Monday, November 15, 2010

Who Wouldn't Enjoy This?

Matt Naus reports on the fun one has being a Troofer:

I've been doing these 9/11 Truth Street Actions for close to 5 years now but this one will remain in my memory for quite a while. Having a 9/11 Truth street action at a college university can lead to some crazy interactions. This was a rough one, and not because we had the usual swear words at times. It was because we also got some spit thrown at us and some guy wanted to kick down our sign. Another guy gave me the finger and it seemed he wanted to put it right up my nose he got so close. Some college girl even got nasty with us. We were stationed on the corner of 16th & Wisconsin Ave. (busy corner) near downtown Milwaukee. There is a high- rise college dorm building on this corner. From about the 6th floor of this dorm building we were getting harrassed by young college kids for about an hour screaming out the window of a dorm room calling it propaganda and singing God Bless America.. One college student, who took our information, was getting harrassed by these guys and he gave his fellow students the finger. Then these window yellers decided to come down to the street level and counter our sign with a sign of their own that said "Over 3000 families demand that we support our troops". These college kids also dressed up in red, white and blue with one of them wearing an Uncle Sam outfit and another wrapping himself in a flag. I guess they wanted to celebrate Veterans Day getting cars to beep at them with there sign. Near the end of our 8 hour day of street action you will see a short Asian student and another student in the Youtube that I interviewed. They started acting stupid during the interview so I cut it kind of short. Anyways, this Asian student flew past me and grabbed one of our signs that I just put against a garbage can and he took off. The sign had a picture of the war criminals in the Bush administration. I gave chase for about a block but this 60 year old guy couldn't catch him so I had to stop before I had a heart attack. I called the police and gave a report telling them I had the thief on youtube and waited for about an hour but no police came.


Sounds like fun!

Labels: ,

118 Comments:

At 15 November, 2010 09:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually it is kind of exhilarating when you take a stand that you think is important and when the only opposition you get is emotional, irrational, and self-discrediting. When you call the bluff of the big drunk frat boy yelling in your face trying to scare you and he has to slink away to go sleep it off.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:01, Blogger Pat said...

I'm sure the members of the Westboro Baptist Church feel the same way, Brian.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:05, Blogger Bill said...

"the only opposition you get is emotional, irrational, and self-discrediting."

9/11 Truth in a nutshell.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

Actually it is kind of exhilarating when you take a stand that you think is important

More evidence that the reason people join 9/11 "truth" is that it makes them feel important, part of something, etc. It's no different than any other religious cult.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish between taking "a stand that you think is important" and making one "feel important" shows your basic personalization of external issues. And then you wonder why I compare you to an 8-year-old girl.

Pat, I intended only to second Naus's report that conflict can be enjoyable.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

And then you wonder why I compare you to an 8-year-old girl.

I don't really wonder about this. You have the emotional and intellectual development of an 11-year-old.

Also, it looks like you're particularly pissy today, given that your babblings are clogged with extra helpings of those big boy words you use to make us think you're smart. 11-year-olds often do this too.

 
At 15 November, 2010 17:47, Blogger Triterope said...

I guess they wanted to celebrate Veterans Day getting cars to beep at them with there sign.

They pulled this shit on Veteran's Day?

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:12, Blogger Triterope said...

when you take a stand that you think is important and when the only opposition you get is emotional, irrational, and self-discrediting. When you call the bluff of the big drunk frat boy yelling in your face trying to scare you and he has to slink away to go sleep it off.

And what would your sorry ass know about that? All you ever do is post on the Internet. You can't even watch a street action, much less take part in one, because the whole Truth movement has you identified as a sex predator.

If I'm the big drunk frat boy, you're a 40-something single guy in a college bar hitting on other people's dates.

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:14, Blogger avicenne said...

"Naus's report that conflict can be enjoyable"

This might be conflict in the guy's mind, but in reality it's a bunch of kids laughing at a couple of nuts in the street trying to give away free DVDs.

For most people conflict is not a 60 year old crackpot chasing after some kid who stole his silly placard, then getting annoyed when the police aren't immediately on the case. Sounds more like comedy.

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:26, Blogger Len said...

"Anyways, this Asian student flew past me and grabbed one of our signs that I just put against a garbage can and he took off. The sign had a picture of the war criminals in the Bush administration. I gave chase for about a block but this 60 year old guy couldn't catch him so I had to stop before I had a heart attack. I called the police and gave a report telling them I had the thief on youtube and waited for about an hour but no police came."

Ironic how these civil disobedience types are always so quick to 'drop the dime' on anyone who disagrees with them too vigorously.

Funnier that he really seemed to expect the police to show up over the theft of a valueless sign. What did he expect the cops to do make a print off his video and start a manhunt?

"They pulled this shit on Veteran's Day?"

It was one of those "11th of every month" jobbies, thus it was a coincidence. But wait coincidence don't exist :)!

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Actually it is kind of exhilarating when you take a stand that you think is important and when the only opposition you get is emotional, irrational, and self-discrediting."

Wow...way to sum up your character flaw AND your mental illness in one sentence.

See when you take a stand on something that is so clearly based on incontinent lunacy you aren't really taking a stand on anything.

911 Truth is on par with people who want to marry their pets, those who think Paul McArntey died in 1967,the Area 51 crowd,the guy who thinks that the original Spiderman died in Vietnam, whoever the fuck watched "Jersey Shore", and people who think that Octopus actually had knowledge of soccer.

The one difference between those people and the troofers is that they aren't trying to use a terrorist attack - that someone else committed - to advance their asshat political agenda. Technically this makes Al Qaeda and the actual 19 9/11 hijackers more honorable people because they were willing to lay it all on the line for their beliefs. Troofers bitch when people (rightfully) laugh and point at them.

In short, it sucks to be you, Bwian.

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:51, Blogger eromitlab said...

Not only are the claims truthers make easy to discredit, so are their claims that their movement is growing and winning the hearts and minds of the sheeple they so despise.
But it's okay cuz troof will owt, amirite troofies?

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:58, Blogger Triterope said...

It was one of those "11th of every month" jobbies,

Oh, right. Still, by now you'd think they'd be used to a little extra opposition in November.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, it may come as news to you but a street action is not civil disobedience, and stealing someone's sign is not a matter of disagreement. You seem to have some trouble perceiving reality competently.

M Gwegowy Fawwis, you may think your lithp is cute but I don't. Try Ian, he seems to be cruising for some action.

eromit, the Architects and Engineers continue to sign up members--over 350 this year alone, so your claim that the movement is not growing would appear to be somewhat unscientific and counterfactual.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Len, it may come as news to you but a street action is not civil disobedience, and stealing someone's sign is not a matter of disagreement. You seem to have some trouble perceiving reality competently.

Aww, poor little Brian is upset.

M Gwegowy Fawwis, you may think your lithp is cute but I don't. Try Ian, he seems to be cruising for some action.

