Saturday, November 13, 2010

Turns Out Al Capone's Vault Was A High Point

In Geraldo Rivera's career. Here's the nadir:


Note the bit where he talks to McIlvaine and he says "I don't want to get into the details of how you think he died." Could that possibly be because he doesn't want McIlvaine spoiling his "the family members are not like the nutjobs," conclusion? Let's remember that McIlvaine thinks his son died before either of the planes hit the buildings.

Labels: ,

113 Comments:

At 14 November, 2010 00:19, Blogger Alex said...

George Carlin said it best:


"There's three things I want if I'm ever in that condition. Three things I gotta have. Ice cream, morphine and television. You give me that ice cream every two hours. Give me that morphine, about...every ten minutes. And turn on the ******* TV! I wanna see Geraldo! And don't be coming to visit me. I got no time for live people. I'm brain-dead here. Ain't you people got no respect for the brain-dead? Hey, you gotta be brain-dead to watch Geraldo in the first place. You might as well watch it when you're clinically brain-dead. "

 
At 14 November, 2010 01:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"It's called the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin

 
At 14 November, 2010 05:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

OT: While browsing photos of mutants, I just stumbled across this.

 
At 14 November, 2010 06:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

OT: While browsing photos of mutants, I just stumbled across this.

I love "cowards use this". I guess he gets a lot more people flipping him the bird than people who want his DVDs.

 
At 14 November, 2010 07:46, Blogger avicenne said...

They're in a frenzy at 9/11 blogger. "Geraldo just removed himself from the list of media professionals who will be looking at criminal charges for the cover up of mass murder."

"We now have a new benchmark. Now, with regards to 9/11 Truth, we can use a reference point: Pre-Geraldo 9/11 Truth episode or Post-Geraldo 9/11 Truth episode."

OT: Classic comment, - "If you believe 9-11 was an inside job, you deserve to have somebody hit you with a baseball bat."

 
At 14 November, 2010 08:42, Blogger Triterope said...

Again, why is Fox reporting this garbage?

 
At 14 November, 2010 09:39, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Rivera comes across as a credulous moron. Is he really stupid enough to be impressed by the "1,000+ architects and engineers" assertion? I suspect some of this is pity for McIlvaine, but McIlvaine long ago burned up whatever sympathy he might have had. McIlvaine is at least transparent was to what he wants, he isn't interested "truth" as most people would understand it but rather having his hatred for his own country validated.

 
At 14 November, 2010 09:50, Blogger Garry said...

Geraldo Rivera's 'finest' moment was during the opening phases of Op IRAQI FREEDOM, when he was an embedded correspondent with the 101st. His career as a war correspondent came to an abrupt end when he decided - in a live broadcast on Fox - to sketch a map of Iraq in the sand to illustrate a forthcoming operation by Petraeus' division. Two days later, he was in Kuwait.

Still, as P. J. O'Rourke noted, Rivera's grasp of geography is so weak that if the Iraqis had been watching they would probably have shelled Damascus.

 
At 14 November, 2010 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Triterope wrote, "...Again, why is Fox reporting this garbage?"

Everything Faux Noose "reports" is garbage.

 
At 14 November, 2010 13:09, Blogger Alex said...

Damn straight Bill! If it's not on PRAVDA, it's not true!

 
At 14 November, 2010 14:11, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

10% rule applies. While it is sad to watch this guy surrender to delusion over the murder of his son, the simple fact is that he is being dishonoring his son's memory here.

I'd say shame on Geraldo but he is clearly unfamiliar with that word.

 
At 14 November, 2010 17:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ferris, how is Mr. McIlvaine dishonoring his son by asking obvious questions about Building 7, and pointing out obvious lies in the government's report about it?

 
At 14 November, 2010 19:09, Blogger Triterope said...

Ferris, how is Mr. McIlvaine dishonoring his son by asking obvious questions about Building 7, and pointing out obvious lies in the government's report about it?

Fuck you and your bare assertions, Brian. Your new snotty act is wearing thin.

 
At 14 November, 2010 22:21, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

God, November sweeps is such a god-awful thing to have to deal with, sometimes.

 
At 14 November, 2010 23:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Did any of you happen to notice that the final report for building 7 removed the claim, that was made several times in the draft report, that NIST's collapse analysis was "consistent with physical principles"? Now why do you suppose they removed it?

 
At 15 November, 2010 03:19, Blogger Shane R (Poker) said...

Hey Pat! It's me, Shane. Thought you might get a kick out of this lolthread over at ATS. http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread630076/pg1

They REALLY think they're on to something. Check it out. ;) See ya at G's!

 
At 15 November, 2010 03:44, Blogger C. said...

That poor father. I feel sorry for him. You can tell by his body language that he's not a well man. Fox is broadcasting this because they have 168 hours a week to fill and with Congress out of session, they have to put on a lot of filler material. This is nothing but exploitation of a grieving father. Just another reason to look at Fox and shake your head.

 
At 15 November, 2010 04:40, Blogger Triterope said...

This is nothing but exploitation of a grieving father.

Is it, though? They're giving him exactly what he wants: attention for his group and the Deep and Abiding Mystery of Building Seven. It's not the news media's job to tend to people's psychological problems.

The bigger problem, in my view, is that the story isn't newsworthy in any way. Their ballot initiative failed to even reach a ballot, and their TV commercial does nothing but implore people to donate money.

 
At 15 November, 2010 05:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Now why do you suppose they removed it?

You first. Why do you suppose they removed it? If you can't be bothered to advance a theory, I'm not going to either.

 
At 15 November, 2010 06:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ferris, how is Mr. McIlvaine dishonoring his son by asking obvious questions about Building 7, and pointing out obvious lies in the government's report about it?

What "obvious lies" are those, Brian?

 
At 15 November, 2010 07:48, Blogger Bill said...

It still amazes me that truthers have to cling to Building 7. It's so blatantly apparent that they are saying "Well yeah our ideas with the towers are ridiculously kooky. But hey, look at this instead! Its not as kooky. So please believe us."

 
At 15 November, 2010 07:48, Blogger Bill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 November, 2010 08:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

It still amazes me that truthers have to cling to Building 7. It's so blatantly apparent that they are saying "Well yeah our ideas with the towers are ridiculously kooky. But hey, look at this instead! Its not as kooky. So please believe us."

Actually, to me, the building 7 stuff is even more nuts. Basically, "truthers" are saying that the act of mass murder at the WTC, Pentagon, and PA wouldn't have been enough to rally America to war. No, Dick Cheney also needed to destroy an empty building that nobody had ever heard of before, and do it in a way that makes it superficially appear that it came down in a controlled demolition so that he'd be more likely to be caught.

