Sunday, December 26, 2010

Charles Lewis

I hadn't heard of this guy until Jesse's Pentagon Circus aired, but apparently he's the Troofer witness from heaven. This LA building inspector has evidence on virtually every aspect of 9-11 Troof. Every aspect that is, except the one you'd think of with his building inspection background.

Standdown? Yeah, he heard about that:
At first, LAX Security was very upset because it seemed to Security that none of the FAA's Air Traffic Controllers (ATCs) tracking the hijacked airliners had notified NORAD as required.

More chatter revealed that ATCs had notified NORAD, but that NORAD had not responded, because it had been "ordered to stand down."


Pentagon hit by a missile? Check:
Another piece of information that I heard, shortly after my arrival, was that the Pentagon had been "hit by a rocket." It's possible that the word was "missile," although I'm quite certain it was "rocket." I was, in any case, quite surprised when I later got home and learned that the media were reporting that an airliner had hit the Pentagon.


Flight 93 shot down? Check:
This station also reported that two fighter jets had been scrambled and had successfully shot down a hijacked airliner over Pennsylvania. The point of deployment of the fighter jets was also mentioned, but I can't remember the name of the military base.


Oddities about the collapse of the two towers? Nope, building inspector Lewis has nothing to report on that score. None of his fellow building inspectors were chattering about that, apparently.

Note as well that his stated reason for heading out to LAX is just a little weird:
I decided that I should go to the APO, because I was one of only a few persons who would know how to fix certain parts of the new security systems if problems developed. Especially crucial were the systems at Guard Post II, for which I had managed the design changes and construction.


He went out there to be available to fix certain parts of a guard shack? And I'm sorry, I don't find his claims of being at the Hilton at 6:30 AM very credible. At the end he provides several ways in which his story could be corroborated, but you can guess the next part. David Ray Griffin (who made the post at 911 truth dot org) made no attempt to confirm the guy's story.

183 Comments:

At 26 December, 2010 14:23, Blogger paul w said...

The first indication I knew of the attacks was a news scroll across the bottom of the TV screen; small plane slams into WTC.

Using truther logic, that first indication must therefore be the truth; it was not an airliner that slammed into the tower, it was a small plane.

The rest is mass hypnotism, video manipulation and media lies.

 
At 26 December, 2010 14:29, Blogger paul w said...

"She replied that LAX security was well aware that 9/11 was an inside job."

Who can argue with that iron-clad proof?

That's it, I'm a believer.

 
At 26 December, 2010 14:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Charles Lewis is a debunker's witness from heaven, that's why you cover him.

It's very irresponsible of Jesse to push a "conspiracy-of-hundreds" tale, especially one that's totally uncorroborated.

 
At 26 December, 2010 15:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Charles Lewis is a debunker's witness from heaven, that's why you cover him.

Really? The guy claims a missile hit the Pentagon. Doesn't sound like the kind of witness sane people would like to show off.

It's very irresponsible of Jesse to push a "conspiracy-of-hundreds" tale, especially one that's totally uncorroborated.

As opposed to your mindless babbling about magic thermite elves and smoldering carpets. Yes, if Jesse had only interviewed a middle-aged failed janitor who lives with his parents and stalks people online, then the world would see the light....

 
At 26 December, 2010 17:28, Blogger James B. said...

The Space Needle was a target? Yeah, because at 7 in the morning that might kill 3 or 4 people.

 
At 27 December, 2010 00:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, for more about smoldering carpets read the Weidlinger report.

 
At 27 December, 2010 04:32, Blogger Triterope said...

David Ray Griffin (who made the post at 911 truth dot org) made no attempt to confirm the guy's story.

There's nothing to confirm. The guy's proof of the 9-11 conspiracy is "I went to work that morning." On the other side of the country. He provides us four different proofs of that, but nothing that would stand up to scrutiny even if there were recordings of it.

Has the 9-11 Truth movement learned nothing from Mike the EMT?

 
At 27 December, 2010 06:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, for more about smoldering carpets read the Weidlinger report.

But what about magic thermite elves? So far, only Steven Jones has taken a stab at explaining that, and he failed miserably.

 
At 27 December, 2010 08:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your straw elves are just silly. Nobody is proposing anything magic. Such silliness detracts from the credibility of this site.

 
At 27 December, 2010 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the fact is that a six-month elevator renovations project in the WTC provided cover for anyone who wanted access to 15 miles of elevator shafts. There was ample opportunity to place explosive or incendiary devices in or around the core columns of the towers. Dr. Jones has suggested that incendiary coatings could have been placed by workers who thought they were spraying ordinary paint.

 
At 27 December, 2010 08:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your straw elves are just silly. Nobody is proposing anything magic. Such silliness detracts from the credibility of this site.

False. You've given thermite properties which it does not have, so it must be magic at work.

Ian, the fact is that a six-month elevator renovations project in the WTC provided cover for anyone who wanted access to 15 miles of elevator shafts.

Right, this is why I find the modified attack baboons armed with micro-nukes theory so convincing. You have yet to present any evidence against this theory.

There was ample opportunity to place explosive or incendiary devices in or around the core columns of the towers.

Agreed. The modified attack baboons used micro-nukes in this way.

Dr. Jones has suggested that incendiary coatings could have been placed by workers who thought they were spraying ordinary paint.

Dr. Wood has suggested that death ray beams from space could have destroyed the towers.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. I haven't given thermite any properties except the ability to melt steel. Do you deny that thermite has the ability to melt steel?

You lie. The evidence against the micro-nuke theory is the lack of radiation. The evidence against the baboons is the difficulty of smuggling them in and out.

Do you have any evidence that thermitic material can not be placed as a spray coating? It seems axiomatic that it can. Do you deny that it can?

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, if thermite could be sprayed on the steel columns, why not by attack baboons? And why couldn't the attack baboons be equipped with micro-nukes? The way I see it, the micro-nukes would ensure that the spray-on thermite worked.

The fact that you have no evidence against the micro-nukes and baboons theory makes me know I'm on the right track.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're just babbling. Your baboons would have to operate sprayers that were brought in by humans. Tool territoriality would make their operations conspicuous to co-workers. They could not expect to clean the equipment and replace it in such a fashion that their use of the equipment would remain undetected.

Micro-nukes, as I have explained many times, are not an option because they would leave a radiation signature.

Your attempts at satire are childish. Even Barrett is more clever than you.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, you really need to see a psychiatrist. I mean, just look at the nonsense you just wrote!

Ian, you're just babbling. Your baboons would have to operate sprayers that were brought in by humans. Tool territoriality would make their operations conspicuous to co-workers. They could not expect to clean the equipment and replace it in such a fashion that their use of the equipment would remain undetected.

Seriously, I'm speechless. This is beyond insane.

 
At 27 December, 2010 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Certainly rationality is beyond insane. I have shown why your baboon theory is stupid.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, this is the part of the farce where you get all upset and call us "girls". Can you do that, buddy? You can get back to your nonsense about baboons afterward.

Thanks.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, pointing out that you act like an 8-year-old female trying to attract a father figure's attention is simply a technical observation, not a case of being "upset".

In my experience boys don't expect silliness to be taken as cute. Girls do.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

Thanks, Brian. The fact that you call people "girls" when you get upset is just another element that makes you the most entertaining truther out there, bar none.

Anyway, what were we talking about? Oh yes, the widows and your laughable claim that they have 273 unanswered questions.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't call people girls when I get upset. I call people girls when their mistaken belief that their silliness is cute becomes frustrating.

The wisows' 273 unanswered questions can be viewed by anyone who checks out appendix 4 at justicefor911.org.

 
At 27 December, 2010 11:45, Blogger James B. said...

Yes, thermite could theoretically be sprayed on. However anything that thin would accomplish nothing more than making the world's largest sparkler, not cause a building collapse. Shaped charges work by concentrating explosives, not spreading a small amount of explosives over an entire beam.

 
At 27 December, 2010 12:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes, thermite could theoretically be sprayed on. However anything that thin would accomplish nothing more than making the world's largest sparkler, not cause a building collapse. Shaped charges work by concentrating explosives, not spreading a small amount of explosives over an entire beam.

Wasn't it already determined long ago that the amount of thermite needed to cut through the towers and make them collapse would have so much that the towers would have collapsed under the weight of the stuff?

 
At 27 December, 2010 16:24, Blogger Triterope said...

Well, there was that Truth Burn fiasco, where they couldn't cut through a hollow pipe with 40 pounds of the stuff.

 
At 27 December, 2010 16:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Okay...