Nice homophobia on display here. Ever notice how the closet cases are always the biggest gay-bashers? I mean, Brian, isn't really a closet case since it's obvious he loves Willie Rodriguez, but given his tenuous grasp of reality, he probably denies this to himself.

eromit, the Architects and Engineers continue to sign up members--over 350 this year alone, so your claim that the movement is not growing would appear to be somewhat unscientific and counterfactual.

Your movement is dead, Brian. Go join the birthers if you want to be part of the hot new lunatic conspiracy movement. Plus, the movement is full of old white men, and I'm sure plenty are closet cases. You can find new people to stalk!

 
At 17 November, 2010 00:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 November, 2010 00:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 November, 2010 00:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I stood up for gay rights long before it was fashionable.

GutterBall, for you to claim that a continued growth rate of over 35% a year represents a movement that is not growing is not just unscientific, it's stupid.

And you still can't provide the names of any engineers independent of NIST who will publicly endorse the NIST report.

 
At 17 November, 2010 00:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...the Architects and Engineers continue to sign up members--over 350 this year alone, so your claim that the movement is not growing would appear to be somewhat unscientific and counterfactual [SIC]."

Irrelevant bullshit!

I'm a member of the scientific and engineering community, Brian. The US scientific and engineering community consists of just over 600,000 members. Hence,

(1,366/600,000) * 100 = 0.23%

Thus, the entire membership of architects and engineers for 9/11 truth doesn't rise to the level of statistical significance.

Will you ever stop reciting the egregious lie that says a&e 9/11 truth is "growing," Brian?

Clearly, you're an habitual liar.

(Re-post with a minor correction.)

 
At 17 November, 2010 01:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, for you to claim that a continued growth rate of over 35% a year represents a movement that is not growing is not just unscientific, it's stupid."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said a God damned thing about a&e 9/11 "truth"'s alleged "growth rate."

But since you're on the subject of alleged "growth rates," there's no evidence that Richard Gage can maintain that 35% "growth rate." One year does not constitute a trend, shit-for-brains.

In fact, a&e 911 "truth" has never maintained a steady growth rate of anything approaching 35%.

Would you like impress us with the breadth and depth of your dishonesty again, Pinocchio?

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

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...And you still can't provide the names of any engineers independent of NIST who will publicly endorse the NIST report."

Another bald-faced lie.

Remember Dr. James R. Harris? He endorsed the NIST Report. And I gave you his phone number in order to confirm my claim.

(303) 860-9021

Why did you refuse to call his number, Brian?

Answer: Because you know I'm telling the truth.

Fuck you, Brian.

 
At 17 November, 2010 04:25, Blogger Triterope said...

Ian, I stood up for gay rights long before it was fashionable.

In San Francisco? You'd have to be 100 years old for that to be true.

 
At 17 November, 2010 06:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I stood up for gay rights long before it was fashionable.

And yet you use "gay" as an insult. Whatever you say, Brian.

GutterBall, for you to claim that a continued growth rate of over 35% a year represents a movement that is not growing is not just unscientific, it's stupid.

The movement is dead, Brian. Face facts.

And you still can't provide the names of any engineers independent of NIST who will publicly endorse the NIST report.

Stop lying, Brian.

 
At 17 November, 2010 09:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gutterball, please show enough scientific acumen to compare the number of identified NIST-independent engineers who have publicly endorsed the NIST report with the number of NIST-independent engineers who have declared it to be inadequate.

Please show the scientific acumen to acknowledge that signing up 350 new people in one year after reaching 1000 members is indeed a 35% a year growth rate (with six weeks left in the year, besides!)

I'll suppose that your otherwise-puzzling anger can be explained by the notion that you are bedeviled by a subconscious awareness that your beliefs are not consistent with reality.

As for Dr. Harris, he is not independent of NIST. He was appointed by NIST's director William Jeffrey, to serve on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR).

Thanks for proving my point, idiot.

 
At 17 November, 2010 10:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, you still have never listed an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity.

You also have not given one reason why anyone sane should care about 350 failures and lunatics who have joined Richard Gage's little gang.

I'll suppose that your otherwise-puzzling anger can be explained by the notion that you are bedeviled by a subconscious awareness that your beliefs are not consistent with reality.

You suppose wrong, as always. Nobody is angry here. We might be puzzled a bit, but mostly we're amused by your babblings, Brian.

As for Dr. Harris, he is not independent of NIST. He was appointed by NIST's director William Jeffrey, to serve on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR).

Thanks for proving my point, idiot.

What point?

 
At 17 November, 2010 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

The point is that you can not name any NIST-independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. The guy GutterBall named was appointed to a Committee by NIST, and was thus not independent.

 
At 17 November, 2010 11:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

The point is that you can not name any NIST-independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

False. They've been named many times.

The guy GutterBall named was appointed to a Committee by NIST, and was thus not independent.

Nobody cares.

 
At 17 November, 2010 15:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...The guy GutterBall named was appointed to a Committee by NIST, and was thus not independent."

That's a bald-faced lie.

Dr. James R. Harris is the president of JR Harris and Company. He is an independent structural engineer with 15 employees.

He has had no association with NIST since 1980--and that association was tangential, at best.

Get your lies straight, Pinocchio.

And by the way: Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Brian.

 
At 17 November, 2010 19:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

February 28, 2007

William Jeffrey, director of ... NIST, has named 15 distinguished academic, industry and government experts to serve on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR)....

James R. Harris, president, J.R. Harris and Co., Denver, Colo.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/nehrp_committee.cfm

 
At 17 November, 2010 19:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall doesn't know enough to google before he calls someone a liar

 
At 17 November, 2010 20:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, how's that search for an independent engineer who has endorsed the theory of gravity going?

Also, you are a liar. Nobody is disputing that.

 
At 17 November, 2010 21:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Ron Brookman is on record as endorsing the laws of physics.

 
At 18 November, 2010 00:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...William Jeffrey, director of ... NIST, has named 15 distinguished academic, industry and government experts to serve on the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction (ACEHR)...."

Nice try, shit-for-brains, but no cigar.

What does an unpaid position on an earthquake hazard reduction program have to do with 9/11?

Try again, Pinocchio.

 
At 18 November, 2010 06:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Ron Brookman is on record as endorsing the laws of physics.

You keep bringing him up even though he's part of Gage's group which means a) he's not independent and b) he rejects the theory of gravity.

Try again.

 
At 18 November, 2010 15:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you provide no evidence that the position on the committee is unpaid. Even if it is unpaid, it's quite prestigious and it shows that Dr. Harris it not independent of NIST. So would you like to try again, and name an engineer independent of NIST who will endorse the NIST report?

 
At 18 November, 2010 17:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Ron Brookman is on record as endorsing the laws of physics. You provide no evidence that the position on the committee is unpaid.

What is any of this shit supposed to prove?

 
At 18 November, 2010 22:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR what it proves is that both Ian and GutterBall are babbling nonsense, nothing more.

 
At 19 November, 2010 06:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

What is any of this shit supposed to prove?

Nothing. But Brian gets to claim he "won" a round of internet warfare. It will look good on his resume, or something, the next time he applies for the night shift mopping floors at the YMCA.

 
At 19 November, 2010 06:57, Blogger Triterope said...