And yes, I know about the Enron documents talking point. I guess destroying the whole building was easier than shredding the fucking things.

 
At 15 November, 2010 08:10, Blogger Pat said...

The Truthers are like the IRA; they think they only have to be right once, while the gubberment has to be right about everything.

Plus, in a detective novel, isn't it almost always some little detail, some little bit of trivia that trips up the killer?

 
At 15 November, 2010 08:57, OpenID ewing2001 said...

...pathetic, the whole american false right/left wing paradigm-crowd still slurps tea, while promoting that U.S. planned 9/11, instead of European/Kazachstan's eads, thales alenia space and co.

You will soon all work for EURO-defacebook and the last politician actors of the EU giggling already loud in South Korea, while looking for the final non google-"dollars" blocked by the same goldmanSachs- algoTrader-bastards rallying for Brazil, Russia, India, China since a few weeks before 9/11 , lol ; get a new 'job', all of u, lol ; hey: luke rudkowski and lady gaga for "prez", lol ;

 
At 15 November, 2010 09:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Hi Nico! Good to have you back, man.

 
At 15 November, 2010 09:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your belief that WTC7 was empty is your usual hysterical invention, and the fact that your colleagues in this forum allow such reality-free claims to stand without correction condemns their personal integrity.

Your supposition that the only motivation for bringing down WTC7 was to add to the casus belli for war is quite irrational, and the unjustified conclusion that you draw from it is even more so. You really should leave this kind of business to grown-ups.

 
At 15 November, 2010 09:27, Blogger avicenne said...

""No, Dick Cheney also needed to destroy an empty building that nobody had ever heard of before, and do it in a way that makes it superficially appear that it came down in a controlled demolition so that he'd be more likely to be caught."

It's completely insane. It's like Rumsfeld coming out and mentioning, the day before the attacks, the $2.3 trillion dollars, just in case people were too dense to make the connection themselves.

Then an understandably confused George Bush says - You mean you actually WANT people to make the connection?

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

It's less insane than NIST's collapse mechanism. It makes perfect sense if you suppose that WTC7 was intended to be demolished under the cover of the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC1, that something went wrong with the demo op, and somebody had to go in and fix it and set a bunch of fires to create a good cover story.

Rummy's press conference about the $2.3 trillion on 9/10 makes perfect sense if you suppose that he wants to bury the story under the events of the following day.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your belief that WTC7 was empty is your usual hysterical invention, and the fact that your colleagues in this forum allow such reality-free claims to stand without correction condemns their personal integrity.

Leaving aside the usual nonsensical blather from Brian Good, in what way was the building not empty by the time it collapsed? Or to put it another way, did anyone die in the collapse as they did at WTC 1&2?

Your supposition that the only motivation for bringing down WTC7 was to add to the casus belli for war is quite irrational, and the unjustified conclusion that you draw from it is even more so. You really should leave this kind of business to grown-ups.

My, such squealing! So Brian, why did they bring down WTC 7?

This is going to be fun...

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

It makes perfect sense if you suppose that WTC7 was intended to be demolished under the cover of the dust cloud from the collapse of WTC1, that something went wrong with the demo op, and somebody had to go in and fix it and set a bunch of fires to create a good cover story.

Yes, this makes perfect sense! Now, I'm sure you have boatloads of evidence for this, right Brian?

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:47, OpenID ewing2001 said...

i'm not *back, just on some 'web vacation' from somewhere else, means relaxing at screwloose is just fine ; check this out:

Obama wants to help India with Directed Enrgy Weapons : 04 November, 2010 http://www.countercurrents.org/freese041110.htm "...Obama and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh have a meeting scheduled in Delhi on November 8...Since ..Obama pledged in 2009 to seek a ban on space weapons, the United States should not be helping other countries develop these weapons...the U.S. government to drop remaining export restrictions on India organizations like the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) and the Defense Research and Development Organization (DRDO). ...An alarming 2000 report titled “Military Dimensions in the Future of the Indian Presence in Space” caused waves .... Perhaps most controversial was its suggestion that India could deploy a directed-energy weapon, such as a particle beam weapon, in space by 2010..." haha ; well alex jones should move to India and claim otherwise ; [see also my India-bulgaria alliance references at http://friendfeed.com/search?q=india+bulgaria&from=ewing2001 ]

well then of course yahoo is desperately trying to increase its friendship with china, while already almost killed by facebookMAIL and co... http://www.tradingmarkets.com/news/stock-alert/yhoo_alibaba-involved-in-resentment-with-yahoo-1307491.html

one more snippet, but that's way too much 'politics' already ; :
Iridium/Thales Alenia [incl. SpaceX] "upgrades" Hawaii ; http://satellite.tmcnet.com/topics/satellite/articles/117334-us-department-defense-awards-contract-iridium.htm ; http://www.satprnews.com/2010/11/10/iridium-communications-inc-in-the-us1-8-billion-financing-for-its-nexgen-satellite-constellation/ ; http://www.satprnews.com/2010/10/26/thales-to-build-81-satellites-for-iridium/


hey, still some real americans lft here on this blog? ; -)


best and regards plus greetings somehow to troy !! ;

 
At 15 November, 2010 16:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't know why "they" brought down building 7.

I don't even know that "they" brought down building 7.

I do know the official report is dishonest and unbelievable, and I think we need a thorough investigation with subpoena power, one that takes into consideration the fact that several government offices were housed in the building, including the largest CIA station outside of Washington.

 
At 15 November, 2010 16:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I do know the official report is dishonest and unbelievable, and I think we need a thorough investigation with subpoena power,

What's the advantage of "subpoena power"?

 
At 15 November, 2010 17:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

I don't even know that "they" brought down building 7.

I can tell you they didn't.

I do know the official report is dishonest and unbelievable, and I think we need a thorough investigation with subpoena power, one that takes into consideration the fact that several government offices were housed in the building, including the largest CIA station outside of Washington.

http://www.giveafuckometer.com/gafom.gif

 
At 15 November, 2010 17:59, Blogger Triterope said...

I still think most of the reason the conspiratards latched on WTC7 is the whole "pull it" thing. Here's a statement that can be twisted into an admission of guilt, uttered by a stereotypical Jew landlord. It fits so perfectly with their worldview.

 
At 15 November, 2010 18:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

I still think most of the reason the conspiratards latched on WTC7 is the whole "pull it" thing. Here's a statement that can be twisted into an admission of guilt, uttered by a stereotypical Jew landlord. It fits so perfectly with their worldview.

I think it's because it actually does look like a controlled demolition (at least from the north), so it gives them something to latch onto (the twin towers don't look like CD and of course were hit by airplanes).