My place of employment underwent a few weeks of elevator repair work. Here's what you need to know:

The elevator guys checked in with someone before work every day.

They did not have free run of the property.

They worked either in the elevator room where the motors are, or they worked in the "Pit" below the bottom floor.

Elevator guys (at least around here) seem to all know eachother as the competing elevator company guys often swung buy to go out to lunch with our elevator guys (both companies are out of San Jose, CA). Now I am admitedly going out on a limb here but my guess is that if there had been any strange new elevator repair guys attached to the crew working at the WTC we would have heard about it by now. We have not. Elevator guys are good at spotting non-elevator guys, they are even better at spotting elevator guys not doing their jobs such as painting anything, (try getting a union elevator guy to paint something sometime and let me know how that all works out).

Any elevator work then needs to be signed off by the property's maintenance people, and the State. In the case of the WTC you would have the extra layers of the Port Authority's people and maybe the city's people ( I don't know).

So for explosives to have been planted within the WTC complex you would have had to use a team of demolitions experts who were also union elevator repairmen. They would have had to come fromout of state, and had some kind of under the table agreement with the elevator union to allow outside workers come in. Maybe there was a huge bribe in which case this could be traced (I know I'm dealing in fact-based investigative techniques which ruins everything). The most likely scenario: The contracted company fixed the elevators.

 
At 27 December, 2010 16:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

15 miles of elevator shafts are a little bit more difficult to police than the hoistways in a ten-story building.

50,000 people came into the building every day.

 
At 27 December, 2010 18:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

15 miles of elevator shafts are a little bit more difficult to police than the hoistways in a ten-story building.

Exactly, and given the stealth abilities genetically engineered into the modified attack baboons, I'm sure it was impossible to prevent them from planting micro-nukes.

 
At 27 December, 2010 22:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

But you still have the problem of the difficulties in smuggling them in and out, and the problem of the radiation from the micro nukes.

Your persistent silliness is not cute.

 
At 27 December, 2010 22:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Yeah, 15 miles of elevator shafts. Guess what? They go up and down in a straight line.

Elevator maintenance doesn't happen throughout the entire shaft, unless you have seen the work order which I doubt.

Attack baboons make more sense especially if they were wearing inline skates.

 
At 27 December, 2010 22:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Elevator maintenance involving the doors takes place throughout the hoistway. Shimming and straightening hoist rails would take place throughout the shaft.

 
At 28 December, 2010 04:08, Blogger Garry said...

'Elevator maintenance involving the doors takes place throughout the hoistway. Shimming and straightening hoist rails would take place throughout the shaft'.

For a MALLAM whose only full-time employment was in mopping floors, you're very well informed, Brian (sarcasm). Care to tell us how many qualified structural engineers and CD specialists can confirm that your 'theory' is plausible?

 
At 28 December, 2010 06:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

But you still have the problem of the difficulties in smuggling them in and out, and the problem of the radiation from the micro nukes.

Brian, you still have yet to present any evidence that attack baboons weren't used, and I've already presented evidence for micro-nukes: the collapse, the dust surge, the mushroom cloud, and the health effects of first responders.

The fact that you desperately call this theory "silly" shows me that I'm on the right track.

 
At 28 December, 2010 11:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGreg was the one with the affirmative claim that elevator renovations work would only be in the pit.

Ian, the problem is that you're not on any track at all. If you want to propose analysis of the WTC dust for radiation, why not ask Dr. Jones? Your theory is silly because you are not serious. Also you have provided no theoretical basis for any benefit to anyone from using baboons, nor does the use of baboons answer any otherwise unanswerable questions. Your attempts to parody more serious hypotheses are thus not clever or pointed.

 
At 28 December, 2010 12:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the problem is that you're not on any track at all.

False. Micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons is obviously how the towers were destroyed.

If you want to propose analysis of the WTC dust for radiation, why not ask Dr. Jones?

Jones' samples are contaminated.

Your theory is silly because you are not serious. Also you have provided no theoretical basis for any benefit to anyone from using baboons, nor does the use of baboons answer any otherwise unanswerable questions.

False.

Your attempts to parody more serious hypotheses are thus not clever or pointed.

Squeal squeal squeal!

My, Brian, you really are desperate to bury my points in spam without ever addressing them.

 
At 28 December, 2010 13:35, Blogger paul w said...

if there had been any strange new elevator repair guys attached to the crew working at the WTC we would have heard about it by now.
M Gregory Ferris


OMG! That means all the New York elevator workers are in on it as well!!!!

Man, the NWO sure can keep a secret.

 
At 28 December, 2010 16:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Ian, you're just babbling. Your baboons would have to operate sprayers that were brought in by humans. Tool territoriality would make their operations conspicuous to co-workers. They could not expect to clean the equipment and replace it in such a fashion that their use of the equipment would remain undetected."

LMAO! Seriously Brian, get help!

 
At 28 December, 2010 16:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Given that there were 15 miles of elevator shafts, there was no need for any strangers to attach themselves to the elevator crews.

 
At 28 December, 2010 17:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Given that there were 15 miles of elevator shafts, there was no need for any strangers to attach themselves to the elevator crews.

Brian, do you even know what you're babbling about anymore?

 
At 28 December, 2010 18:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I also said that they work on the elevator motor which is usually housed in a special room. Because the WTC had a ton of elevators there would indeed have been a large crew...

However because I don't buy into the moronic bullshit of demolition charges and magic nanothermite I am not going to waste my time looking into how the Port Authority handled elevator operations and maintenance. Since the Troofers are the ones making the accusations then the burden of proof is on their shoulders.

Once again I offer my help so that Bwian and they rest of the gang on the short bus can finally break this conspiracy wide open and win that medal of truth.

Here's all you have to do: Write the NYC Port Authority and ask to view (or get a copy) of the work-order for the elevators in the towers. If they used an outside contractor then you need to contact the central contractor listed on the work-order, then contact the subcontractors (if any) that were hired. You ask for a personel list of all the guys working on the WTC upgrade project. They will have a list because those guys/gals all got paychecks. So from there you can track down the elevator techs who worked on the job and interview them. Find the guys who also hold positions within their union because if there was any non-union workers on the project he will be happy to talk about it. You can also check to see if any of the workers were military veterans, maybe check resumes to see if any had demolition experience.

Man, I'm glad that I can help you guys out. Let me know how this all goes. I will start holding my breath now * drinks a glass of orange juice*...

 
At 28 December, 2010 19:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

And you're dumb enough to think they would turn that information over to anyone without a subpoena?

You've been watching too many Rockford Files re-runs on TV.

 
At 28 December, 2010 19:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Besides, you don't need demolition experience to screw a box to the wall and put an antenna thingee next to it. Even a modified attack baboon can do that.

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

You've been watching too many Rockford Files re-runs on TV.

As opposed to the babbling liar who watched too many James Bond movies on acid and now thinks that's how real life works....

Besides, you don't need demolition experience to screw a box to the wall and put an antenna thingee next to it. Even a modified attack baboon can do that.

Boxes with antenna thingees? That's what the thermite came in? I thought you said they sprayed it on?

I guess remote-control is another property of the magic thermite that does whatever you want it to when it's convenient, eh?

 
At 28 December, 2010 22:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"And you're dumb enough to think they would turn that information over to anyone without a subpoena?"

Nope, granted the only lawyer most troofers ever see is a public defender, but if you think that the WTC was brought down by a controlled demo then you need to present your case in front of a judge anyway.

I realize that this ruins all the fun because you would have to prove that there is enough evidence to justify a subpoena, and I suspect that iron microspheres won't cut it.

You can network, I've interviewed over thirty guys who were involved at Rio Hato in 1989. I did it by tracking them down one by one. I'd get a referral from one that lead me to the next one. No subpoena needed just a little hard work.

I'm just sayin' that if there were strange things going on durring the elevator maintenance at the WTC then one of the elevator guys must have seen something.

I can save you some time. Nothing strange went on because no explosives were used. In the nine years since the attacks not one elevator repair tech has stepped forward to say anything. Why do you think that is? The elevator guys are stupid? The elevator guys have been threatened into silence? The elevator guys are in on it?

Once again you insult honest, hard working people with a fucking stupid theory. If you have solid evidence then you are part of the conspiracy because you have not turned this evidence over to the NYC DA, or anybody else in NY law enforcement. I mean if you don't trust the Feds guy can damned sure trust the NYPD or NYFD to take your evidence and take it as far is it will go.Nobody kills a New York cop or a New York Firefighter and gets away with it. If you have solid evidence that leads somewhere other than Al Qaeda then you must take it to NYC law enforcement.

