, which GB seems unwilling or unable to discuss, is a measure of the engineers' disrespect for NIST."

Care to substantiate that assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the goat fucker).

Care to demonstrate "the engineers' disrespect for NIST."

Go for it. I need a good laugh.

 
At 12 July, 2010 17:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
LL I didn't move the goalposts."

SCCRRREEEEEEEEECCHHHHHHH!!!!!!

Keep that up, brian, and you'll hurt your back.

Liar.

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

LL I didn't move the goalposts. GutterBall claimed that the adoption of the recs was proof of the engineers' respect for the NIST report. Thus it is the recs as adopted that are the issue, not the recs as proposed. And in fact the difference between the two, which GB seems unwilling or unable to discuss, is a measure of the engineers' disrespect for NIST.

You lose, Brian. As always.

Now please name me an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity.

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

LL wrote, "...Keep that up, brian, and you'll hurt your back."

LOL!

 
At 12 July, 2010 18:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, Dr. Harris's skepticism about many of the NIST recommendations was clear in the testimony you linked.

Any failure to adopt any recommendation indicates that the engineers were not impressed by that recommendation.

 
At 12 July, 2010 19:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GutterBall, Dr. Harris's skepticism about many of the NIST recommendations was clear in the testimony you linked."

That's true, provided you quote mine the content found in the document.

"...Any failure to adopt any recommendation indicates that the engineers were not impressed by that recommendation."

In the rarefied air you breath, I'm sure that assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the psychopath) is true; however, for the rest of us that's not the case at all.

Again, do you ever tell the truth?

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

 
At 13 July, 2010 00:08, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, for you to claim that quotemining makes something true shows you to be logically challenged. I bet your scripts went in wild loops but accomplished little.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...GB, for you to claim that quotemining [SIC] makes something true shows you to be logically challenged."

I never said that "quotemining [SIC] makes something true".

Proof positive that you have shit-for-brains.

Try again, illiterate psychopath for 9/11 troof.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, that's what you said, Mr. logically challenged. I am very skeptical of your claim to an IT degree. Most technical people I know are literal-minded enough that they don't make such silly logical errors.

 
At 13 July, 2010 01:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Sorry, that's what you said, Mr. logically challenged. I am very skeptical of your claim to an IT degree. Most technical people I know are literal-minded enough that they don't make such silly logical errors."

Proffering a statement without offering evidence doesn't do much for your argument, illiterate psychopath for 9/11 troof.

Remember, your opinion isn't "evidence".

 
At 13 July, 2010 06:17, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GB, for you to claim that quotemining makes something true shows you to be logically challenged. I bet your scripts went in wild loops but accomplished little.

Do you even understand the meaning of the term "quote mining", Petgoat? I mean, you've consistently displayed an appalling ignorance on every other subject you've babbled about, so I doubt you have any idea what you're talking about here.

 
At 13 July, 2010 09:43, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GB, your ignorance knows no bounds. My opinion is evidence.

New Yorker, I do know what quote mining means. The mis-use of the term by y'all here had me confused about its meaning, but now I'm clear.

 
At 13 July, 2010 10:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...My opinion is evidence."

Thanks for proving that you're an idiot.

As an exercise, I'd like you produce the definition of the word opinion and show me where an opinion is defined as evidence.

Got for it, Einstein.

 
At 13 July, 2010 16:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Oh, so it's not evidence? So if you were trying to prove I'm an idiot you would not cite any of my opinions, because they're not evidence, huh?

Honestly Bill, did you ever consider taking a vow of silence for a few years?

 
At 13 July, 2010 16:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Fuck you, weasel.

Answer the God damned question, queer bait coward:

As an exercise, I'd like you produce the definition of the word opinion and show me where an opinion is defined as evidence.

And when you're done, get over here and take the test, illiterate.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:28, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, your opinions show you're an idiot, and I can rest my case right there.

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response, psychopath?

You know that you're a pathetic coward, don't you, psychopath?

 
At 13 July, 2010 17:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Really! Well at least I don't lie about 9/11, like some jackasses around here do.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 July, 2010 18:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...Really! Well at least I don't lie about 9/11, like some jackasses around here do."

Really? No kidding?

You "don't lie", but never mind that you just told another lie. Right, psychopath?

 
At 13 July, 2010 19:12, Anonymous New Yorker said...

New Yorker, I do know what quote mining means. The mis-use of the term by y'all here had me confused about its meaning, but now I'm clear.

So what does it mean, Petgoat?

 
At 13 July, 2010 20:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Boo!

 
At 13 July, 2010 21:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Psychopath, allow me to give you a conservative estimate of your IQ.

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...

 
At 13 July, 2010 21:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well a post like that leaves little doubt about yours. Maybe you should send your wife a candygram or she's likely to forget all about you.

 
At 13 July, 2010 22:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Is that the best you can do, psychopath?

So, answer the question: Did you ever get over your homosexual infatuation with Willie Rodriguiz?

 
At 13 July, 2010 22:55, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 13 July, 2010 22:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pathetic.

I think I hear your mommy calling you, psychopath.

60 years-old and he still lives with his mother.

What a loser.

 
At 13 July, 2010 23:12, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You know nothing about me, silly.
I hear your wife not calling you.

 
At 14 July, 2010 01:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath dissembles, "...You know nothing about me, silly...I hear your wife not calling you."

Really? No kidding?

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 09:21, Anonymous Mordechai's Friend Arhoolie said...

Isn't the "Git" so cute at this age!!

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:21, Anonymous Mordechai's Friend Arhoolie said...

Isn't the "Git" so cute at this age!!

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't see one answer to my questions, ArseHooligan.

Troofer tactic Number 1: When your back's against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Try again, charlatan.

 
At 14 July, 2010 09:48, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, I won't have time for your questions until you provide a link to a quote from an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

It really shouldn't be that difficult, and I'm very surprised that you can't find one.

 
At 14 July, 2010 11:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The psychopath prevaricats, "...GutterBall, I won't have time for your questions until you provide a link to a quote from an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report."

False.

I've answered your question 50 times.

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

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

Now, crawl back into your mommy's basement.

 
At 14 July, 2010 18:38, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GutterBall, Dr. Harris did not endorse the NIST report.

Please link an endorsement by an independent engineer of the NIST report. Not a read-between-the-lines implicit endorsement. An explicit expression of confidence in its findings.

 
At 14 July, 2010 21:31, Anonymous New Yorker said...

GutterBall, Dr. Harris did not endorse the NIST report.

False.

But enough of this hair-splitting, Petgoat. Do you have any evidence that 9/11 was an inside job?

 
At 14 July, 2010 23:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NY, please support your claim that Dr. Harris endorses the NIST report. Please provide a quote.

 
At 15 July, 2010 06:14, Anonymous New Yorker said...

NY, please support your claim that Dr. Harris endorses the NIST report. Please provide a quote.

We're done talking about that. Please provide support for the idea that 9/11 was an inside job.

 
At 15 July, 2010 17:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Maybe you refuse to comment, but I'm not done talking about the fact that you can't name one independent engineer who publicly endorses the NIST report.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home