 
At 15 November, 2010 22:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition and NIST's proposed collapse mechanism makes no sense whatsoever. It requires that 600-foot tall perimeter columns have their lateral report violently removed while showing virtually no reaction, that these columns then stand without lateral support, and that the shell of the building maintain its morphology while being nibbled away at the bottom.

 
At 16 November, 2010 06:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

It looks exactly like a controlled demolition and NIST's proposed collapse mechanism makes no sense whatsoever.

It looks like a controlled demolition because there were no cameras aimed at it from the south (for obvious reasons) and it looked undamaged from the north. Thus, to the ignorant and incompetent, it must be a controlled demolition, right?

Also, Brian, nobody cares what you think makes sense. You're the guy who came up with the loony "rake-on-rake" gibberish, remember?

 
At 16 November, 2010 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if there had been severe damage to the south, the building could not have hollowed out the way NIST claims it did. That's why NIST denies that structural damage from debris impact played any part in collapse initiation.

There's nothing insane about petgoat's rake on rake model. It very well illustrates the interaction of two separate structures that do not impact each other cleanly. It far better illustrates the impact of the alleged top "block" of the building on the undamaged lower portion than does the inept and demonstrably (proven by video) inapplicable piledriver model.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if there had been severe damage to the south, the building could not have hollowed out the way NIST claims it did. That's why NIST denies that structural damage from debris impact played any part in collapse initiation.

Can you ever back up your flat assertions with evidence, Brian?

There's nothing insane about petgoat's rake on rake model. It very well illustrates the interaction of two separate structures that do not impact each other cleanly. It far better illustrates the impact of the alleged top "block" of the building on the undamaged lower portion than does the inept and demonstrably (proven by video) inapplicable piledriver model.

Speaking of petgoat, he and I were e-mailing each other a few days ago. He told me the widows have no questions. I think he's right. What do you think, Brian? Is petgoat a liar, or are you a liar?

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...if there had been severe damage to the south, the building could not have hollowed out the way NIST claims it did. That's why NIST denies that structural damage from debris impact played any part in collapse initiation."

What's this fuck 'tard?

Building 7--Southwest Corner Damage Starting At Floor 18.

And don't you dare cite the NIST Report--you God damned hypocrite.

You're cherry picking the NIST Report and agreeing with it when it supports your lies and distortions, while simultaneously referring the NIST Report as a "fraud"--which amply demonstrates the cognitive dissonance, dishonesty and hypocrisy that informs every comment you splooge on this blog.

Go play in the middle of CA highway 101--you lying scumbag.

 
At 16 November, 2010 12:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...It far better illustrates the impact of the alleged top "block" of the building on the undamaged lower portion than does the inept and demonstrably (proven by video) inapplicable piledriver model."

More bullshit, eh fuck 'tard?

In fact, you'll need a gravitation collapse model in order to understand and explain the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

A gravitational collapse model teaches us that as the building began to collapse, the upper section accelerated to a speed of about 19 MPH before it stuck the next floor. Thus, the upper section hit the building with an impact of approximately 30 times the static weight of the upper section.

Continued...

 
At 16 November, 2010 12:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The World Trade Center Towers were built to withstand approximately 3 to 5 times the static weight of the next floor; however, the building was not able to withstand 30 times the static weight.

As a result, the columns and floor trusses were overwhelmed by the force of the upper section and snapped.

As the collapse progressed, the upper section did meet resistance from the remainder of the building. In fact, the upper section slowed from 19 MPH to 18 MPH; however, the next floor was crushed in half the time required to crush the first floor that was struck by the upper section because it is traveling not at 0 MPH, but 18. Now the upper section is traveling at 26 MPH, which means the upper section slammed into the next floor at 40 times the static weight of the upper section. As the upper section slammed into the next floor it met resistance and was slowed down to 25 MPH. As the upper section slammed through the next floor it accelerated up to 31 MPH and struck the next floor at 50 times the static weight, etc. Are you starting to get the picture?

Continued...

 
At 16 November, 2010 12:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Thus, the accelerations were very brief--a couple of milliseconds each. They were, however, at least 30 G's each. As a result, the average acceleration was 2/3 of the acceleration of gravity.

A 9/11 troofer named David Chandler measured the acceleration; however, his calculations are in error. His results show a dynamic force that's 1/3 of the static weight. This is the fundamental flaw of 9/11 "truth" "physics". Chandler underestimated the huge impact of the upper floors.

Continued...

 
At 16 November, 2010 12:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

For example, if you place a brick on your foot it will likely not injure your foot; however, if you raise the brick 12 feet in the air and drop it, what happens? The answer is simple: The brick will crush your foot.

And that's precisely what happened to the Twin Towers. And that's why the total collapse of the building was inevitable--because every floor that met the upper section added more dynamic force. In other words, as each floor is crushed by the upper section, the dynamic force increases in a cumulative fashion.

 
At 16 November, 2010 18:44, Blogger Triterope said...

That's very well said, Bill, but Brian Good here has trouble with concepts like "gravity makes things fall down." I fear you're talking over the lad's head.

 
At 17 November, 2010 00:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if petgoat says the widows have no questions, then petgoat is lying. Of course, since I know you are a liar, and since I know that you are incompetent to interpret simple declarative sentences, I have no reason to believe your account of petgoat's statement.

Gutterball, you stole Dave Thomas's stuff without attribution. There's a couple of problems with that, and petgoat's rake on rake model is one of them. You don't get a clean 19mph hit on your lower portion with 30X the static load because they're box columns hitting on box columns--they don't hammer, they shear. There are enormous frictional forces.

Another problem is that the upper part of the north tower clearly came apart before the region below the impact zone started failing so there was no piledriver.

Another problem is that the Thomas model requires the simultaneous vaporization of all 200-something columns on one floor to get the 19mph impact--which obviously isn't going to happen unless you have invisible satellites firing invisible secret disintegrator rays at them.

 
At 17 November, 2010 02:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, etc) prevaricates, "...Another problem is that the upper part of the north tower clearly came apart before the region below the impact zone started failing so there was no piledriver."

Complete and utter bullshit.

And I suppose in the rarefied air you breath, Brian, all that mass simply vaporized.

Do you need instructions to breath, Brian?

"...Another problem is that the Thomas model requires the simultaneous vaporization of all 200-something columns on one floor to get the 19mph impact..."

More bullshit.

All that's required is the failure of one column to set the upper portion of the building into motion.

"...Gutterball, you stole Dave Thomas's stuff without attribution."

Grasping at straws again, liar?

I didn't "steal" anything--you twat. A gravitational model is the only rational explanation for the collapse. And since when is a gravitational model subject to copyright law?

 
At 17 November, 2010 02:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 November, 2010 02:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates, "...Another problem is that the Thomas model requires the simultaneous vaporization of all 200-something columns on one floor to get the 19mph impact--which obviously isn't going to happen unless you have invisible satellites firing invisible secret disintegrator [SIC] rays at them."