However in the nine years since the attacks you have also done nothing to advance justice. If you have evidence of explosives being used at the WTC complex then why have you not taken it to the NYPD in person? Why have you not gone to the NYC DA's office with your prescious dust and your scientific evidence?

If you did then I apologize, I must have missed that part. If you did then what did the DA say?

 
At 29 December, 2010 00:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

You know why the elevator guys don't talk about 9/11? Because there were 70 elevator mechanics at the WTC on 9/11, and a lot of civilians died trapped in the elevators, and not one of those 70 mechanics died.

We don't need to go to a judge. When we get the public riled up enough, Congress can form a commission.

 
At 29 December, 2010 06:16, Blogger Garry said...

'You know why the elevator guys don't talk about 9/11? Because there were 70 elevator mechanics at the WTC on 9/11, and a lot of civilians died trapped in the elevators, and not one of those 70 mechanics died'.

Fuck you, MALLAM. Have you got any proof behind that smear? Thought not.

And my question still stands. Name me a qualified structural engineer or a qualified CD specialist who says your 'theory' is feasible. Otherwise, STFU.

 
At 29 December, 2010 06:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

You know why the elevator guys don't talk about 9/11? Because there were 70 elevator mechanics at the WTC on 9/11, and a lot of civilians died trapped in the elevators, and not one of those 70 mechanics died.

That's nice, Brian. You know, one of these days, it would be cool if you presented evidence for your beliefs, and not just endless innuendo.

We don't need to go to a judge. When we get the public riled up enough, Congress can form a commission.

"When"? It's been over 9 years since the attacks. Do you plan on getting the public riled up anytime soon? You sure are taking your sweet time.

 
At 29 December, 2010 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, if you would bother to read the available articles about the WTC elevator renovations, you would see that much of the work involved changes to the door mechanisms. That work is necessarily distributed along the shaft and not isolated to the pit and the hoist room.

If you would bother to go to historycommons and search on ACE elevator, you will find a USA Today article that comments on the mysterious absence of the elevator mechanics on that day. I believe it even comments that elevator mechanics have a culture of engaging in rescue operations, so their behavior was quite peculiar.

I don't have a theory. You're the one with the theory: All the mechanics were hanging out in the pits and the hoistrooms and they would have noticed any strangers in the 15 miles of elevator shafts.
All I did was point out the holes in your theory. Do you have any engineers supporting your theory?

 
At 29 December, 2010 10:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, did you miss my comment on how you really need to stop relying on innuendo instead of facts?

 
At 29 December, 2010 10:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes Ian, I missed it. I'm so tired of your fact-averse nonsense I don't even read past the first couple of lines in your posts.

 
At 29 December, 2010 10:37, Blogger Garry said...

Brian keeps on referring to the habits of 8 year olds in his posts (see below for example):

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=2057445341164945567

I therefore suspect that his fixation with children means that he's a paedophile.

I thought I'd use the same standards of proof and evidence that he just used in smearing a bunch of everyday working men as mass-murderers.

 
At 29 December, 2010 11:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes Ian, I missed it. I'm so tired of your fact-averse nonsense I don't even read past the first couple of lines in your posts.

But you reply, because you're an obsessed lunatic. Well, they have treatment programs for that. Check yourself into a mental hospital, and you won't find yourself with the urge to babble nonsense on an obscure blog where everyone is laughing at you.

 
At 29 December, 2010 11:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say they were mass-murderers, Garry. I said they all survived the attacks, I said the usual elevator tech culture was to do rescue work, I said I thought USA Today said the same thing, and I said they probably don't want to talk about the WTC.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Here's two USA Today articles. They talk about the work ACE elevator was doing on the doors in the renovation project.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-mechanics.htm

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

Maybe if you guys would do a bit more research your opinions wouldn't be so arbitrary and grumpy.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody cares about your elevator work articles, petgoat.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:32, Blogger Garry said...

'I didn't say they were mass-murderers, Garry. I said they all survived the attacks, I said the usual elevator tech culture was to do rescue work, I said I thought USA Today said the same thing, and I said they probably don't want to talk about the WTC.'

Really? This is what you actually said:

'You know why the elevator guys don't talk about 9/11? Because there were 70 elevator mechanics at the WTC on 9/11, and a lot of civilians died trapped in the elevators, and not one of those 70 mechanics died'.

Inference through innuendo - the elevator techs were responsible either for actually organising the CD, or turning a blind eye to the perps.

Fuck you, you MALLAM.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, the elevator techs don't want to talk about 9/11 because they're ashamed that they violated their industry code and, according to USA Today, the Port Authority emergency plan.

Ian, if nobody cares about the USA Today articles they don't care about the facts.

 
At 29 December, 2010 13:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, the elevator techs don't want to talk about 9/11 because they're ashamed that they violated their industry code and, according to USA Today, the Port Authority emergency plan.

More pointless innuendo...

Ian, if nobody cares about the USA Today articles they don't care about the facts.

You're right. Nobody cares about your facts because they're totally irrelevant.

Johan Santana won the AL Cy Young award in 2004. This is a fact. It also does not tell us anything about 9/11.

 
At 29 December, 2010 13:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Wow Bwian. I read the articles and all I see is an elevator company making bad decision on door locking mechanisms, and a failure to coordinate a disaster plan with the Port Authority.

Do you know what I also read in those two articles? I read that jet fuel blew down the elevator shafts causing explosions on lower floors, something that you have denied in your inconsistant posting.

Now that I have read those articles your asshat theory comes apart like Kleenex at a snot party. The elevator work was done in-house, which meant that there were no strangers coming in and out as you allege. ACE Elevators Inc is union. Good luck fucking with any union guys, and good luck straying into an area where union guys are doing their job because will hand you your ass in short order. I did electical work on a water plant retro-fit, and I worked around three different construction unions. They always have a guy keeping an eye out for idiots like me so I don't get killed or break something that they've just fixed.

There is no way that that someone planted explosives under the guise of elevator repair. It is an insult to the elevator guys, and it is an insult to professional black-ops demo guys (or attack baboons).

Like I've said Bwian, if you have concrete evidence that you are witholding then it is you who is guilty of conspiracy, in this case conspiracy to obstruct justice. If you can prove which elevator maintenance guy was the mad bomber then pick up a phone or book a flight to NYC.

Otherwise shut the hell up.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you doofus, there were over 200 elevator shafts--fifteen miles of them. That's a lot of territory for 80 men to cover. This isn't your hick-town ten-story skyscraper we're talking about here. It's only your limited command of the facts and your impoverished imagination that allows you the certainty you proclaim.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, you doofus, there were over 200 elevator shafts--fifteen miles of them. That's a lot of territory for 80 men to cover. This isn't your hick-town ten-story skyscraper we're talking about here. It's only your limited command of the facts and your impoverished imagination that allows you the certainty you proclaim.

You keep repeating this as if anyone cares, petgoat. Hey, the Eisenhower Tunnel is 1.7 miles long and sits at an elevation of over 11,000 feet. The Burj Dubai is 2,717 feet tall. The Akashi Kaikyo Bridge is over two miles long.

These are interesting facts too, but we're supposed to be talking about 9/11, remember?

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

We are talking about 9/11 Ian. We're talking about the fact that Garry expects 80 elevator mechanics to maintain jealous territorial control 24/7 over 200 elevator shafts is not just loony, not just ignorant, but stupid as well.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

We are talking about 9/11 Ian.

False. You're babbling about elevator shafts as if anyone cares.

We're talking about the fact that Garry expects 80 elevator mechanics to maintain jealous territorial control 24/7 over 200 elevator shafts is not just loony, not just ignorant, but stupid as well.

See? Babbling about elevator shafts. Seek professional help.

 
At 29 December, 2010 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm trying to talk about 9/11, and you're just babbling about snug.bug.

 
At 29 December, 2010 18:05, Blogger 911TNLZ said...

Don't just sit there...DO SOMETHING. JOIN THE LLOYDE ENGLAND FLAGGING PARTY! DON'T LET US TWOOFERS OUT FLAG YOU LOL! Happy New Year DoofusDebunkahs!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeR_KoXOXZ8

 
At 29 December, 2010 18:37, Blogger Triterope said...

Garry expects 80 elevator mechanics to maintain jealous territorial control 24/7 over 200 elevator shafts is not just loony, not just ignorant, but stupid as well.

Actually, Brian, thanks to modern technology, and new thinking in building design, this sort of thing is no longer necessary.