TR what it proves is that both Ian and GutterBall are babbling nonsense, nothing more.

So in this thread, you've gone from "taking a stand that you think is important" to winning Internet points. Maybe there's hope for you yet.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR your belief that showing a couple of dodo dolts for what they are somehow represents abandonment of the position of taking a stand for something important is irrational.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:34, Blogger Triterope said...

I take it back.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

TR your belief that showing a couple of dodo dolts for what they are somehow represents abandonment of the position of taking a stand for something important is irrational.

Squeal! Squeal! Squeal!

 
At 19 November, 2010 11:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 November, 2010 11:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 November, 2010 11:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, you provide no evidence that the position on the committee is unpaid. Even if it is unpaid, it's quite prestigious and it shows that Dr. Harris it not independent of NIST. So would you like to try again, and name an engineer independent of NIST who will endorse the NIST report?"

It's not incumbent upon me to substantiate your outrageous claims--you God damned sophist.

You claim that Dr Harris is an employee of NIST; as a result, the burden of proof is yours and yours alone.

In fact, I've proven that he's the president of JR Harris and Company.

So far, you've offered not one iota of evidence that proves he's an employee of NIST.

Now, get to work, Pet Goat.

 
At 19 November, 2010 12:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, maybe you find it very satisfying to hit a straw man out of the park, but it's pathetic. I never said Harris was an employee of NIST. I said that he was not independent.

You claim that the AE911Truth engineers are freaks and that the engineering community supports NIST, but you are unable to name one independent engineer who endorses their report. Why is that? None of your engineer friends will help you out? Why is that?

 
At 19 November, 2010 14:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...I said that he was not independent."

An appointment to a committee does not prove dependence. Try again, shit-for-brains.

Either substantiate your claim or go play in the middle of CA highway 101.

 
At 19 November, 2010 14:42, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You claim that the AE911Truth engineers are freaks and that the engineering community supports NIST, but you are unable to name one independent engineer who endorses their report.

Can you name one engineer independent of the 9/11 Truth Movement who expresses doubts about NIST's conclusions?

 
At 19 November, 2010 18:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

GoiterBowel, I did not claim that Dr. Harris was dependent. I pointed out that he was not independent. Is your pathetic attempt to obfuscate your way out of this an admission on your part that you can't name an independent engineer who endorses the findings of the NIST report?

RGT, since by definition expressing doubt about NIST's conclusions makes you a part of the truth movement, I can't name anyone who meets your specifications. Perhaps Frank Greening, who expressed much doubt about NIST's WTC7 report, to some degree qualifies, as many truthers don't trust him.

But that's beside the point. The claim has been made in this forum that since AE911Truth's 1350 architects and engineers make up less than 0.1% of all the architects and engineers on the planet, therefore 99.9% of the architects and engineers must agree with the NIST report. GutterBall's inability to name even one independent engineer expressing confidence in the NIST report gives the lie to that claim.

 
At 19 November, 2010 18:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...I pointed out that he was not independent."

Try again, shit-for-brains. You don't have the power to define the meaning of words to suit your lies, obfuscation and nonsense. Words have meaning, whether you like it or not, ass-wipe.

Independent adj Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity

Dependent adj Relying on or requiring the aid of another for support

affiliate v To associate (oneself) as a subordinate, subsidiary, employee, or member

Again, an appointment to a committee does not prove dependence or affiliation. Try again, shit-for-brains.

Either substantiate your claim or go play in the middle of CA highway 101.

 
At 19 November, 2010 19:38, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The claim has been made in this forum that since AE911Truth's 1350 architects and engineers make up less than 0.1% of all the architects and engineers on the planet, therefore 99.9% of the architects and engineers must agree with the NIST report.

The remaining 99.9%, then, logically fall into one of three basic categories: agree with NIST, disagree with NIST, or hold no opinion. What do you think the distribution is?

GutterBall's inability to name even one independent engineer expressing confidence in the NIST report gives the lie to that claim.

We're back where we started. If NIST's theory on WTC7 is as unscientific as you claim, why can't you name a single engineer with an alternative theory that doesn't happen to involve controlled demolition?

 
At 19 November, 2010 20:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian still can't name one independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity. I think it's time for a new investigation into whether or not gravity exists, don't you?

 
At 20 November, 2010 09:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, nice job of "definition mining". Under your definition of independent, a judge who took a bribe rendered an independent decision.

The fact remains--you can not name one engineer independent of NIST who endorses their reports, and your desperate attempts to paint Dr. Harris as one only prove it.

RGT, I suspect that the vast majority of engineers have no opinion about the NIST reports because they have not read them, and have no intention of reading them. Probably most engineers in the world have never even heard of Building 7.

I don't think Frank Greening has expressed an opinion on controlled demolition, but he has certainly been critical of the NIST report on Building 7. I am myself agnostic on controlled demolition--I think the evidence suggesting it warrants further investigation but it has not been proven, and I think that FEMA and NIST have done a terrible job in putting on their cases and their reports are incomplete and unbelievable. I doubt I am the only one who believes that.

Ian, Ron Brookman, S.E., has endorsed the laws of physics, which would include Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Theories of gravity involve questions of why it works, not that it works, and thus are outside the scope of most engineers' interest. There's no reason to investigate whether gravity exists. As usual, you're being silly.

 
At 20 November, 2010 10:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

The fact remains--you can not name one engineer independent of NIST who endorses their reports, and your desperate attempts to paint Dr. Harris as one only prove it.

False. He named Dr. Harris. Learn to read.

RGT, I suspect that the vast majority of engineers have no opinion about the NIST reports because they have not read them, and have no intention of reading them. Probably most engineers in the world have never even heard of Building 7.

Nobody cares what you suspect, since you've proven yourself time and time again to be an ignorant lunatic.

Ian, Ron Brookman, S.E., has endorsed the laws of physics, which would include Newton's Universal Law of Gravitation. Theories of gravity involve questions of why it works, not that it works, and thus are outside the scope of most engineers' interest. There's no reason to investigate whether gravity exists. As usual, you're being silly.

False. Ron Brookman implicitly rejects the laws of physics by being a member of Gage's group.

There's no reason to investigate what happened on 9/11 either, Brian.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your persistent lies are getting quite tiresome. Dr. Harris is not independent, because he was appointed to a committee by NIST. This shows that he is clearly known to, and well-regarded by, NIST and thus not independent. He was also a co-author on the ASCE Pentagon report, which makes him part of the 9/11 Establishment. The claim that he is independent is absurd.

Ian, RGT asked me my opinion. Thus your claim that nobody cares about it is counterfactual and ignorant.

There is certainly a reason to investigate 9/11: to answer the 91% of the widows' questions that were not answered, to address the 115 omissions and distortions catalogued by Dr. Griffin, to answer about the mechanism of the destruction of the towers that NIST did not address, and to provide a believable answer as to what happened to building 7.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, nice job of "definition mining". Under your definition of independent, a judge who took a bribe rendered an independent decision."

Wrong again, ass face.

Independent is defined as not dependent."