Wrong again, shit-for-brains.

"...If the World Trade Center towers had been built in a more conventional way and in strict accordance with New York City building codes — from which they were exempt because they were built under the auspices of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — the buildings probably would not have collapsed, and thousands of lives might have been saved...This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced...The design contains at least 10 unusual elements...For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a 'bearing wall' system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other...That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design...in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick...Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down." -- Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., Civil engineering and Structures, UC Berkeley.

Any more lies for us, flake?

 
At 17 November, 2010 03:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 November, 2010 03:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates, "...Gutterball, you stole Dave Thomas's stuff without attribution. There's a couple of problems with that, and petgoat's rake on rake model is one of them. You don't get a clean 19mph hit on your lower portion with 30X the static load because they're box columns hitting on box columns--they don't hammer, they shear. There are enormous frictional forces."

Get your lies straight, Brian.

The NIST Report reads in part, "In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground."

Source: Wikipedia: Mechanics of Twin Towers' collapse.

Next time you're lying through your teeth, Brian, get your sources straight--you putz.

 
At 17 November, 2010 04:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

bug.fuck, I'm not sure you saw my question. Would you please elaborate on the importance of "subpoena power" in investigating 9/11? What do you think application of "subpoena power" would achieve?

 
At 17 November, 2010 06:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if petgoat says the widows have no questions, then petgoat is lying.

So petgoat is a liar? I'm glad to hear you finally confirm this. I'll take that into account the next time you babble mindlessly about his ridiculous "rake-on-rake" model.

There's a couple of problems with that, and petgoat's rake on rake model is one of them.

Brian, you just told me petgoat is a liar. Doesn't that invalidate his models to you?

BTW, Brian, petgoat also says you've sent marriage proposals to Willie Rodriguez. Is he lying about this too?

 
At 17 November, 2010 09:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish a conditional sentence from a declarative one shows you to be logically incompetent.

GutterBall, if you watch the videos of the north tower you can see that the top "block" comes apart before the region under the impact zone does. The top "block" shortens by 60 to 100 feet before the lower region begins to destruct. Anyone who has studied the issue knows this. Your ignorance is showing.

If your claim that failure of one column brings the tower down symmetrically were true, then the collapse should have happened immediately after the plane impact.

Your plagiarism of Dave Thomas's work, and your subsequent refusal to acknowledge it, is duly noted.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread605037/pg1

The NIST report does not claim that the WTC was defectively designed. If you believe that it was, then you should be calling for new investigations instead of defending a cowardly and dishonest report.

Your final paragraph does not even address the point (the any impact
would involve much more energy-absorbing shearing and frictional forces than impact forces), let alone show that I lied. If you make a habit of addressing problems by anger instead of logic, you are likely to influence your children in an unfortunate manner--and unlikely to win friends and influence people.

RGT, subpoena power is necessary to compel people to testify under oath, and to protect those who may otherwise be reluctant to speak freely if they are going to be perceived as testifying voluntarily.

 
At 17 November, 2010 09:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish a conditional sentence from a declarative one shows you to be logically incompetent.

Brian, you didn't address my second point: petgoat says you send Willie Rodriguez love letters in the mail. Is this true? Is petgoat also lying about this? Is he a liar in general?

 
At 17 November, 2010 09:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates,"...The NIST report does not claim that the WTC was defectively designed. If you believe that it was, then you should be calling for new investigations instead of defending a cowardly and dishonest report."

Again, don't cite the NIST Report--you God damned hypocrite. You're cherry picking the NIST Report and agreeing with it when it supports your lies and distortions, while simultaneously referring the NIST Report as a "fraud"--which amply demonstrates the cognitive dissonance, dishonesty and hypocrisy that informs every comment you splooge on this blog.

Brian continues to lie, "...Your plagiarism of Dave Thomas's work, and your subsequent refusal to acknowledge it, is duly noted. "

Lying again, Brian?

All in a days work for a pathological liar.

"...If your claim that failure of one column brings the tower down symmetrically were true, then the collapse should have happened immediately after the plane impact."

You're an idiot, Brian. I'm referring to AFTER A FIRE HAS RAGED FOR OVER AN HOUR and the steel has lost over 70% of its strength. Get your lies straight, Brian.

"...If you make a habit of addressing problems by anger instead of logic, you are likely to influence your children in an unfortunate manner--and unlikely to win friends and influence people."

Oh look! Now, the habitual liar and homosexual wants to tell me how to raise children. Isn't that special.

Tell me, bug.fuck, how many children to you plan to have with William Rodriguez?

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

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates,"...The NIST report does not claim that the WTC was defectively designed. If you believe that it was, then you should be calling for new investigations instead of defending a cowardly and dishonest report."

Again, don't cite the NIST Report--you God damned hypocrite. You're cherry picking the NIST Report and agreeing with it when it supports your lies and distortions, while simultaneously referring the NIST Report as a "fraud"--which amply demonstrates the cognitive dissonance, dishonesty and hypocrisy that informs every comment you splooge on this blog.

Brian continues to lie, "...Your plagiarism of Dave Thomas's work, and your subsequent refusal to acknowledge it, is duly noted. "

Lying again, Brian?

All in a days work for a pathological liar.

Continued...

 
At 17 November, 2010 09:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...If your claim that failure of one column brings the tower down symmetrically were true, then the collapse should have happened immediately after the plane impact."

You're an idiot, Brian. I'm referring to AFTER A FIRE HAS RAGED FOR OVER AN HOUR and the steel has lost over 70% of its strength. Get your lies straight, Brian.

"...If you make a habit of addressing problems by anger instead of logic, you are likely to influence your children in an unfortunate manner--and unlikely to win friends and influence people."

Oh look! Now, the habitual liar and homosexual wants to tell me how to raise children. Isn't that special.

Tell me, bug.fuck, how many children to you plan to have with William Rodriguez?

 
At 17 November, 2010 09:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates, "...The NIST report does not claim that the WTC was defectively designed. If you believe that it was, then you should be calling for new investigations instead of defending a cowardly and dishonest report."

Just another example of your inability to read, bug.fuck.

Read it again, idiot.

"...There was no need for explosives to bring them down." -- Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., Civil engineering and Structures, UC Berkeley.

Got it, felcher?

 
At 17 November, 2010 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I didn't cite the NIST report, nor did I agree with it.
Neither commenting on its contents, nor citing it, nor pointing out your essential irrationality in trying to defend a dishonest report by citing a collapse thesis totally out of the realm of its study makes me a hypocrite.