Any sensitive area, no matter what size or shape, can be effectively controlled by limiting the number of ways by which it can be entered. This is accomplished by introducing a special kind of movable structure that can positioned to either allow or prevent access. This movable structure is called a "door."

By introducing "doors" at a small number of points, and ordinary walls at most of the others, it is possible to maintain jealous territorial control over an entire area simply by monitoring the only ways in and out.

Doors can be further secured by installing a "lock." A lock is a mechanical fastening device that prevents the door from being opened. But how are people supposed to get in, you ask? Well, a special tool called a "key" can be made, which will open the lock and, in turn, allow the door to be opened.

Now, here's the tricky part. Keys must be given only to people who are allowed to enter the sensitive area, such as elevator technicians in an elevator shaft.

Why, some ultra-modern companies even use electronic locks! These devices respond to a specially made identification badge, which can also include a photograph of the authorized person, which helps prevent improper use.

By installing doors, locks, and giving keys only to proper persons, a modern building can easily control a large area, without the need for 24-hour patrols.

Are you getting this, Brian? Because it gets harder.

 
At 29 December, 2010 18:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, everybody knows that locks only keep honest people out.

Boy are you naive.

 
At 29 December, 2010 18:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, everybody knows that locks only keep honest people out.

Boy are you naive.


It's been suggested by Deagle, et al. that modified attack baboons can break locks, so there's another strike against your idea that the towers were not brought down by micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons.

 
At 29 December, 2010 19:10, Blogger Triterope said...

Garry, everybody knows that locks only keep honest people out.

I'll take that as a "no." Shall we move on to the next ninth-grade concept you don't understand?

 
At 29 December, 2010 20:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

By all means, lamo. Try again.

 
At 30 December, 2010 07:18, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, everybody knows that locks only keep honest people out'.

Look MALLAM, for the past 24 hours you've been having you're arse handed to you on a plate by M Greg Ferris, Ian G and Triterope. Not me - at least not this time.

Get a fucking grip of yourself, you retard.

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, contrary to your imaginings "You're insane" and "Way to go mop boy" are not handing anyone his ass.

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, contrary to your imaginings "You're insane" and "Way to go mop boy" are not handing anyone his ass.

Maybe we can have an arbitrator make a decision? Oh wait, this is just a blog where a small group of people laugh at the stuff you post. It doesn't matter.

 
At 30 December, 2010 13:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Gosh Bwian maybe my hick elevator ain't as fancy as the one as the one them employs you as a janitor but they all work on the same concept.

The WTC had at least 14 law firm offices. That does not take into account the number of other tenants that also had lawyers on staff. It is safe to say that the elevator contrator was out numbered by lawyers at the WTC. So how do you think liability was considered by every contractor there, not to mention the Port Authority? For your fucked up theory to work elevator shafts had to be left open and unattended. Really? In a 110 story building?

If they were working on the doors then they were probably working on the switches that cause the car to stop at each floor. I don't really know and I don't really care. What ever they were doing the work was most likely monitored by a supervisor or team leader and that means that every one working was accounted for before during and after.

Why?

Lawsuits, Bwian, lawsuits.

Fear of lawsuits are a big motivator. You know, like fear of being sued for racial profiling which meant that airline ticket agents went to work past signs on their bulliten boards admonishing them not to single out passengers for security screening s based on ethnicity. How about being sued for civil rights violations because the FBI searched your hard drive because you are an Arab-National on an expired visa?

See Bwian, outside of whatever mental hospital you live/work at in the real world liability is a #1 consideration for business and government.

The WTC was a giant shark tank full of potential for lawsuits. If someone slipped on a wet floor, if the air smelled funny, if a Port Autority police officer came off rude to an important tenant it could have been bad.

The presence of these lawyers raises a larger question for the troofers as well. There have been lawsuits, Bwian, about failed coms, health problems from inhailing dust (funny no nanothermite has been found in the lungs of first responders, why?)but there have been no lawsuits about the use of explosives.

Once again the troofers have a fertile field just waiting for their hard evidence to be employed in the biggests lawsuit in the history of the western world. Forget justice, Bwian, we are talking a pay-day beyond the financial means of the US gub'mint to pay.

And you want me to believe that some scumbag lawyer hasn't jumped all over this?

Rewee?

 
At 30 December, 2010 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mywon, no, elevators don't all work on the same concept. Some are hydraulic, some use cables, and there are other types too.

And who said anything about leaving elevator shafts open? I stopped reading there.

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, remind us again why you're babbling about elevators. What point are you trying to make?

 
At 30 December, 2010 15:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

His point (other than the one that the top of his skull comes to) is that the explosive charges that he thinks brought down the WTC were planted during the elevator maintenance a few weeks prior to the attacks. That some how the maigic nanothermite fairy dust was sprayed on the steel beams disguised as paint.

That's a whole lot of special.

 
At 30 December, 2010 16:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Elevator renovations (not maintenance) were still ongoing at the time of the attacks. That's why there were 80 elevator mechanics there that day.

 
At 30 December, 2010 21:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Elevator renovations (not maintenance) were still ongoing at the time of the attacks. That's why there were 80 elevator mechanics there that day.

Nobody cares, petgoat.

 
At 31 December, 2010 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody here cares, Ian. If your colleagues here cared about truth, they would shut you up fast.

 
At 31 December, 2010 10:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody here cares, Ian. If your colleagues here cared about truth, they would shut you up fast.

Nobody anywhere cares, petgoat. You care because you're a lunatic and total ignoramus.

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

No one anywhere cares about truth, eh? Maybe so in your solipsistic, nihilistic world.

If you're going to live in a fantasy world, why not make it interesting and pretty and smart?

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:50, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:52, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:54, Blogger Triterope said...

His point is that the explosive charges that he thinks brought down the WTC were planted during the elevator maintenance a few weeks prior to the attacks.

Which was destroyed four days ago by James B., when he said:

Thermite could theoretically be sprayed on. However anything that thin would accomplish nothing. Shaped charges work by concentrating explosives, not spreading a small amount of explosives over an entire beam.

At which point Brian dropped the explosives entirely to focus on the elevators. Apparently his "explosives in the elevator shaft" proposition is just as plausible without the explosives.

He's told us how many elevator shafts there were, how long they were, how many people were in them, what they were doing, and what they had for breakfast.

But that's Brian's game. He's here to do one thing: to keep talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking and talking about SOMETHING. It doesn't even matter what. His goal is to bury the discussion under a load of unaddressable trivia so he can go DURR UNANSWERED QUESTIONS DURR WIDOWS DURR NEW INVESTIGATION DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

I get the feeling that Brian Good takes this is all very seriously. Why he puts in so much effort for a movement that hates him, I have no idea.

 
At 31 December, 2010 18:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, James B did not provide any calculations or estimates of thinness to support his claim that sprayed nanothermite would be wimpy. After all, the claim was made that it was fire-induced thermal expansion of the core columns that caused them to overload.

And what limit on thickness of the coating was there? If there was going to be fireproofing over it, you could probably put the nanothermite on 3/4" thick!

My game is to point out when people are saying stupid things. Like claiming that a crew of 80 union elevator guys could keep operatives out of 15 miles of elevator shafts. Like when people claim that CD would require a conspiracy of thousands, or when they claim there's no evidence of explosives, or when they claim there was no molten iron.

I take this seriously because the widows are still waiting for answers to 91% of their questions, and because the destruction of the integrity of the news media and the resultant cynicism in this society bring us that much closer to collapse. I learned more about nihilism than any ten year old should need to know. So yes, I care.

 
At 31 December, 2010 20:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Elevator renovations (not maintenance) were still ongoing at the time of the attacks. That's why there were 80 elevator mechanics there that day."

Uh huh, so somehow during this revonvation project not a sinlge one of the 80 elevator guys double-checked their work? 'Cuz if they had they would have found those explosive charges.

And don't bring up the widows because everyone here knows that you don't give a shit about them. This is all about your ego and how much smarter you are then the entire world. Worse it is a cyber version of hiding behind women and children as you take your retarded pot-shots at everyone.

 
At 01 January, 2011 11:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

If explosive or incendiary charges were hidden inside the hollow core columns, there's no reason to think that someone double-checking their work would discover them. Besides, if you did the work in May and checked it in June, why would you check it again in September?

I take this seriously because the widows are still waiting for answers to 91% of their questions.
I'll bring that up until they get answers--and the respect they deserve. Don't you talk to me about the widows. You have allowed Ian to say dozens of times--with no contradiction from you--that "nobody cares" about the widows. You have allowed him to lie dozens of times when he claims that their questions have been answered.