Independent adj Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity

Now, either prove Dr. Harris is dependent or beholden to NIST, or STFU.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your persistent lies are getting quite tiresome. Dr. Harris is not independent, because he was appointed to a committee by NIST.

He's independent, Brian. Nobody cares about your hair-splitting babblings.

He was also a co-author on the ASCE Pentagon report, which makes him part of the 9/11 Establishment. The claim that he is independent is absurd.

There is no "9/11 establishment". There is reality and insanity. Harris is on the side of reality, you are on the side of insanity.

Ian, RGT asked me my opinion. Thus your claim that nobody cares about it is counterfactual and ignorant.

Nobody cares.

There is certainly a reason to investigate 9/11: to answer the 91% of the widows' questions that were not answered, to address the 115 omissions and distortions catalogued by Dr. Griffin, to answer about the mechanism of the destruction of the towers that NIST did not address, and to provide a believable answer as to what happened to building 7.

So in other words, there's no reason to investigate 9/11.

 
At 20 November, 2010 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...There is certainly a reason to investigate 9/11: to answer the 91% of the widows' questions that were not answered...[blah][blah][blah]."

Questions are NOT evidence, bug.fuck.

 
At 20 November, 2010 13:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

The fact that you continue to argue, ludicrously, that the recipient of a NIST appointment to a prestigious committee is independent of NIST instead of simply naming another one of the ten million or so independent engineers that you claim support NIST, only further demonstrates that you can't name any independent engineer who expresses confidence in the NIST report.

 
At 20 November, 2010 13:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I never said questions were evidence. Unanswered questions are reasons that further investigation is needed.

Do you play with dolls much? Action figures? Your fondness for the straw man argument suggests that you do.

 
At 20 November, 2010 13:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, I never said questions were evidence. Unanswered questions are reasons that further investigation is needed...Do you play with dolls much? Action figures? Your fondness for the straw man argument suggests that you do."

You wouldn't know a straw man argument if it jumped up and bit you on the ass, bug.fuck.

Would you like an example of a straw man argument, felcher?

The idea that Dr. James R. Harris is not independent of NIST, when he owns his own company and has never taken so much as a dime in renumeration from NIST, is a straw man argument.

And I'll leave playing with dolls to you, Mr. LimpWrist.

Go honk a cock, bug.fuck.

 
At 20 November, 2010 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gutterball, your ball just broke a windshield in the parking lot is how bad that shot was.

I know just fine what a straw man is. You don't.

Under your definition, a bribed judge qualifies as independent. You're your own straw man.

 
At 20 November, 2010 15:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Under your definition, a bribed judge qualifies as independent."

Another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your stupidity, ass munch?

You couldn't come up with a relevant analogy to save your so-called life.

In fact, my point is 180 degrees out of phase with your idiotic analogy--and I'll bet a month's pay that you can't understand why you're completely off-base.

Go for it and impress us again with the breadth and depth of your stupidity, Mr Janitor.

 
At 21 November, 2010 06:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I suspect that the vast majority of engineers have no opinion about the NIST reports because they have not read them, and have no intention of reading them. Probably most engineers in the world have never even heard of Building 7.

What does failure to expressly approve of or expressly object to something mean? Can you think of an instance in which widespread silence implies something besides acceptance?

... I am myself agnostic on controlled demolition...

For somebody without an opinion, you sure talk a hell of a lot. You sort of play the same game as Greening and Cyril Wecht -- distance yourself from the most ludicrous claims while criticizing every possible aspect of the official story.

 
At 21 November, 2010 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall wrote: In fact, my point is 180 degrees out of phase with your idiotic analogy

I don't doubt it, and I don't think it's something for you to brag about.

GutterBall wrote: I'd bet a month's pay

Now there's a game that's not worth the candle.

RGT, silence can mean apathy, ignorance, cowardice.

Why shouldn't I criticize idiots on both sides? I want the truth! I want an official report that actually explains to me why the towers came down, and does it honestly, completely, and credibly.
I don't want to have to wonder if somebody blew up the twin towers in broad daylight on TV and my government and the news media and the academic engineering community are too cowardly to admit it.

 
At 21 November, 2010 13:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, I never said questions were evidence. Unanswered questions are reasons that further investigation is needed.

Well, not if the questions are irrelevant nonsense like the ones you keep babbling about.

I want the truth!

No you don't. You want validation for your idiotic ideas. You want the world to recognize the genius of an unemployed middle-aged janitor.

I want an official report that actually explains to me why the towers came down, and does it honestly, completely, and credibly.

The NIST report. Read it.

I don't want to have to wonder if somebody blew up the twin towers in broad daylight on TV and my government and the news media and the academic engineering community are too cowardly to admit it.

Going to a psychiatrist and taking the medications he/she prescribes for you will go a long way towards helping you not wonder about this anymore.

 
At 21 November, 2010 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the NIST report is not honest, complete, or credible. That's why I want a new investigation.

Maybe psychiatric meds are a good enough answer for you, but I doubt there's any practical medication that could make me forget I was medicated--and thus it would be impossible for me to erase my doubts with medication.

That you prefer medication to truth shows where your precious delusions about 9/11 are coming from.

 
At 21 November, 2010 13:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the NIST report is not honest, complete, or credible. That's why I want a new investigation.

And as I've said a million times before, nobody gives a crap about your opinion of the NIST report.

Maybe psychiatric meds are a good enough answer for you, but I doubt there's any practical medication that could make me forget I was medicated--and thus it would be impossible for me to erase my doubts with medication.

I'm trying to help you live a normal life. Normal people don't live with their parents at age 57 while stalking people online and babbling about nonsensical conspiracy theories all day.

That you prefer medication to truth shows where your precious delusions about 9/11 are coming from.

See what I mean?

 
At 21 November, 2010 17:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...I don't doubt it, and I don't think it's something for you to brag about."

Says whom? A clown who doesn't know the meaning of the words independent or plagiarize?

Idiot continues, "...Now there's a game that's not worth the candle."

I make more money in a month than you make in a year, Mr. Janitor.

Now, when are you going to prove that Dr Harris is dependent on NIST? And an unpaid appointment to an unrelated committee isn't proof of anything.

Put up, or shut up, Mr. LimpWrist.

 
At 21 November, 2010 20:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, look at yourself trying to litigate the meaning of "indepencence" instead of simply citing one of the other 5 million or so engineers that you claim has endorsed the findings of the NIST report. You prove my point with every post.

"Independent" is not the opposite of "dependent". Would you seriously claim that until the Declaration of Independence was made, that the colonies were "dependent" on the British state?

A judge who has accepted a bribe is obviously not rendering an independent decision. No showing that the judge is "dependant" on the bribe-given need be made. You obviously don't understand the concept of "independence" in the context of public ethics.

In public ethics it is important to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. Accepting gifts, hookers, appointments to committees, superbowl tickets, golf junkets to St. Andrews--all of these compromise independence, much as you may wish to deny it.

 
At 21 November, 2010 20:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, silence can mean apathy, ignorance, cowardice.

In the context of a government presenting its findings, what does widespread failure to oppose those findings mean?