The particulars of your 19-MPH-18-MPH-26-MPH-40-times-the-static-weight narrative exactly match the particulars of Thomas's work, and rather than acknowledge that you appropriated it you accuse me of lying.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread605037/pg1

Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place, and NIST has no core steel that shows heating sufficient to weaken it.

Dr. Astaneh's remark about explosives has no more to do with the point (that any impact
would involve much more energy-absorbing shearing and frictional forces than impact forces) than did the long paragraph about alleged design defects. You're flailing, GutterBall. Maybe you should be working on your jazzy rendition of "Jingle Bell Rock".

 
At 17 November, 2010 10:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place, and NIST has no core steel that shows heating sufficient to weaken it.

Brian, you really need to work on your lying skills. They're pretty pathetic.

Anyway, I will take it from your refusal to address what petgoat said about you that he's not lying: the widows have no questions and you do send love letters to Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 17 November, 2010 10:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, I didn't cite the NIST report, nor did I agree with it."

Lying again, Brian?

Did you write the following, or not?

"...The NIST report does not claim that the WTC was defectively designed." -- Brian Good

What were you saying, liar?

Brian continues to lie through his teeth, "...The particulars of your 19-MPH-18-MPH-26-MPH-40-times-the-static-weight narrative exactly match the particulars of Thomas's work, and rather than acknowledge that you appropriated it you accuse me of lying."

Wrong again, bug.fuck.

Anyone with a college background in mechanics can perform the simple calculations that are necessary to determine the acceleration of the building as it crashed through each floor.

You're grasping at straws, Brian, and lying through your teeth in order to avoid the particulars of the argument.

Continued...

 
At 17 November, 2010 10:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place, and NIST has no core steel that shows heating sufficient to weaken it."

More bullshit. The fires were hot enough to severely weaken the columns and cause the floor trusses to fail. In fact, the perimeter columns bowed inward, which resulted in the columns inability to support the gravitational load of the floors above the point of impact. As a result, the core columns were being crushed as evidenced by creep deformation caused by the weight of the floors above the point of impact. As the top section began to slide downward, the hat trusses in the core were forced to redistribute their load to the perimeter columns. This explains why WTC 2's eastern wall buckled. WTC 1's south wall buckled for the same reason.

Brian continues to babble, "...Dr. Astaneh's remark about explosives has no more to do with the point (that any impact would involve much more energy-absorbing shearing and frictional forces than impact forces) than did the long paragraph about alleged design defects"

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is perfectly qualified to determine if "so many violations of practice and code were introduced," and no amount of incoherent babbling on your part will ever change that fact.

 
At 17 November, 2010 11:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, what I was saying was quite clear. It was a description of what the NIST report said. That's not citing the NIST report.

I'm sorry that you're so frustrated that your narrow technical education has left you washed up and incompetent to function in the world, but it's not my fault.

So now you are claiming that you did the calculations, and just happened to use the exact same words in the same sequence as Thomas's statement? This gets better and better!

Asymmetrical damage from bowing columns should have caused a local asymmetrical collapse. Perimeter columne were rated for 20X their dead loads. NIST has no core steel samples showing heating sufficient to weaken them.

And once again, your invocation of Dr. Astaneh's qualifications and his opinions about violations of code has nothing to do with either a) that any impact would involve much more energy-absorbing shearing and frictional forces than impact forces or b) NIST's failure to allege design defects in the WTC.

You're incoherent, dude.

 
At 17 November, 2010 11:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

It was a description of what the NIST report said. That's not citing the NIST report.

So in other words, you twist the NIST report around to fit your delusional beliefs about 9/11. I mean, we already knew this, but I'm glad to see you confirm it. Sometimes, you end up being inadvertently truthful, Brian.

I'm sorry that you're so frustrated that your narrow technical education has left you washed up and incompetent to function in the world, but it's not my fault.

...says the failed janitor living with his parents at age 57 and spending every waking hour babbling about nothing online.

So now you are claiming that you did the calculations, and just happened to use the exact same words in the same sequence as Thomas's statement? This gets better and better!

Who cares?

Asymmetrical damage from bowing columns should have caused a local asymmetrical collapse.

False.

Perimeter columne were rated for 20X their dead loads.

That's nice.

NIST has no core steel samples showing heating sufficient to weaken them.

False.

And once again, your invocation of Dr. Astaneh's qualifications and his opinions about violations of code has nothing to do with either a) that any impact would involve much more energy-absorbing shearing and frictional forces than impact forces or b) NIST's failure to allege design defects in the WTC.

False and false.

You're incoherent, dude.

Brian, why don't we take a vote on this? Let's poll everyone who posts here on whether you or GuitarBill are "incoherent". Since you seem to believe that objective truth is a popularity contest (why else would you constantly babble about the number of fools in Gage's group?), this will prove once and for all who is incoherent.

Sound good?

 
At 17 November, 2010 11:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Reiterating the same incoherent bullshit, over-and-over again does nothing to add the force of credibility to your argument, shit-for-brains. For example,

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, etc) prevaricates, "...Asymmetrical damage from bowing columns should have caused a local asymmetrical collapse."

I want a source for that incoherent bullshit? Put up, or shut up, felcher.

 
At 17 November, 2010 12:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, subpoena power is necessary to compel people to testify under oath, and to protect those who may otherwise be reluctant to speak freely if they are going to be perceived as testifying voluntarily.

I know what a subpoena is. But a judge is only going to issue one where it is reasonably calculated to answer pertinent questions. Whose testimony needs to be compelled? What physical evidence must be produced?

 
At 17 November, 2010 18:16, Blogger Triterope said...

I know what a subpoena is. But a judge is only going to issue one where it is reasonably calculated to answer pertinent questions.

Yeah. A judge. Not a self-appointed council of amateurs with an axe to grind and DVDs to sell.

 
At 17 November, 2010 21:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ah, so TR, are you supporting a new investigation as long as subpoenas are issued by a lawfully-constituted body instead of a lynchmob? Or are you using the spectre of lynchmob subpoenas as an excuse to appose a lawful new investigation?

 
At 18 November, 2010 06:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

Why bother with a new investigation? Only a tine fringe of liars and lunatics want one, and those people won't be happy until an investigation says that Dick Cheney used magic thermite elves to destroy the WTC.

 
At 18 November, 2010 08:52, Blogger texasjack said...

The investigation by the FBI for 9/11 was incomplete. Although it was the largest investigation in their history, they forgot to test for thermite residue on Cheney's hands.

 
At 18 November, 2010 15:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

jack, the FBI investigation was incomplete. Many FBI agents greatly resented that they were taken off hot leads on the excuse that they needed to work to prevent new attacks, not investigate 9/11.