If I were trying to prove that I'm smarter than the entire world, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time by hanging around the shallow end of the pool here.

 
At 01 January, 2011 12:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester whines, "...I take this seriously because the widows are still waiting for answers to 91% of their questions."

Questions are NOT evidence--you pencil necked jackass. And if you think I fall for your feigned concern for the "widows," you're out of your mind.

Go soak your head, goat molester.

 
At 01 January, 2011 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody said questions were evidence.

Failure to answer them is. It's evidence of a dishonest and incomplete investigation. It's evidence of a coverup. It's evidence of the need for honest and complete investigations.

 
At 01 January, 2011 15:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

It's a new year, and Brian Good is still babbling about nothing.

At least he doesn't deny being petgoat anymore. We're making progress.

 
At 01 January, 2011 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't deny molesting goats either.

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Snug.mug prevaricates, "...Failure to answer them is."

Wrong again, goat molester.

Any jackass can formulate a question; however, that doesn't qualify the question as "evidence."

The authorities continued refusal to answer idiotic, irrelevant questions is not evidence of a "coverup" [SIC]. This is another figment of your overactive and thoroughly dishonest imagination.

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:32, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, James B did not provide any calculations or estimates of thinness to support his claim that sprayed nanothermite would be wimpy.

I'm sorry Brian, I forgot we have to support everything with say with reams of calculations, whereas you can pull non-existent substances with magical properties out of your ass.

And I did cite the TruthBurn fiasco. I suggest you read up on how that went down.

And what limit on thickness of the coating was there?

The limits you impose upon it.

For example, you said:

incendiary coatings could have been placed by workers who thought they were spraying ordinary paint

This implicitly requires a thickness no more than that of ordinary spray paint. You can't just make workers paint the same wall an infinite number of times; they will figure out that something's not kosher.

And that's just one example.

My game is to... say... stupid things.

Fixed that for you.

I take this seriously because the widows are still waiting for answers to 91% of their questions

No, they're not. But you want to "help" them anyway, because they're women, and you're a greasy little sex stalker with a hero fantasy.

You certainly don't have any concerns about any male unanswered questions about 9-11. What about Manny Badillo and Jim McIlvaine? Never heard you mention them.

 
At 01 January, 2011 21:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, so which of the widows' 273 unanswered questions are idiotic and irrelevant, and why do you think so? Is it idiotic to ask if the director of the Situation Room always traveled with Bush to PR appearances?

Again, I did not say the questions were evidence. I said the failure to answer them is.

TR, reams of calculations are not necessary. Some notion of what value of energy James was using for his opinion would be useful in evaluating how reasonable it is.

Your belief that workers could not be manipulated into applying extra paint is silly. All it takes is recruiting several newbies to apply "final" primer coats in succession, and several to apply "final" finish coats. The "can't-do" spirit of the SLC crew goes a long way to explain why America is going down the tubes.

My sympathy for Bob McIlvaine is inhibited by the fact that he sometimes says stupid things, and the Jersey widows never do. Manny Badillo is an excellent spokesman but he's a Johnny-come-lately and I have no reason to pay him much mind.

 
At 02 January, 2011 00:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 January, 2011 09:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

Again, I did not say the questions were evidence. I said the failure to answer them is.

Uh, that's not evidence, petgoat. Learn what words mean.

Your belief that workers could not be manipulated into applying extra paint is silly. All it takes is recruiting several newbies to apply "final" primer coats in succession, and several to apply "final" finish coats. The "can't-do" spirit of the SLC crew goes a long way to explain why America is going down the tubes.

Now the failed janitor is babbling about extra coats of paint in a hopeless attempt to make his insane theories seem reasonable.

Also, nobody cares about your "Jersey widows", petgoat. You only care about them because you're a sex stalker and you think that you can be a knight in shining armor for them. Seek professional help.

 
At 02 January, 2011 09:45, Blogger Triterope said...

GutterBall, so which of the widows' 273 unanswered questions are idiotic and irrelevant, and why do you think so?

I did this for you a long time ago, you snotty little shit.

I wrote you a huge post of examples of questions from your goddamn list and why they're irrelevant. I also challenged you to cite ONE question that would change the world's understanding of 9-11 if it were answered. You did not respond. So you're just getting the short version this time.

Your precious "unanswered questions" fall into one or more of the following categories:

- Follow-up questions such as "if not, why not?" and "if so, what resulted?"

- Duplicate questions, such as "What was their intention of allowing you to remain at Booker Elementary" and "Please explain why you remained at Booker elementary"

- Procedural questions such as "describe your role in the preparation of daily Presidential briefings"

- requests for opinions, typically "what recommendations would you make?"

- questions for which answers exist, such as the "why isn't Bin Laden wanted for 9-11" Truther meme.

- Statements that aren't even questions, like "Congress had been willing to support the recommendations (of the Hart-Rudman report)."

- questions no one could possibly answer, such as "please provide the names of anyone else who took Cipro." Seriously. That's one of them.

To be fair, there are some reasonable questions on there, such as "please explain why no one in our government has been held accountable for the countless failures leading up to 9-11." I'm sure we're all curious about that one. But that doesn't change our understanding of 9-11. If anything, it requires the "official story" to be true.

The most recent version of the list of questions is here.

 
At 02 January, 2011 10:04, Blogger Triterope said...

Manny Badillo is an excellent spokesman but he's a Johnny-come-lately

First of all, he's been active for at least three years, and second, so what? You're not the doorman of the 9-11 Truth dance club.

My sympathy for Bob McIlvaine is inhibited by the fact that he sometimes says stupid things

I see. So if you sometimes say stupid things, your dead relatives can just fucking rot in hell without an ounce of help from Brian Good?

the Jersey widows never do

Yes, they do, Brian. Like Pat Casazza's mystery roadside whistleblowers, or Lorie van Auken's "9-11 kindergarten." Ian G. already said it -- you're a sex stalker with a hero fantasy, and you're fooling absolutely no one.

 
At 02 January, 2011 10:09, Blogger Triterope said...

All it takes is recruiting several newbies to apply "final" primer coats in succession, and several to apply "final" finish coats.

So now we're hiring people to apply one coat of spray paint, and then firing them. No, that wouldn't get anybody's attention in H.R. Or the union. Brian, have you ever actually had a job?

 
At 02 January, 2011 10:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

You're not the doorman of the 9-11 Truth dance club.

The amusing this if of course that Brian has been thrown out of the Truth Club by the actual doorman. He can't name a single truther who considers him in good standing with the group.

 
At 02 January, 2011 11:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, TR, I remember your incredibly stupid issue about how would the answers change the world.

How am I supposed to know how the answers would change anything before the answers have been given? Where did you get the psychic power to determine the uselessness of something you've never seen?

Your criticisms of the questions are so unintelligent as to be self-discrediting. What is wrong with procedural questions, or asking for opinions for improvements to operations from people like the National Security Advisor? Your claim that the statement on the Hart-Rudman was not a question is erroneous. It was the factual background to a series of five questions.

Who said anything about firing people. It's a big job, you can shuffle them around.

 
At 02 January, 2011 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm getting real tired of people who think it's smart to play dumb.

 
At 02 January, 2011 12:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

How am I supposed to know how the answers would change anything before the answers have been given?

You don't know because you're a delusional liar. Pointless and/or stupid questions being answered won't change a thing. Those of us with a grasp of reality understand this.

Your criticisms of the questions are so unintelligent as to be self-discrediting.

False. You're the only one completely discredited here, petgoat, because you're a babbling liar.

All of the "widows" questions are pointless nonsense. You only care about them because you want to get into Laurie Van Auken's pants, because you're a liar and lunatic.

I'm getting real tired of people who think it's smart to play dumb.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 02 January, 2011 12:18, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I remember your incredibly stupid issue about how would the answers change the world.

Actually, what I said was "how would the questions, if answered, change our understanding of 9-11." Which is exactly what YOU need to illustrate.

Any legal procedure requires the parties to show relevance. You can't just drag people in and ask them an endless list of pointless questions. Watch a court procedural TV show sometime.

How am I supposed to know how the answers would change anything before the answers have been given?

Brian, a question is an interrogative statement designed to test knowledge. That is important right now.

What is wrong with procedural questions, or asking for opinions for improvements to operations from people like the National Security Advisor?

Okay Brian, let me get this straight: you want a new investigation into 9-11 to ask Condoleezza Rice what her job was?

You want a new investigation into 9-11 to ask George W. Bush his opinion why the nation was unprepared for the attacks?