Why shouldn't I criticize idiots on both sides? I want the truth!

Fair enough. Keep in mind that not all truth is meaningful. It's possible to get lost in the details, hint hint.

I want an official report that actually explains to me why the towers came down, and does it honestly, completely, and credibly.

What's wrong with this one?

I don't want to have to wonder if somebody blew up the twin towers in broad daylight on TV and my government and the news media and the academic engineering community are too cowardly to admit it.

You don't have to.

 
At 21 November, 2010 20:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, this is why you're so entertaining and hilarious. You're babbling about the definition of "independent" and "dependent" because you'll never, ever concede any point, no matter how small and irrelevant. In the process, of course, you make yourself look like even more of an ignorant lunatic by making absurd analogies that make it clear that you don't understand the meaning of these words.

Bravo, Brian, you're really above and beyond any other "truther" (except maybe Nico) in the amusement department.

 
At 21 November, 2010 21:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, IMHO widespread failure to oppose the government's findings represents apathy, ignorance, and fear.

I'm not getting lost in the details. The 9/11 Commission failed to answer 273 of the widows' 300 questions, and NIST failed to discuss the most baffling aspects of the buildings' destruction.

What's wrong with the 9/11 Commission Report? Umm, how about 115 omissions and distortions, failure to answer 273 of the widows' 300 questions, failure to nail NORAD for its lies about the air defense, essentially making up its facts about air defense so they could write a story that made some kind of sense, reliance on CIA transcripts of testimony extracted under torture for most of its information about al Qaeda?

I do have to wonder if somebody blew up the twin towers because a lot of evidence points to it, the official denials are blatantly dishonest, and unlike y'all here I am quite sure that any practical psychiatric medication will leave me with sufficient resources intact to know that any chemical shift in attitude is simply a chemical shift in attitude with no evidentiary or epistemological justification whatsoever. You guys may live in a fantasy world, but I live in the real world no matter what.

 
At 21 November, 2010 22:05, Blogger Ian G. said...

IMHO widespread failure to oppose the government's findings represents apathy, ignorance, and fear.

Ah yes, in his "humble" opinion, anyone who disagrees with the delusional beliefs of a failed janitor and sex stalker is an ignorant coward.

And once again:

Nobody cares about your widows, there was nothing "baffling" about the towers collapse (unless you're an ignorant lunatic), David Ray Griffin is a liar and charlatan, and KSM wasn't confessing to planning the attacks under duress of torture.

You guys may live in a fantasy world, but I live in the real world no matter what.

See what I mean, Brian? You can't beat this kind of stuff for pure entertainment value.

Also, go see a psychiatrist and take the medications he/she prescribes for you. It will help you get your life in order.

 
At 21 November, 2010 22:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

1368 architects and engineers think the destruction of the towers was baffling unless you factor in the possibility of controlled demolition.

Last time I checked, they had 50 PhD signatories, and probably there are 100 now.

Are you claiming KSM wasn't tortured? 183 waterboard sessions doesn't count? That was just for fun?

 
At 21 November, 2010 23:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...1368 architects and engineers think the destruction of the towers was baffling unless you factor in the possibility of controlled demolition."

(1,368/600,000) * 100 = 0.23%

Sorry nut bag, but 0.23% doesn't begin to rise to the level of statistical significance.

In the real World, as opposed to the fantasy World you inhabit, 1,368 fringe nutters are still 1,368 fringe nutters.

 
At 21 November, 2010 23:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the fringe nutters are the independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. You can't even name ONE.

 
At 22 November, 2010 00:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, the fringe nutters are the independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. You can't even name ONE."

Yes I can, Pinocchio.

His name is Dr. James R. Harris, the president of JR Harris and Company. He is an independent structural engineer with 15 employees. In addition, JR Harris and Company brings in ~$1.1 million in annual sales.

And I gave you his phone number in order to confirm my claim.

(303) 860-9021

Why are you afraid to call the number, Pinocchio?

And changing the definition if independent to suit your never ending stream of lies doesn't qualify as proof, Pinocchio.

Pinocchio continues to lie, "'Independent' is not the opposite of 'dependent.'"

The prefix "in" translates to not--you illiterate shit bag. Thus, independent means "not dependent."

From the definition of the word independent we read the following:

Independent adj Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity

What part of "not dependent" don't you understand, Pinocchio?

 
At 22 November, 2010 00:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, the fringe nutters are the independent engineers who endorse the NIST report. You can't even name ONE."

Here's a list of 8 independent engineers from MIT who endorse the NIST Report:

[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.

Now, what were you saying--you illiterate shit bag?

Squirm, Brian, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 22 November, 2010 04:26, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, IMHO widespread failure to oppose the government's findings represents apathy, ignorance, and fear.

That just restates the categories of "don't care", "don't know", and "know but do nothing". You still cannot estimate who believes the official story and who doesn't.

I'm not getting lost in the details. The 9/11 Commission failed to answer 273 of the widows' 300 questions, and NIST failed to discuss the most baffling aspects of the buildings' destruction.

Why are the unanswered questions and baffling aspects relevant?

...115 omissions and distortions, failure to answer 273 of the widows' 300 questions, failure to nail NORAD for its lies about the air defense, essentially making up its facts about air defense so they could write a story that made some kind of sense...

There you go again. You insist that the small questions somehow outweigh the large answers, but you can't explain why.

I do have to wonder if somebody blew up the twin towers because a lot of evidence points to it, the official denials are blatantly dishonest,...

"Blatantly dishonest" in what way? Factually inaccurate? Or you just don't buy it for some reason?

 
At 22 November, 2010 06:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

1368 architects and engineers think the destruction of the towers was baffling unless you factor in the possibility of controlled demolition.

Nobody cares about these losers, petgoat. The fact that your name isn't among the 1368 just shows how much of a colossal failure your life has been, since Gage's standards of what makes one an architect or engineer aren't particularly high.

Last time I checked, they had 50 PhD signatories, and probably there are 100 now.

petgoat, you're not very good at making estimates, since by now, you thought you'd have your "meatball on a fork" model published in a engineering journal.

Are you claiming KSM wasn't tortured? 183 waterboard sessions doesn't count? That was just for fun?

No, idiot. I'm saying that his claims of responsibility for the attack came well before he was tortured.

Jesus, petgoat, you like to babble about Operation Bojinka all the time. Who was behind that one? KSM? Wow, you don't say!

GutterBall, the fringe nutters are the independent engineers who endorse the NIST report.

Stop lying, petgoat.

 
At 22 November, 2010 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, don't you don't even know how to Google? The first guy on your list, Eduardo Kausel, co-wrote a paper with Nicholas Carino, a NIST employee who worked on the draft if the NIST report. He also was the mentor and thesis supervisor of an MIT doctoral student, Monica Starnes, who in her dissertation thanks Dr. John Carino, "my advisor at NIST", and "Dr. John Gross" (ever heard of him?), one of her "colleagues at NIST's Structures Division". She also acknowledges two years of funding from NIST for her investigation.