RGT, it would be well to have the testimony of Cheney's young man about the nature of the orders that still stood. It would be well to have followup testimony among FDNY personnel who reported explosions about efforts to suppress such talk. It would be well to get FDNY brass who characterized the alleged damage to WTC7 to explain how they arrived at their assessments, and why the fires were not fought when they had water at West Street from 3 19,000 gpm fireboats. It would be nice to see the Pentagon security videos, and see the serial numbers on the plane parts. It would also be very helpful to have information on any internal NIST conflict about the course and direction of the investigation, as well as information about the nature and extent of pre-9/11 warnings of upcoming attacks and the connections between the alleged hijackers and the US military. There are lots of loose ends, and David Ray Griffin's essay "The 571 Page Lie", which lists 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, would be a good start. Also, compelling sworn testimony from NORAD personages about what they lied about to the 9/11 Commission and why they lied would be worthwhile.

 
At 18 November, 2010 17:27, Blogger Triterope said...

Ah, so TR, are you supporting a new investigation as long as subpoenas are issued by a lawfully-constituted body instead of a lynchmob? Or are you using the spectre of lynchmob subpoenas as an excuse to appose a lawful new investigation?

I oppose a new investigation into 9-11 and I oppose lynchmob justice. It's not an either-or choice.

 
At 18 November, 2010 18:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, it would be well to have the testimony of Cheney's young man about the nature of the orders that still stood.

Irrelevant.

It would be well to have followup testimony among FDNY personnel who reported explosions about efforts to suppress such talk.

It would be well to have followup testimony among FDNY personnel who reported explosions about efforts to suppress such talk.

You mean there were explosions in a huge, uncontrolled fire? Holy shit, I can't believe it!

It would be well to get FDNY brass who characterized the alleged damage to WTC7 to explain how they arrived at their assessments, and why the fires were not fought when they had water at West Street from 3 19,000 gpm fireboats.

They arrived at their assessments through observation and deduction, something you're obviously not familiar with. Also, fighting the fires at WTC 7 would have been a great idea. Maybe another 150 or so FDNY could have died in the collapse of an evacuated building.

It would be nice to see the Pentagon security videos, and see the serial numbers on the plane parts.

We did. You must have been composing love sonnets for Willie Rodriguez when that happened.

continued....

 
At 18 November, 2010 18:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

It would also be very helpful to have information on any internal NIST conflict about the course and direction of the investigation, as well as information about the nature and extent of pre-9/11 warnings of upcoming attacks and the connections between the alleged hijackers and the US military.

We got this stuff too, well, except for the "connection" part, which is a figment of your delusional imagination.

There are lots of loose ends, and David Ray Griffin's essay "The 571 Page Lie", which lists 115 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission Report, would be a good start.

David Ray Griffin is a liar and a fraud. Nobody cares what he has to say.

Also, compelling sworn testimony from NORAD personages about what they lied about to the 9/11 Commission and why they lied would be worthwhile.

Sure, why not? And then when you don't get the answer you want, you'll demand they be waterboarded or something until they confess to what you're looking for.

I have to say, Brian, that this post was quite the magnum opus of insanity. You're normally too coy to show us how deeply delusional you are. Please seek professional help.

 
At 18 November, 2010 22:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I did not say it was an either-or choice between lynch-mob subpoenas and an official investigation. I suggested that you were using your opposition to lynch-mob investigation as an excuse to oppose a legitimate investigation.

 
At 19 November, 2010 06:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

I suggested that you were using your opposition to lynch-mob investigation as an excuse to oppose a legitimate investigation.

We already had a legitimate investigation. You didn't like the results because you're delusional, so you want a lynch-mob investigation. It's not hard to understand.

 
At 19 November, 2010 07:02, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 November, 2010 08:05, Blogger Triterope said...

You didn't like the results because you're delusional, so you want a lynch-mob investigation.

They've already tried having a lynch-mob investigation -- NYCCAN. Which is exactly who I meant when I said "a self-appointed council of amateurs with an axe to grind and DVDs to sell." I fear Brian has failed to make this connection, since he seems to think I am concerned about the "spectre" of lynchmob subpoenas. No need: we've seen the real thing.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, we haven't had a legitimate investigation. The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission had worked on the Bush transition team and was responsible for the decision to demote Richard Clarke so that he and his warnings of impending al Qaeda attacks no longer had cabinet-level access. The Commission failed to address 200 of the widows' 300 questions, and provided non-answering responses to another 73 of the questions. Its chairmen wrote that the Commission was "set up to fail" and that NORAD had lied to them.

NIST, as an agency of the Department of Commerce, was directed by a Bush political appointee. Its investigation was dishonest and inadequate because it dodged the most imporant questions of what happened that day.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, we haven't had a legitimate investigation.

Nobody cares what you consider legitimate, Brian. How many times do I have to explain this to you?

The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission had worked on the Bush transition team and was responsible for the decision to demote Richard Clarke so that he and his warnings of impending al Qaeda attacks no longer had cabinet-level access.

Nobody cares.

The Commission failed to address 200 of the widows' 300 questions, and provided non-answering responses to another 73 of the questions.

The widows have no questions, Brian. petgoat told me so.

Its chairmen wrote that the Commission was "set up to fail" and that NORAD had lied to them.

False.

NIST, as an agency of the Department of Commerce, was directed by a Bush political appointee.

Nobody cares.

Its investigation was dishonest and inadequate because it dodged the most imporant questions of what happened that day.

Brian, what you consider "important" doesn't matter to sane people.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:53, Blogger Triterope said...

The Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission had worked on the Bush transition team

...father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate.

 
At 19 November, 2010 12:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, Dr. Philip Zelikow was the one who demoted Richard Clarke so that he could no longer communicate his warnings about al Qaeda directly to the cabinet. Dr. Zelikow then ensured that the 9/11 Commission downplayed Clarke's story and protected Condi Rice from Clarke's criticisms.

See Philip Shenon's book, chapter 56.

Also, Zelikow wrote an outline of the report, complete with chapter titles and subheadings, before the investigation started. He is known to have improperly kept up phone contacts with Rove and Rice while the investigation was ongoing, and he asked the CIA authors of the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo to validate Condi's lies about the contents of that document.

 
At 19 November, 2010 13:45, Blogger Triterope said...

...hairdresser's former neighbor's mailman's step-daughter, who once had a blind date with Richard Clarke's second cousin, who once owned a summer home on Onistagrawa Lane, which has "NIST" in it.

 
At 19 November, 2010 13:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, you're satirizing some straw man conspiracy theory in your own mind.

You're missing the fact that Philip Zelikow was instrumental in suppressing Richard Clarke's warnings, and then he headed the Commission that reported on those happenings. The connections are direct, not tenuous at all.

 
At 19 November, 2010 14:25, Blogger Triterope said...