You want a new investigation into 9-11 to ask Dick Cheney how much cooperation he will give to an inquiry that's been closed for five years now?

None of the people you want to question even hold those positions anymore!

Yes, procedural and opinion questions have a role in an inquiry. Creating a new inquiry solely to ask them is stupid.

Your claim that the statement on the Hart-Rudman was not a question is erroneous. It was the factual background to a series of five questions.

The statement is marked as an unanswered question.

 
At 02 January, 2011 12:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, TR. To you the 9/11 investigation is a legal proceeding, and you seem to want to act as the defense attorney to protect public officials from the questions of the victims of their malicious negligence.

The questions are not pointless. The questions are essential to a process by which the concerns of the victims could be addressed, and an environment of accountability established. If any of the questions are irrelevant or inappropriate, the proper response is to explain why they are not answered--not to ignore them or dodge them.

A question is an avenue for finding information.

Do I want a new investigation into 9/11 to find out what Condi thought her job was. She seemed to think that informing herself about al Qaeda cells inside the United States was not part of her job as National Security Advisor.

I want a new investigation to fulfil the mission of the 9/11 Commission to provide a "'full and complete accounting' of the attacks of September 11, 2001" and the requirements of Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 that the Commission "investigate 'facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,' including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation."

Nobody said anything about holding a new investigation simply to ask procedural and opinion questions.

The Hart-Rudman statement is not marked as an unanswered question. There is no X in the checkbox.

 
At 02 January, 2011 13:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, TR. You want to construe a legislative fact-finding commission as a legal proceeding and you want to play the role of defense attorney to protect the public officials responsible for the malicious negligence from the questions of the victims. Now what kind of sick hero-complex is that?

The widows' questions deserved a formal response. If they were irrelevant or inappropriate, the windows deserved an explanation of why they were not answered.

Yes, I would like to know what Condi Rice believed her job as National Security Advisor was, and her explanation for why keeping track of al Qaeda cells inside the USA was not part of it.

Nobody is proposing an inquiry to pursue solely procedural and opinion questions. What's needed is an inquiry to fulfill the 9/11 Commission's mandate to "provide a 'full and complete accounting' of the attacks of September 11, 2001" and to satisfy Section 604 of Public Law 107-306 requiring "the Commission to investigate 'facts and circumstances relating to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,' including those relating to intelligence agencies; law enforcement agencies; diplomacy; immigration, nonimmigrant visas, and border control; the flow of assets to terrorist organizations; commercial aviation; the role of congressional oversight and resource allocation."

The widows' statement on Hart-Rudman was not marked as an unanswered question. There was no X next to it.

 
At 02 January, 2011 13:41, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 January, 2011 13:44, Blogger Triterope said...

The widows' statement on Hart-Rudman was not marked as an unanswered question. There was no X next to it.

There most certainly is an X next to that item.

http://www.nyccan.org/FamilySteeringCommitteeReviewOfReport.pdf

 
At 02 January, 2011 13:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

The widows' questions deserved a formal response.

No they don't.

If they were irrelevant or inappropriate, the windows deserved an explanation of why they were not answered.

Because they were pointless nonsense. There's your answer.

We already had an investigation, petgoat. Just because you didn't like the way it went doesn't mean you'll get a new one. The government isn't in the business of catering to the delusions of failed janitors.

 
At 02 January, 2011 14:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Oh I see, TR. You want to construe a legislative fact-finding commission as a legal proceeding and you want to play the role of defense attorney to protect the public officials responsible for the malicious negligence from the questions of the victims."

I hate break this to you, batty boi, but the victims are dead.

You're so dishonest that you DELIBERATELY CONFLATE the term victim with survivor.

You're disgusting, goat molester. Human detritus to the nth degree.

 
At 02 January, 2011 14:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, congratulations, you caught a typo. In the original Appendix 4 list at justicefor911.org, there's no X next to question 8.

GutterBall, I can certainly understand your belief that a woman whose husband was killed on 9/11 is not a victim of 9/11, as clearly your wife would be better off with a fat insurance check and a hairy personal trainer than she is with the dubious pleasure of your company, but you're wrong. The widows are victims of 9/11, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of 9/11, and I'm a victim of 9/11 because I have to put my life on hold to slap down idiots like you.

 
At 02 January, 2011 15:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

The widows are victims of 9/11

False.

the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of 9/11

Partially true, but they're also victims of a lot more than just that.

I'm a victim of 9/11 because I have to put my life on hold to slap down idiots like you.

And then there's this. What did I say about Brian's religious need for 9/11 truth to be true? Without it, he's an abject failure: no friends, no family, no job, and an anonymous funeral in a few years after a probable stint in a homeless shelter because he won't be able to support himself once his elderly parents are gone.

But with 9/11 truth, he can engage in dazzling fantasies about how he's a hero: Oskar Schindler, Solzenitsyn, Bayard Rustin, and the the Tank Man from Tienanmen Square rolled into one. He can pretend people take him seriously. He can pretend he's "slapping people down" by babbling endlessly on a blog, much to the amusement of the rest of the blog's small readership.

 
At 02 January, 2011 15:25, Blogger Triterope said...

You're so dishonest that you DELIBERATELY CONFLATE the term victim with survivor.

Oh, I think there's more to it than that.

The use of the word "victim" reveals Brian's true attitude towards these women: that they're helpless little waifs who need his big brave super-genius male help to get their questions answered.

 
At 02 January, 2011 15:35, Blogger Triterope said...

In the original Appendix 4 list at justicefor911.org

Oh that's right, you're still working with the 2004 list, from before the commission was even complete. It's addressed to Eliot Spitzer, for God's sake.

 
At 02 January, 2011 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

The questions were not answered by the Commission, and they are thus still pending.

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, I can certainly understand your belief that a woman whose husband was killed on 9/11 is not a victim of 9/11, as clearly your wife would be better off with a fat insurance check and a hairy personal trainer than she is with the dubious pleasure of your company, but you're wrong. The widows are victims of 9/11, the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are victims of 9/11, and I'm a victim of 9/11 because I have to put my life on hold to slap down idiots like you."

Really? No kidding?

Is that why I just proved that you're a liar again, goat molester?

Now, get your lying ass back to the "Eggscrutiatingly Stupid" thread and APOLOGIZE for quote mining and lying about John Skilling's alleged statement concerning "studies done [that] showed the building could survive a hit from a 707 going 600 mph...the structure would still be there'."

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, GOAT MOLESTER!

When will you learn, goat molester, that you're not intelligent enough to fool me?

Now apologize--you lying piece-of-shit.

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

And no, goat molester, the widows are not "victims." The widows are--by definition--survivors.

And you--you pathetic dissembler--are not a victim, either.

You're an ass--a grandstanding, self-important jackass.

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

LOL GutterBall. In the same sentence where you accuse me of quote mining you misquote me.

You can't do anything right, can you? Still wearing buckle shoes, Buster Brown?

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I didn't misquote you--you piece-of shit.

Smug.mug wrote, "...The studies done showed that the building could survive a hit from a 707 going 600 mph. That's from "City in the Sky". Why do you guys go to such great length to avoid the truth? John Skilling, Leslie Robertson's boss, told the Seattle Times that the buildings could take a plane hit and the fires and 'the structure would still be there'."

But that not what the Seattle Times article says, does it, goat molester?

Continued...

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Here's what the Seattle Times really wrote:

"...Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"'Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,' he said. 'The building structure would still be there.'"


Skilling was talking about a Boeing 707, not a 767. And he said not one word about the speed of the aircraft.

Thus, you are proven to be a liar and quote miner once again.

Now, tell us Pinocchio, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

Now, get out of here and don't show your lying face in this forum again--you quote mining son-of-a-bitch.

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Here's what the Seattle Times really wrote:

"...Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

"'Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,' he said. 'The building structure would still be there.'"


Continued...

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Skilling was talking about a Boeing 707, not a 767. And he said not one word about the speed of the aircraft.

Thus, you are proven to be a liar and quote miner once again.

Now, tell us Pinocchio, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

Now, get out of here and don't show your lying face in this forum again--you quote mining son-of-a-bitch.

 
At 02 January, 2011 16:58, Blogger Triterope said...

The questions were not answered by the Commission, and they are thus still pending.

The investigation is closed, Brian.

 
At 02 January, 2011 17:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your inability to read a simple statement correctly goes a long way to explain why you are so confused about 9/11 and so frustrated. I suggest that you take up a less cerebral hobby that is more in keeping with your natural abilities, since this is obviously too challenging for you.