Dr. Gross and Dr. Starnes are both named as NIST employees in NIST's "Project 6--Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis" report of October 19, 2004. And guess who was listed as a contractor? Dr. Eduardo Kausel.

Dr. Eduardo Kausel is not independent, GutterBall. Of course he's going to support the NIST report. He wrote it! Now go outside and play.

 
At 22 November, 2010 10:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

The first guy on your list, Eduardo Kausel, co-wrote a paper with Nicholas Carino, a NIST employee who worked on the draft if the NIST report....

OK, now I get it: basically, Bill, you have to find an engineer who has spent the last 20 years in deep meditation at the Rongbuk Monestary, because petgoat is going to play "six degrees of separation" with any engineer you bring up to tie them to the NIST report.

Anyway, petgoat, have you found any independent engineers who endorse the theory of gravity? Given the 18 hours or so a day you spend stalking people online, this shouldn't be too hard.

 
At 22 November, 2010 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr. Kausel's position as a contractor on the report is a direct connection to NIST and not "six degrees of separation" as you claim. It's not my fault that you're not smart enough to realize that.

20 years in a monastery is not necessary, just freedom from conflicts of interest shown by connections to NIST. GutterBall is an incompetent liar to claim Kausel is independent.

 
At 22 November, 2010 11:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still working on the definition of the word independent, bug.fuck?

I still don't see any proof of Dr. JR Harris' dependence on NIST.

And coauthoring a paper for NIST doesn't make one dependent on NIST either.

Try again, fuck 'tard.

 
At 22 November, 2010 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your inability to recognize the conflicts of interest represented by receiving a NIST appointment to a committee and by serving as a consultant to NIST shows you to be a gullible individual with little understanding of the world. Neither Dr. Harris nor Dr. Kausel are independent. Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?

 
At 22 November, 2010 11:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Dr. Eduardo Kausel is not independent, GutterBall. Of course he's going to support the NIST report. He wrote it!"

Liar! Eduardo Kausel is listed under Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation as an Indepdendent Contractor along with Ajmal Abbasi, David Parks and Daniele Veniziano.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, BUG.FUCK!

Once again, you're proven to be the most despicable liar who ever walked this planet. You are lower than a snakes belly. In fact, you would lie to your mother if you thought for one moment that you could gain an advantage from the lie.

Now, go play in the middle of CA highway 101--you shit-eating maggot.

 
At 22 November, 2010 11:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Dr. Kausel's position as a contractor on the report is a direct connection to NIST and not "six degrees of separation" as you claim. It's not my fault that you're not smart enough to realize that.

Stop lying, petgoat.

20 years in a monastery is not necessary, just freedom from conflicts of interest shown by connections to NIST.

...that you'll find playing "six degrees of separation".

GutterBall is an incompetent liar to claim Kausel is independent.

False. You're a delusional sex-stalking liar for claming otherwise.

Neither Dr. Harris nor Dr. Kausel are independent. Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?

False. You lose again, petgoat. You're never going to get another investigation, you're never going to get a job, and you're never going to get laid.

 
At 22 November, 2010 11:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, your inability to recognize the conflicts of interest represented by receiving a NIST appointment to a committee and by serving as a consultant to NIST shows you to be a gullible individual with little understanding of the world."

Bullshit. Independent is defined as not dependent. In fact, you've never proven a conflict of interest. All you managed to do is change the meaning of well-defined words to suit your never ending stream of lies, obfuscation and spin.

Bug.fuck continues to lie through his teeth, "...Neither Dr. Harris nor Dr. Kausel are independent. Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?"

Says whom? A compulsive liar who claims Dr. Eduardo Kausel is the "author" of the NIST Report?

Too bad I just proved that you're a God damned liar.

Now, go play in the middle of CA highway 101--you lying sack-of-shit.

 
At 22 November, 2010 12:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Dr. Eduardo Kausel is not independent, GutterBall. Of course he's going to support the NIST report. He wrote it!"

Well, I've proven that statement is a bald-faced lie; should we expect anything less than unadulterated lies from a 9/11 "truther"? I think not.

Who are the real authors of the NIST Report, you ask? Read on...

The members of the National Construction Safety Team for the WTC Investigation are listed as follows: S. Shyam Sunder, William Grosshandler, H.S. LewRichard Bukowski, Fahim Sadek, Frank Gayle, Richard Gann, John Gross, Therese McAllister, Jason Averill, Randy Lawson, Harold E. Nelson and Stephen Cauffman.

Notice that none of the names that comprise the National Construction Safety Team are found in the list I presented above.

That said, you have some explaining to do, bug.fuck.

Now, I want a formal apology for all the lies you've told in this thread. I also want you to apologize to Ian and RGT--you scurrilous son-of-a-bitch.

Now, get on with the formal, public apology--you one-balled abortion.

 
At 22 November, 2010 16:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the fact that Dr. Kausel had a contract with NIST to work on the NIST report shows that he is not an independent commentator. He has a conflict of interest. He would be disqualified from serving on a jury involving NIST.

That you prefer to emulate Bill Clinton and litigate the definition of "independent" rather than simply reach into your bag of tricks and pull out one of a million independent engineers you claim has endorsed the NIST report shows that you don't have any.

By your definition of "independent" a bribed judge is independent of the briber.

Dr. Kausel is listed as a contributor to the NIST report. Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?

 
At 22 November, 2010 17:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, the fact that Dr. Kausel had a contract with NIST to work on the NIST report shows that he is not an independent commentator. He has a conflict of interest. He would be disqualified from serving on a jury involving NIST."

Wrong again, bug.fuck!

You just claimed that Eduardo Kausel is the "author" of the NIST Report. In fact, that's a bald-faced lie.

FACT: Eduardo Kausel is listed under Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation as an Independent Contractor along with Ajmal Abbasi, David Parks and Daniele Veniziano.

A contributor for public comment makes recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. The contributor for public comment has absolutely no influence over the content of the NIST Report, nor is he or she allowed to contribute to the content of the NIST Report. Additionally, contributors for public comment are--by definition--independent of NIST.

Bug.fuck continues to lie, "...Dr. Kausel is listed as a contributor to the NIST report."

No, he's not. He's listed as an independent contractor, he didn't write one jot or tittle of the NIST Report--and no amount of spin, lies and obfuscation on your part will ever change the facts.

Bug.fuck continues to lie, "...Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?"

I've already done so, asshole. For example, Dr. James R. Harris and eight independent engineers from MIT.

Now, you've [1] been caught lying about Eduardo Kausel, and refuse to address [2] the endorsements made by John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm and Yossi Sheffi. Hence, I've named nine (9) independent engineers who endorse the NIST Report.

Thus, not only do you lose the debate again, you stand exposed as a liar and a shit-eating maggot.

Now, go play in the freeway, gay boy.

 
At 22 November, 2010 17:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, the fact that Dr. Kausel had a contract with NIST to work on the NIST report shows that he is not an independent commentator. He has a conflict of interest. He would be disqualified from serving on a jury involving NIST."

Wrong again, bug.fuck!