...uncle's fraternity brother's baseball coach, who ate a pizza that come from a box made of recycled paper that had once been Condoleezza Rice's resume, delivered by a courier who lived on the same street as John Ashcroft's nephew, who enjoyed a soup composed principally of Throm the Chunky, who drank Bont the Viscous, who drank Ungo the Moist.

 
At 19 November, 2010 15:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, it would be well to have the testimony of Cheney's young man about the nature of the orders that still stood...

bug.fuck, the government has already answered some of these questions. Hyper Troof Subpoena Power will not get you new answers. But your bigger problem is that your list isn't a basis for a new investigation; it's little more than a recitation of Troofer talking points. These aren't important questions.

These questions may seem important to you because of your mental illness, but in real life none of them call the official story of 9/11 into question.

 
At 19 November, 2010 18:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

So TR's on tilt, which is what happens when people start to get it and don't know how to deal with it.

If we have the answers about what the young man was talking about, why was it necessary for the 9/11 Commission to lie about it, and why won't he answer simple questions about it?

The questions are important not just to me, but to some of the 9/11 widows.

 
At 19 November, 2010 19:25, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 November, 2010 19:40, Blogger Triterope said...

So TR's on tilt, which is what happens when people start to get it and don't know how to deal with it.

It's true that I'm having a crisis of confidence, but it's more along the lines of asking myself why I spend so much time conversing with you. You don't make any sense, you're never going to make any sense, and your attempts to guess out my motivations are so far off the mark that I wonder if you've actually ever met a human being.

Maybe I should find something better to do with my spare time.

 
At 19 November, 2010 19:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If we have the answers about what the young man was talking about, why was it necessary for the 9/11 Commission to lie about it, and why won't he answer simple questions about it?

It doesn't matter. In the absence of evidence of a shoot-down, what Cheney did or did not say about one is irrelevant.

The questions are important not just to me, but to some of the 9/11 widows.

Let's say the questions are important to you, some of the 9/11 widows, and a few thousand other people. Do you think that is enough to justify a new investigation? How many people (in your opinion) would be enough?

 
At 20 November, 2010 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I make sense. Nobody has shown me not making sense, though that doesn't stop them from claiming it in a name-calling sort of way. You guys operate from circular reasoning: the truthers are wrong because they're crazy, and we know they're crazy because nobody but a crazy person could be so wrong.

RGT, the questions are significant quite aside from their relationship to the issue of a possible shoot-down. Look at yourself--you're arguing that there was no shoot-down, and thus it doesn't matter if the 9/11 Commission lies to us about what time a conversation took place. Why do you want to settle for dishonest investigations?

The need for new investigations is not simply a matter of how many people want them, either. It's a matter of the integrity and credibility of government, the media, and the electorate. Do you think a country should be allowed to prosecute wars based on sloppy investigations?

 
At 20 November, 2010 10:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

TR, I make sense.

False.

Nobody has shown me not making sense, though that doesn't stop them from claiming it in a name-calling sort of way.

False. Brian, I can claim that I have the best jump shot in the history of basketball, but nobody will take me seriously if I can't demonstrate it. You can claim to make sense all you want, but as long as everything you post is insane, ignorant nonsense, nobody will listen to you.

You guys operate from circular reasoning: the truthers are wrong because they're crazy, and we know they're crazy because nobody but a crazy person could be so wrong.

False. We say the "truthers" are wrong because they have no evidence. We say they're crazy because what they do suggest as "evidence" is modified attack baboons, cloaking devices, death ray beams, and magic thermite.

The need for new investigations is not simply a matter of how many people want them, either. It's a matter of the integrity and credibility of government, the media, and the electorate.

False.

Do you think a country should be allowed to prosecute wars based on sloppy investigations?

Aaaaand here we get to what really drives Brian: he doesn't want us in Afghanistan and because he's too dumb and/or ignorant to come up with legitimate reasons why we shouldn't be there, he joins a fantasy cult that will give him reasons why we shouldn't be there.

Every "truther" has some axe to grind, and 9/11 "truth" is just a cover for it.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: We say the "truthers" are wrong because they have no evidence.


There's plenty of evidence of the need for new investigations: Zelikow's conflicts of interest, 115 omissions and distortions, 273 unanswered questions, molten iron, pulverized concrete, symmetry, totality, squibs, official lies, lack of air defense, "set up top fail", etc. etc. etc.

I have a legitimate reason for not wanting us in Afghanistan--it's going to bankrupt us just like it bankrupted the Soviet Union, we're not going to win, it was always a totally illegal war as Chomsky pointed out recently, and the fact that the alleged perps of 9/11 were allowed by the US military to walk or fly out shows that our purported reason for going there was not true.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

There's plenty of evidence of the need for new investigations: Zelikow's conflicts of interest, 115 omissions and distortions, 273 unanswered questions, molten iron, pulverized concrete, symmetry, totality, squibs, official lies, lack of air defense, "set up top fail", etc. etc. etc.

See? The ignorant delusions of a lunatic sex stalker are presented as "evidence". I rest my case.

I have a legitimate reason for not wanting us in Afghanistan--it's going to bankrupt us just like it bankrupted the Soviet Union, we're not going to win

OK, so why not concentrate on these legitimate issues instead of babbling about the insane nonsense you posted above?

 
At 20 November, 2010 17:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the questions are significant quite aside from their relationship to the issue of a possible shoot-down.

Now you're just running in circles, declaring the questions to be "significant" but unable to explain the significance. This is the core reason that 9/11 Truth lawsuits have failed.

Look at yourself--you're arguing that there was no shoot-down, and thus it doesn't matter if the 9/11 Commission lies to us about what time a conversation took place. Why do you want to settle for dishonest investigations?

That is correct. Without credible evidence of a shootdown, there is no need to pursue details surrounding a hypothetical shootdown.

The need for new investigations is not simply a matter of how many people want them, either. It's a matter of the integrity and credibility of government, the media, and the electorate. Do you think a country should be allowed to prosecute wars based on sloppy investigations?

A new investigation will happen when enough people with enough funding clout want one. Integrity, credibility, etc. have very little to do with it.

And you still haven't explained why the so-called "loose ends" and "unanswered questions" even matter.

 
At 21 November, 2010 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I am quite able to explain the significance of the questions. I am simply reluctant to take the time to do so when my explanation is likely to be buried under spam from the likes of paul w and Ian.

The reasons the Hilton and Berg lawsuits failed is because they were incompetent. I don't know why the Veal lawsuit failed--probably because so many of its witnesses were lunatics like John Lear and Rob Balsamo.

Proving shootdown is not the issue, nor is proving inside job. The issue is a credible, competent, thorough, and honest accounting of what happened that day. If we can't trust the government and the media, we can't have a democracy. Asserting the principle that wrongdoing must be proven before corrections of obvious errors in an investigation can take place is anti-democratic.