TR, yes, the investigation is closed, with 91% of the widows' questions still unanswered. That's one of the reasons we need a new one. Another reason is that the Executive Director wrote a complete outline of the report before the investigation even happened.

 
At 02 January, 2011 18:00, Blogger Triterope said...

The investigation is closed, Brian.

 
At 02 January, 2011 18:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, your inability to read a simple statement correctly goes a long way to explain why you are so confused about 9/11 and so frustrated.

Brian, your inability to answer my questions about the popularity of the truth movement shows how desperate you are.

TR, yes, the investigation is closed, with 91% of the widows' questions still unanswered.

And nobody cares. I, however, have several questions that you have not answered, and every hour that you don't answer them is another hour of pain for the widows. You should be ashamed of yourself.

That's one of the reasons we need a new one.

False. We don't need a new investigation and we won't have one. Babbling about it won't change things.

Another reason is that the Executive Director wrote a complete outline of the report before the investigation even happened.

Nobody cares.

 
At 02 January, 2011 21:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, yes, the investigation is closed, with 91% of the widows' questions still unanswered. That's one of the reasons we need a new one. Another reason is that the Executive Director wrote a complete outline of the report before the investigation even happened and much of what the report tells us about al Qaeda was based on unverified CIA transcripts of testimony extracted under torture.

 
At 02 January, 2011 23:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Why should anyone believe you, goat molester? After all, you're a proven liar, quote miner, sex stalker and demented psychopath.

Get it through your thick skull, goat molester: You have no credibility.

 
At 02 January, 2011 23:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why believe me? Because my claims check out, they are internally consistent, I don't make stuff up, I show good reasoning skills.

 
At 03 January, 2011 02:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? Is that why I just caught you quote mining and lying?

 
At 03 January, 2011 04:30, Blogger Triterope said...

The investigation is closed, Brian.

 
At 03 January, 2011 06:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Why believe me? Because my claims check out, they are internally consistent, I don't make stuff up, I show good reasoning skills.

False, false, false, and false. Wow, a golden sombrero. Good job, Brian.

 
At 03 January, 2011 10:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Why believe me? Because my claims check out, they are internally consistent, I don't make stuff up, I show good reasoning skills.

Brian,

Your claims check out alright, under the words Looney, Crazy, Absurd, Obnoxiuos, Stupid, Retarded. You do make up stuff, you're a God damn janitor for Pete sake.

 
At 03 January, 2011 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

My what a string of pearls!

GB lies
TR clams, standing on a circular technicality
Ian just spews typical Iananity (the weak sister on the team)
WAQo makes up stuff while claiming I make stuff up

 
At 03 January, 2011 12:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

You forgot "Brian babbles about the same debunked nonsense he was babbling about 5 years ago, while getting no closer to realizing his goals of a new investigation into 9/11."

Remember, petgoat, we're not the ones with our lives morbidly wrapped up in this thing. We're just here to pause for a minute and laugh at you. You're the one who needs 9/11 truth to be successful, and it continues to be an abject failure.

 
At 03 January, 2011 13:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

And I should also add that you're one of the few suckers who actually believe 9/11 "truth", Brian. Gage and Griffin and Dylan Avery are just charlatans who know they can make money off of gullible fools like you.

I will grant you that you're not the only true believer out there. Kevin Barrett thinks much as you do, for example.

 
At 03 January, 2011 15:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo makes up stuff while claiming I make stuff up.

Really Brian?

I "make up" stuff cause you failed to provide evidence to prove that the stuff I've read & looked at is actually "made up".

Brian, whatever drugs you're on give me some, cause putting up with your insane bullshit is beginning to drive me crazy you fucking loon!

BTW: You do make up shit as you go along. Whose going to take a janitor, like William Rodriguez, seriously? Noone!

 
At 03 January, 2011 15:58, Blogger Triterope said...

TR clams, standing on a circular technicality

Well, if the object of the game is to keep raising irrelevant objections, you're always going to win. You're far more determined to be a dipshit than I am to fix you.

 
At 03 January, 2011 16:24, Blogger paulthew said...

I was wondering why it was so quiet in the other posts, then came here.

It's like wandering around a large, silent house, and opening the door to a room you haven't been in for a while...to find it full of raucous people.

I see Brian is getting pasted, again.

Still, he obviously enjoys it.

And, GB, gotta say I laughed out loud when you called Brian a 'pencil necked jackass'.

Still, he obviously enjoys it.

 
At 03 January, 2011 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

I do enjoy "pencil necked jackass".

That somebody coins such an unimaginative phrase is merely stupid--but that someone else then cites it as praiseworthy is priceless!

 
At 03 January, 2011 17:33, Blogger Triterope said...

putting up with your insane bullshit is beginning to drive me crazy you fucking loon!

I know how you feel. At times I wasn't sure there really was an X in that column. Brian is the abyss, and you have to back away from it every once in awhile.

 
At 03 January, 2011 18:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

That somebody coins such an unimaginative phrase is merely stupid--but that someone else then cites it as praiseworthy is priceless!

Poor Brian: no friends, no family, no job, one of the few people who has actually been kicked out of a cult....all he has in life is the attention he gets here. I guess being laughed at all day is better than getting no attention at all.

 
At 03 January, 2011 18:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, the reason I'm here is that apparently nobody else in the truth movement has a hide thick enough to do the dirty deed, but somebody has to stick around to show that the people youse think are loony are better informed, more rational, and more intelligent than youse here.

 
At 03 January, 2011 19:02, Blogger Triterope said...

Do we even need to mock Brian anymore, or is just redundant at this point?

 
At 03 January, 2011 19:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, the reason I'm here is that apparently nobody else in the truth movement has a hide thick enough to do the dirty deed

It would help if there was still anyone left in the "truth" movement...

but somebody has to stick around to show that the people youse think are loony are better informed, more rational, and more intelligent than youse here.

Well, you're really failing at that, since your insane babbling here make it obvious why even janitorial work was too difficult for someone of your impaired mental state.

 
At 03 January, 2011 23:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at them typing, typing, typing about nothing. For free.

 
At 04 January, 2011 04:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Projecting again, goat molester?

 
At 04 January, 2011 06:29, OpenID jrebori682 said...

Look at them typing, typing, typing about nothing. For free.

Considering that his quantity of typing is on a par with most of those he is laughing at for typing "For free", is this a slip indicating that hs is being paid for his time here?

Would explain much.

 
At 04 January, 2011 11:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I know how you feel. At times I wasn't sure there really was an X in that column. Brian is the abyss, and you have to back away from it every once in awhile.

I know Triterope, Truthers (like Brian) are very obnoxious/ignorant/stupid/retarded.

I can't help but to think that Brian would cause so much pain for the 9/11 Families, but then again, the Families aren't going to take a janitor seriously.

I think Brian wants to fill Willie Rodriguez's shoes.

 
At 04 January, 2011 11:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

the truth movement has a hide thick enough to do the dirty deed

Brian,

Does that dirty deed require a conspiracy?

 
At 04 January, 2011 13:44, Blogger paulthew said...

"I know how you feel. At times I wasn't sure there really was an X in that column. Brian is the abyss, and you have to back away from it every once in awhile."


I've argued with a few truthers over the last couple of years on other sites (including the supposed bright-sparks of the Australian-based truther site, 9110z), and they ALL sound like Brian.

Every single one.

The 911oz crowd, for example, are STILL whining about 'sound of explosions', 'observations of flashes'*, 'squibs', 'pyroclastic clouds', 'thermite', etc.

If today you'd walk away from the inside jobbbie circus, and return in 2013, absolutely nothing, would have changed; 'sound of explosions', 'observations of flashes'...etc.

* Hilariously, this has the added tag, 'seen by numerous professionals'. Hmmm. Professional flash observers?

 
At 04 January, 2011 14:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

The 911oz crowd, for example, are STILL whining about 'sound of explosions', 'observations of flashes'*, 'squibs', 'pyroclastic clouds', 'thermite', etc.

If today you'd walk away from the inside jobbbie circus, and return in 2013, absolutely nothing, would have changed; 'sound of explosions', 'observations of flashes'...etc.


Right, which is why there's little to do but point and laugh at this point, because debunking the same nonsense gets old after the 10th time. Why not just laugh at them? I mean, their movement is an irrelevant failure, so there's no need to take it seriously anymore.

 
At 04 January, 2011 15:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Yeah, nothing brightens my day than to come to SLC, read what Brian & other Truthers peddle & laugh at them for being stupid.