You just claimed that Eduardo Kausel is the "author" of the NIST Report. In fact, that's a bald-faced lie.

FACT: Eduardo Kausel is listed under Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation as an Independent Contractor along with Ajmal Abbasi, David Parks and Daniele Veniziano.

A contributor for public comment makes recommendations for changes to codes, standards, and practices. The contributor for public comment has absolutely no influence over the content of the NIST Report, nor is he or she allowed to contribute to the content of the NIST Report. Additionally, contributors for public comment are--by definition--independent of NIST.

Bug.fuck continues to lie, "...Dr. Kausel is listed as a contributor to the NIST report."

No, he's not. He's listed as an independent contractor, he didn't write one jot or tittle of the NIST Report--and no amount of spin, lies and obfuscation on your part will ever change the facts.

Continued...

 
At 22 November, 2010 17:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Bug.fuck continues to lie, "...Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?"

I've already done so, asshole. For example, Dr. James R. Harris and eight independent engineers from MIT.

Now, you've [1] been caught lying about Eduardo Kausel, and refuse to address [2] the endorsements made by John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm and Yossi Sheffi. Hence, I've named nine (9) independent engineers who endorse the NIST Report.

Thus, not only do you lose the debate again, you stand exposed as a liar and a shit-eating maggot.

Now, go play in the freeway, gay boy.

 
At 22 November, 2010 19:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, the fact that Dr. Kausel had a contract with NIST to work on the NIST report shows that he is not an independent commentator.

False.

He has a conflict of interest. He would be disqualified from serving on a jury involving NIST.

False and false. It's amazing to me what you'll do to keep your 9/11 "truth" delusions going, petgoat. I guess reality is too unbearable, since you'd have to face the fact that you're a failure in all aspects of life.

That you prefer to emulate Bill Clinton and litigate the definition of "independent" rather than simply reach into your bag of tricks and pull out one of a million independent engineers you claim has endorsed the NIST report shows that you don't have any.

False. You're the one babbling about the meaning of "independent", petgoat.


By your definition of "independent" a bribed judge is independent of the briber.

Such desperation, petgoat. What are you afraid of?

Dr. Kausel is listed as a contributor to the NIST report. Why can't you find an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report?

Dr. Kausel is independent. You lose again, petgoat, as always.

 
At 22 November, 2010 23:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Dr. Kausel is listed as a contractor under "Project 6 Staff" in NIST's 10-19-04 powerpoint. I didn't say he was the "author" of anything. I said, in exasperation at your continued insistence that he was independent, that he wrote the report. He was on the staff. He is not independent. I don't know who told you he was just a commentator, but that was not true.
All you needed to do was google
"Project 6--Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis" but apparently such skills are above your pay grade.

So, are you maintaining that he was on the staff for Project 6 but did not contribute to the report?

He's listed not as an "independent contractor" but as an "Expert contractor".

Dr. Harris is not independent because he was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee.

Also, you have not shown any evidence that Dr. Kausel or any of the other names you have listed have endorsed the NIST report. Claiming that a paper written several years before the NIST report was released constitutes an endorsement of that report has certain problems, most reasonably intelligent people will see.

Ian, I'm not afraid of anything. I am offended by stupid, transparent lies about 9/11.

 
At 23 November, 2010 06:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, Dr. Kausel is listed as a contractor under "Project 6 Staff" in NIST's 10-19-04 powerpoint. I didn't say he was the "author" of anything. I said, in exasperation at your continued insistence that he was independent, that he wrote the report. He was on the staff. He is not independent. I don't know who told you he was just a commentator, but that was not true.
All you needed to do was google
"Project 6--Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis" but apparently such skills are above your pay grade.


Nobody cares, petgoat.

Dr. Harris is not independent because he was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee.

False. He is independent, petgoat. Squealing about it doesn't change things.

Also, you have not shown any evidence that Dr. Kausel or any of the other names you have listed have endorsed the NIST report.

False. He endorsed the report, petgoat. Learn to read.

Ian, I'm not afraid of anything. I am offended by stupid, transparent lies about 9/11.

What lies? You mean like "free-fall speed" or "set up to fail?" I mean, these are transparent lies that you repeat constantly because you're desperate for 9/11 "truth" to be true, since you think it will bring you fame and fortune and you'll then be able to buy that victorian dream home in San Francisco and have a beautiful family with Willie Rodriguez.

Seek professional help, petgoat.

 
At 23 November, 2010 21:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't say the WTC fell at essentially free-fall speed. NIST does. Shyam Sunder does. Take it up with them.

As to your NIST endorsers, kindly prove your claim that the named people endorsed the NIST report. Note: a paper published three years before the NIST report was released is not an endorsement of the report.

I notice GutterBall has humiliated himself enough to absent himself.

I hope things will quiet down enough that I can answer RGT's grown-up-type questions without fearing that my answers will be buried under slathers of lying spam.

 
At 23 November, 2010 23:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...I notice GutterBall has humiliated himself enough to absent himself."

No, wrong again, fuck 'tard. In fact, I'm fed up with the lies, obfuscation, spin and circular logic that informs every post you make to this forum--you jackass.

Believe it or not, fuck 'tard, I have pressing and important work to do; thus, I'll let my comments stand and let you stew in your juices. That said, you didn't win the "debate," because you utterly failed to prove that the engineers I offered as evidence are dependent on NIST--and you never will, shit-for-brains. After all, you're illiterate, which means the definition of the word independent is beyond your severely limited cognitive "skills."

Besides, don't you have a floor to mop, Brian?

 
At 24 November, 2010 03:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc)!

I hate to break this to you jackass; however, you stand exposed as a liar once again.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Enjoy your plate of crow, Pinocchio.

 
At 24 November, 2010 07:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I don't say the WTC fell at essentially free-fall speed. NIST does. Shyam Sunder does. Take it up with them.

False. You say it by quote-mining the NIST report. Why should I take it up with NIST if they didn't say what you claim they did.

As to your NIST endorsers, kindly prove your claim that the named people endorsed the NIST report.

We already did. Learn to read. Learn to Google.

I hope things will quiet down enough that I can answer RGT's grown-up-type questions without fearing that my answers will be buried under slathers of lying spam.

Brian, if you'd stop squealing about NIST and widows and meatballs and Willie Rodriguez, there would be nobody posting here anymore. We do it for the entertainment value of reading your insanity.

 
At 24 November, 2010 08:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I needn't prove "dependence". It is sufficient to show that your guys Harris and Kausel are not independent--Harris because he was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee, and Kausel because he was an "Expert contractor" in "Project 6" of the NIST report and because a student whose PhD thesis, based on her work funded by NIST, he supervised was herself an author of the NIST report.

I'm sorry you don't understand things like conflict of interest and independence, but your educational deficits, your lack of real-world experience, and your ignorance about things most people know from reading the newspaper is not my fault.

 
At 24 November, 2010 08:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, nobody cares who you consider to be independent. You can babble about it all day and night here, but the fact of the matter is that you will never get your new investigation. Deal with it.