Your cynicism-disguised-as-pragmatism is also anti-democratic. The loose ends and questions matter because they provide many opportunities for covering up negligence and maybe worse, because we have the right as citizens to expect credible reports from our government (and the persistent meme that that's too much to expect is anti-democratic), and because the widows deserve the simple respect of having their questions answered and not being lied to.

 
At 21 November, 2010 13:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, I am quite able to explain the significance of the questions. I am simply reluctant to take the time to do so when my explanation is likely to be buried under spam from the likes of paul w and Ian.

Translation: my questions are insignificant nonsense.

The issue is a credible, competent, thorough, and honest accounting of what happened that day.

We had one.

If we can't trust the government and the media, we can't have a democracy.

Right, so why not work on legitimate issues related to this problem instead of babbling about 9/11 "truth" nonsense?

Asserting the principle that wrongdoing must be proven before corrections of obvious errors in an investigation can take place is anti-democratic.

Translation: any report on 9/11 is in error until it says what I want it to say. Also too, you hate democracy if you don't agree with my nonsensical babblings.

Your cynicism-disguised-as-pragmatism is also anti-democratic.

See above.

The loose ends and questions matter because they provide many opportunities for covering up negligence and maybe worse, because we have the right as citizens to expect credible reports from our government (and the persistent meme that that's too much to expect is anti-democratic), and because the widows deserve the simple respect of having their questions answered and not being lied to.

See above. Also, nobody cares about your widows.

 
At 21 November, 2010 20:49, Blogger Bill said...

Is there a source on McIlvaine saying he though his son died before the planes hit?

 
At 23 November, 2010 21:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

crickets....

these guys don't do "sources".

 
At 24 November, 2010 02:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 November, 2010 02:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...crickets....these guys don't do 'sources'."

Lying through your filthy teeth again, Brian.

What's this, gay boi?

Source: YouTube: Treason in America Conference 3/6/10. Bob McIlvaine Speaks PART 2.

"...I think he died before the plane hit. I think he walked into the towers...and a huge blast hit him." -- Bob McIlvaine.

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on--you lying bastard.

So Brian, tell us about your alleged "credibility," which, given your track record, should be measured in negative engineering units?

Go for it, Pinocchio.

 
At 24 November, 2010 07:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, why are you so defensive? You're keeping psycho hours, I see. How does your family feel about that?

My criticism "these guys don't do sources" was well founded. Two days after a request for a source, none was to be found. Without my provocative remark, you wouldn't have responded.

Your tolerance for Ian's source-free and counterfactual spam leaves this forum with no credibility. You may call it "cat-fights" in the truth movement, but at least some of us try to slam down the liars like Ranke, Rodriguez, Barrett, and Balsamo. By letting Ian blather on you implicitly endorse his lies.

 
At 24 November, 2010 08:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your tolerance for Ian's source-free and counterfactual spam leaves this forum with no credibility. You may call it "cat-fights" in the truth movement, but at least some of us try to slam down the liars like Ranke, Rodriguez, Barrett, and Balsamo. By letting Ian blather on you implicitly endorse his lies.

I don't lie, Brian. You can't name a single time I've lied to you.

Anyway, speaking of Barrett, look at what I found:

http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/06/tales-of-hoffman.html

Instead, their fellow 9/11 Thought Police officer, Brian Good, barged into the meeting (of a group from which he had been banned long ago after sexually harassing a local activist) in a V-for-Vendetta mask and costume, looming over the meeting in rigid, menacing silence for the last hour or so of the event, in what he evidently thought was a protest of my visit. A couple of times he reached into his cape and made lunging motions as if he were reaching for his V-for-Vendetta knife to throw at me. When he finally took off the mask and glared at me, his eyes looked disturbingly like Charles Manson's. (If you put Manson on a rack, stretched him out to about six foot four, and gave him a shave and a trim, you'd have a pretty good image of Brian Good.)

Good continued to stalk me, and Hoffman avoid me, for the rest of the tour. At my final talk, held in a private house in Sacramento, Good stood outside on the sidewalk in mask and costume from 6 pm to midnight, barking out angry remarks about me to passersby.


You're a real winner there, Brian. I'm shocked people didn't call the police to have you taken to a mental hospital.

 
At 24 November, 2010 10:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what a funny send-up of Barrett you post! Do you really expect people to believe that Dr. Kevin "Hang-em-High Gun-nut Time-for-Armed-Rebellion Burn-Arnie's-House-Down I'm-the-Only-Man-Here-With-Any-Cojones" Barrett was afraid of a guy in a V-for-Vendetta Mask?

 
At 24 November, 2010 10:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, what a funny send-up of Barrett you post! Do you really expect people to believe that Dr. Kevin "Hang-em-High Gun-nut Time-for-Armed-Rebellion Burn-Arnie's-House-Down I'm-the-Only-Man-Here-With-Any-Cojones" Barrett was afraid of a guy in a V-for-Vendetta Mask?

"Send-up"? Learn what words mean, Brian. It's from his blog.

Anyway, regardless of what Barrett wrote, I see you don't deny the whole thing. Anyway, given that you're an obsessed lunatic who can't stop babbling about certain people and stalking them 24/7, I might be rattled too. John Hinckley was obsessed with someone and eventually became violent.

And you wonder why I tell you to see a psychiatrist.

 
At 24 November, 2010 11:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, shit-for-brains, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...GutterBall, why are you so defensive? You're keeping psycho hours, I see. How does your family feel about that?"

Spin won't save you, Brian.

You're a liar with ZERO credibility.

Have a nice day, Pinocchio.

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

"Liar", like "no", is a word an 2-year-old can speak.

I don't lie. I don't need to. Truth suits me just fine.

 
At 25 November, 2010 17:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

"Liar", like "no", is a word an 2-year-old can speak.

I don't lie. I don't need to. Truth suits me just fine.


Brian, you lie constantly, and you're not even good at it. Your lies are so blatantly obvious it makes me wonder how you could expect anyone to believe what you write.

 
At 27 November, 2010 10:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

I expect people to believe what I write because when they check it out, they find it's true--and because when they check out what you and GutterBall write they will find it is false.

 
At 29 November, 2010 23:29, Blogger Jaipuria Brothers said...

A. N. PALCHOWDHURY ENGG. ENTERPRISES - Exporter and manufacturer of brass building material, pressure die casting products, die casting products, cast iron valve, pressed steel couplers, steel couplers, brass building material, molded rubber products, ms flanges, cast iron fire hydrant, pressure die casting products, cast iron pipe fitting and scaffolding products.

brass building material exporter

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home