Brian is a failure. He thinks he's some sort of "genius" when he's not. He's just a peon whose job as a janitor is to clean up. Perhaps Brian should go global & clean the world, if he truely wants to save the world from the "scum of the universe".

 
At 04 January, 2011 22:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, where do you get the idea that I'm a janitor?

 
At 04 January, 2011 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I used to say "I'm the janitor of the truth movement" because it was left to me to clean up the mess made by guys like Willie R and Kevin Barrett.

Where did you get the idea that I polish faucets for a living?

 
At 05 January, 2011 06:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, where do you get the idea that I'm a janitor?

From the truth movement. I take their word for it when talking about one of their own.

I used to say "I'm the janitor of the truth movement" because it was left to me to clean up the mess made by guys like Willie R and Kevin Barrett.

Bullshit. Also, nobody cares.

Where did you get the idea that I polish faucets for a living?

You don't. You do nothing for a living. You're an unemployed loser living in his parents basement babbling online all day about meatballs and rakes and your sexual desires for Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 05 January, 2011 11:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, where do you get the idea that I'm a janitor?

Brian,

What Ian said: From the truth movement. I take their word for it when talking about one of their own.

Apparently you don't like being exposed as Willie Rodriguez's stooge!

 
At 05 January, 2011 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you guys consider "the truth movement" a reputable source?

I take it you don't subscribe to GutterBalls's uncle's principle that it's intellectually dishonest to cite a source unless you agree with its conclusions.

When an anonymous internet poster cites an uncheckable source, I will assume they don't know what they're talking about.

 
At 05 January, 2011 12:18, Blogger Triterope said...

Do you guys consider "the truth movement" a reputable source?

When they're talking about personal interactions they've had with other Truthers, yes.

When they're spewing about engineering concepts they obviously have no understanding of, no.

If you don't understand the difference, that's your problem.

 
At 05 January, 2011 12:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Do you guys consider "the truth movement" a reputable source?

No, they don't have a good reputation because they lack 1 key ingredient: EVIDENCE!

Which you seem to lack anyways. Mop that floor & make it shine Brian!

 
At 05 January, 2011 12:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

When an anonymous internet poster cites an uncheckable source, I will assume they don't know what they're talking about.

You should talk Brian! I know about fires & how it acts on unprotected steel. You just don't have a damn clue because you're not a firefighter. You're a janitor, & that's all your profession is going to be.

 
At 05 January, 2011 13:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Do you guys consider "the truth movement" a reputable source?

When talking about other truthers, yes. Why would they want to kick someone out of their tiny little cult unless said person is as messed up as you are, Brian?

When an anonymous internet poster cites an uncheckable source, I will assume they don't know what they're talking about.

Hmm, that's what we've been doing with you for almost 2 years, Brian. It's obvious you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to 9/11.

 
At 05 January, 2011 15:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, do you suppose that some people might have gotten just a little bit peeved with me when I pointed out that their pet 9/11 hero was a liar and a fraud?

 
At 05 January, 2011 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

And then highly embarrassed when they finally calmed down enough to realize I was right?

 
At 05 January, 2011 16:27, Blogger Triterope said...

Wow Brian, it took you 15 extra minutes to figure out a way to congratulate yourself?

 
At 05 January, 2011 17:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, do you suppose that some people might have gotten just a little bit peeved with me when I pointed out that their pet 9/11 hero was a liar and a fraud?

No, but thanks for asking. Why would Carol Brouillet tell everyone that you sex stalked her unless...you sex stalked her?

Just because you sex stalk Willie Rodriguez too doesn't mean you can't do it to Carol as well.

And then highly embarrassed when they finally calmed down enough to realize I was right?

Yeah, you're right about Rodriguez. He's like all other truthers: ignoramuses, lunatics, or charlatans. I don't think that's the point you were trying to make, however.

Anyway, congratulations on your success in slapping down Rodriguez, Brian. You got kicked out of the truth movement, but at least you still get laughed at here.

 
At 05 January, 2011 18:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. Carol didn't say anything about stalking. Willie and Kevin did. They objected when I commented on news articles and blog posts about them. They called that stalking. Now they rarely appear in the news and few people blog about them any more.

 
At 05 January, 2011 21:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you lie. Carol didn't say anything about stalking.

False. Carol's own words are on her website to see. Ironic how you always tell people to learn to google, and that's exactly how I discovered that you tried to destroy her marriage.

Willie and Kevin did. They objected when I commented on news articles and blog posts about them. They called that stalking. Now they rarely appear in the news and few people blog about them any more.

Nobody gives a fuck about Willie or Kevin except you because you love them and want to have their babies.

 
At 05 January, 2011 21:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. I'm not finding any such thing on the website.

 
At 05 January, 2011 21:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see your game. You want your lie to be the last post before this gets archived.

 
At 05 January, 2011 23:45, Blogger Triterope said...

Ian, you lie. I'm not finding any such thing on the website.

Of course you're not. You're blind to anything that doesn't fit into the fantasy world you've built for yourself. Happens all the time. We've shown you photographs, we've shown you documents, we've shown people disagreeing with you in their own words. You don't believe any of it. You're blind to it all.

You are mentally ill.

 
At 05 January, 2011 23:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, Ian made a quite specific claim about a specific website, and the verbiage is not there.

 
At 06 January, 2011 06:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you lie. I'm not finding any such thing on the website.

That's because you don't know how to read, as you've amply demonstrated when talking about the NIST reports.

Oh I see your game. You want your lie to be the last post before this gets archived.

You really have the mind of a six-year-old, don't you?

There's no game here, Brian. There's us laughing at you, and you getting all upset and calling people "girls".

TR, Ian made a quite specific claim about a specific website, and the verbiage is not there.

Nobody cares if the "verbiage" is there, Brian. Carol made it clear that she considers you a sex stalker, and that's all that matters. If you knew how to read, you'd understand this.

 
At 06 January, 2011 13:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie.

 
At 06 January, 2011 13:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you lie.

False. You sex stalked Carol Brouillet. Everybody knows this. For you to continue to deny this shows how much of a deranged glue-sniffing liar you are.

 
At 06 January, 2011 13:38, Blogger Triterope said...

Last!

 
At 06 January, 2011 15:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie.

Of course this has nothing to do with Charles Lewis. It has to do with Ian's pathetically unfulfilling life such that he must get his jollies gossiping about people he doesn't even know.

 
At 06 January, 2011 15:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you lie.

False. You are a sex stalker and a liar. That's why you were thrown out of the truth movement.

Of course this has nothing to do with Charles Lewis. It has to do with Ian's pathetically unfulfilling life such that he must get his jollies gossiping about people he doesn't even know.

My, such squealing! Brian, do you still do that thing where you post in long-dead threads so you can get the last word in and, I guess, "win" the thread? That's another element of your insanity that was entertaining.

You're not getting this thread, Brian. I will post in it forever. You will never get the last word. I don't let lying sex stalkers get the last word.

 
At 06 January, 2011 21:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you make up your facts.

 
At 07 January, 2011 01:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess I just really need to learn to stop letting it bother me when stupid people say stupid things.

 
At 07 January, 2011 06:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you make up your facts.

These facts have not been made up: you are a liar, a sex stalker, a failed janitor and you've been thrown out of the truth movement.

Another fact is that you will never see another investigation into 9/11. HA HA HA!

I guess I just really need to learn to stop letting it bother me when stupid people say stupid things.

So no more babbling about smoldering carpets? C'mon, Brian, the stupid things you say are hilarious.

 
At 07 January, 2011 10:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can read in the Weidlinger Report about the smoldering carpets. They claim that dust knocked down by the impact damped the fires.

You don't know the difference between your opinions and facts.

If that doesn't cause problems for you in the job world, it's only because you stick to jobs where the difference doesn't matter.

 
At 07 January, 2011 11:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

You can read in the Weidlinger Report about the smoldering carpets. They claim that dust knocked down by the impact damped the fires.

So the fires would have otherwise burned more intensely and brought the towers down quicker. That's nice. Who cares?

You don't know the difference between your opinions and facts.

False. Here, I'll give an example.

Fact: Brian Good is a liar and sex stalker and failed janitor who lives with his parents.

Opinion: Brian Good is the dumbest and most insane truther, but also the most entertaining.

If that doesn't cause problems for you in the job world, it's only because you stick to jobs where the difference doesn't matter.

Brian, what do you know about jobs? You're unemployed.

Also, nice try posting in the archived thread, but you lose again, petgoat.

 
At 07 January, 2011 11:57, Blogger Triterope said...

Last!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home