 
At 24 November, 2010 11:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, I needn't prove "dependence". It is sufficient to show that your guys Harris and Kausel are not independent--Harris because he was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee, and Kausel because he was an "Expert contractor" in "Project 6" of the NIST report and because a student whose PhD thesis, based on her work funded by NIST, he supervised was herself an author of the NIST report."

Wrong again, bug.fuck.

You don't have the power to define the meaning of words. This isn't Alice in Wonderland, motherfucker.

The prefix "in" translates to not--you illiterate shit bag. Thus, independent is defined as "not dependent."

From the definition of the word independent we read the following:

Independent adj Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity

Thus, you haven't proven anything.

Furthermore, you're a liar. Eduardo Kausel is listed under Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation as an Indepdendent Contractor along with Ajmal Abbasi, David Parks and Daniele Veniziano.

And we can add another independent engineer to the list: Leslie E. Robertson. So, that's ten (10) independent engineers who endorse the NIST Report. It's not looking good for you, ass-face.

So, in summary, you're an illiterate who's incapable of telling the truth.

That's quite a combination, bug.fuck: Stupid and dishonest.

Stupidity and dishonesty are valuable characteristics if one endeavors to make waves in the 9/11 "truth" movement; however, they will be of little avail in the word of debate.

Have a nice day, Pinocchio.

 
At 24 November, 2010 11:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, I needn't prove "dependence". It is sufficient to show that your guys Harris and Kausel are not independent--Harris because he was appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee, and Kausel because he was an "Expert contractor" in "Project 6" of the NIST report and because a student whose PhD thesis, based on her work funded by NIST, he supervised was herself an author of the NIST report."

Wrong again, bug.fuck.

You don't have the power to define the meaning of words. This isn't Alice in Wonderland, motherfucker.

The prefix "in" translates to not--you illiterate shit bag. Thus, independent is defined as "not dependent."

From the definition of the word independent we read the following:

Independent adj Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity

Thus, you haven't proven anything.

Continued...

 
At 24 November, 2010 11:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Furthermore, you're a liar. Eduardo Kausel is listed under Draft for Public Comment Contributors to the Investigation as an Indepdendent Contractor along with Ajmal Abbasi, David Parks and Daniele Veniziano.

And we can add another independent engineer to the list: Leslie E. Robertson. So, that's ten (10) independent engineers who endorse the NIST Report. It's not looking good for you, ass-face.

So, in summary, you're an illiterate who's incapable of telling the truth.

That's quite a combination, bug.fuck: Stupid and dishonest.

Stupidity and dishonesty are valuable characteristics if one endeavors to make waves in the 9/11 "truth" movement; however, they will be of little avail in the word of debate.

Have a nice day, Pinocchio.

 
At 25 November, 2010 12:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gutterball, Leslie Robertson is not independent. His firm had a contract with NIST.

While you're litigating semantics a la Bill Clinton, please explain to us the meaning of the word "invaluable".

 
At 25 November, 2010 17:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Gutterball, Leslie Robertson is not independent. His firm had a contract with NIST.

Nobody cares, Brian.

While you're litigating semantics a la Bill Clinton, please explain to us the meaning of the word "invaluable".

"Invaluable" is valuable beyond measure. I'll use it in a sentence: "Brian Good's deranged, ignorant babbling about the WTC collapse and widow questions and Willie Rodriguez provides invaluable entertainment for those who want a good laugh."

 
At 26 November, 2010 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Nobody cares" that Leslie Robertson's firm had a contract with NIST and thus Robertson is not independent?

I care, and I'm not nobody. Your inability to name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report is a clear indication that the NIST report is not reliable.

 
At 26 November, 2010 11:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

"Nobody cares" that Leslie Robertson's firm had a contract with NIST and thus Robertson is not independent?

Well, nobody cares except you, because you're an obsessed lunatic who keeps babbling about this for no reason.

I care, and I'm not nobody.

Actually, you're pretty much the definition of nobody: an unemployed loser with mental illness.

Your inability to name an independent engineer who endorses the NIST report is a clear indication that the NIST report is not reliable.

Um, no.

 
At 26 November, 2010 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Gutterball, Leslie Robertson is not independent. His firm had a contract with NIST."

Lying again, Brian? Of course you are.

Read on...

NIST wrote, "...Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. SAP2000 is a software package for performing finite element calculations for the analysis and design of building structures. These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the 6 subterranean levels...LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span."

If LERA didn't provide the critical information to NIST, which only LERA could provide, who would make the information available, Pinocchio?

LERA was contracted as an expert witness--nothing more, nothing less.

Thus, you have NOT proven a conflict of interest.

Again, telling a half-truth is still a whole lie, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 November, 2010 14:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, ""...Robertson is not independent. His firm LERA had a contract with NIST."

Lying again, Brian? Of course you are.

Read on...

NIST wrote, "...Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. SAP2000 is a software package for performing finite element calculations for the analysis and design of building structures. These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the 6 subterranean levels...LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span."

Continued...

 
At 26 November, 2010 14:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

If LERA didn't provide the critical information to NIST, which only LERA could provide, who would make the information available, Pinocchio?

LERA was contracted as an expert witness--nothing more, nothing less.

Thus, you have NOT proven a conflict of interest.

Again, telling a half-truth is still a whole lie, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 November, 2010 19:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

LERA had a contract with NIST, so Leslie Robertson's opinion about the report is not independent.

You claim a million independent engineers endorse the NIST report, but you can't name even one.

 
At 26 November, 2010 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't need to prove anything, GutterBall. The nature of conflict of interest is that simple appearances are sufficient. LERA's contract with NIST creates appearances.

 
At 26 November, 2010 20:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

LERA had a contract with NIST, so Leslie Robertson's opinion about the report is not independent..

Back to playing "six degrees of separation", huh Brian? Well, my uncle Steve, who is a civil engineer and had never heard of 9/11 until a week ago because he had spent the past 20 years of his life at the Rongbuk Monastery, endorsed the NIST report.

You claim a million independent engineers endorse the NIST report, but you can't name even one.

He's named plenty, and now I've named one.

I don't need to prove anything, GutterBall. The nature of conflict of interest is that simple appearances are sufficient. LERA's contract with NIST creates appearances.

So how goes your efforts to get a new investigation, Brian? Are you any closer than you were yesterday?

 
At 27 November, 2010 02:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...The nature of conflict of interest is that simple appearances are sufficient. LERA's contract with NIST creates appearances."

Wrong again, Pinocchio.

LERA was brought in as an expert witness. Thus, you've utterly failed to substantiate your idiotic "conflict of interest" claim.

Try again, Pinocchio. And this time provide evidence to substantiate your assertions (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with an habitual liar and psychopath like Brian Good).

 
At 27 November, 2010 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your ignorance is an embarrassment to everyone who fails to correct you.

LERA had a contract with NIST. Therefore Leslie Robertson is not an engineer independent of NIST. Your continual trotting out of engineers tainted by associations with NIST as if they were independent experts is pathetic.

How come you can't find one independent engineer who endorses the NIST report? How come you are forced to cite papers written in 2002 as if they were endorsements of a 2005 report? Get a brain!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home