Thursday, December 02, 2010

Nutty Napolitano and Goofy Geraldo Raise Eyebrows

CNN, seeing a chance to get a dig in at their fiercest rival, highlights the new new celebrity Troofers:

It's rare that two media watchdogs – one on the left and one on the right – ever agree when it comes to assessing coverage on the cable news outlets.

But both the conservative Newsbusters and liberal Media Matters are aiming fire at Fox News' Geraldo Rivera and Judge Andrew Napolitano for recently suggesting the third building to fall on September 11, 2001 – 7 World Trade Center- may have collapsed for reasons beside the widely held belief that fire from the two World Trade Center towers nearby was the ultimate cause.


Newsbusters:

Both Napolitano and Rivera have, er, raised questions about the "official" (read: commonsensical) explanation for the collapse of the WTC7 building on September 11, 2001. This conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked a number of times. Apparently Geraldo and the Judge are not convinced.


Media Matters:
As Media Matters has documented, Napolitano's previous Jones appearances have been marked with conspiracy theories about the government and the "New World Order." For instance, Napolitano and Jones have agreed that Obama will "start a wider global war" to "be a prince," and discussed whether a powerful banking cartel linked to "world government" would "collapse the economy" and use that "as an excuse for martial law." Napolitano also told Jones of Texas secession: "That time has come. That may actually happen" because of the actions of the government.


Newsbusters links our old buddy Alllahpundit from a couple weeks ago on the Gerald conversion:

Why, oh why, oh why would the nefarious neocon junta that’s supposedly responsible for the 9/11 attacks have bothered with Building 7 in the first place? Never mind the huge number of government operatives they would have needed to plant explosives in the various buildings damaged or destroyed that day, or the fact that somehow not a single one of them has leaked anything about the plot more than nine years later despite that information being worth untold millions. Just ask yourself: If they were going to bring down the Towers as a pretext for war in the Middle East, why the hell would they have brought down Building 7 too? The structure’s collapse adds nothing to the already severe trauma of the day, and taking the time and effort to plant explosives would only increase the odds of detection. It would have been a wholly needless risk.


Of course, the real answer to that question is that to conspiracy theorists, nothing just happens. It was always planned to happen. Oh, sure, they've got some nebulous argument about how the SEC's files on Enron were stored in the building and somehow this prevented the government from prosecuting those responsible (which would be news to Jeff Skilling).

The Huffington Post also covered Napolitano's Trooferism:

Fox Business host Andrew Napolitano revealed on Tuesday that he does not believe the government's account of the 9/11 attacks. Napolitano, who hosts "Freedom Watch" on Fox Business and is frequently seen on Fox News as a legal analyst, told radio host Alex Jones — who is a prominent 9/11 conspiracy theorist —that the attacks "couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."

The subject came about when Jones noted that Geraldo Rivera had recently raised questions about the collapse of World Trade Center 7 on Napolitano's Fox Business Show. 9/11 conspiracy theorists have centered on that building's collapse, contending that it was blown up by government forces. Jones asked Napolitano what his opinion about the issue was.


That post attracted an astounding 11,347 comments, and revealed that many of the Huffington Posts' moderators (apparently chosen automatically by a computerized set of criteria) are Truthers themselves.

Update: Family members weigh in:
Charles Wolf's wife, Katherine, died in the North Tower on Sept. 11. He calls conspiracies like those Napolitano discussed "ludicrous," and accused him of using the tragedy to seek attention.

"After all the investigations, they are rather ludicrous," he said. "Nine and a half years after, to bring something like this up, what kind of publicity is he looking for for himself? It appears to me to be rather self-serving. He is not worth getting upset about, he is just someone who is looking for publicity."

Rosemary Cain, whose son, firefighter George Cain, died that day, took issue with Napolitano specifically.

"Judge Napolitano? I can't believe that, I really don't believe it," she said when she heard about his comments. "What can they gain by that? I think it is beneath him to come out with a remark like that. He is in a position of respect."

Labels: , ,

113 Comments:

At 02 December, 2010 08:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

On the note of "leaks", can Brian or V for Vendetta idiot or Dust Boy please let me know why Wikileaks hasn't dumped thousands of documents on the 9/11 conspiracy and its cover-up? Assange seems to like to embarrass the US government, so why isn't he planning on exposing how the WTC was rigged with explosives and how the planes were remote-controlled?

 
At 02 December, 2010 09:12, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Only in Ian G's logic are simple diplomatic communications the same as a conspiracy.

Have you figured out the difference between collapsed and crushed and your church issue from earlier?

I tried to help you but I know how debunkers hate to be proven wrong by those who question the government's official 9/11 theory.

 
At 02 December, 2010 09:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'll take it from that response that Mask Boy can't explain why there hasn't been a shred of evidence for an inside job in any of Wikileaks dumps.

Have you figured out the difference between collapsed and crushed and your church issue from earlier?

Yes. Who cares?

 
At 02 December, 2010 10:25, Blogger ConsDemo said...

That post attracted an astounding 11,347 comments, and revealed that many of the Huffington Posts' moderators (apparently chosen automatically by a computerize set of criteria)

I think you meant to say "readers" rather than "moderators." In any case, there are a ton of people on the left still suffering from Bush Derangement Syndrome and thus are eager to buy into twoofer ideology. Now the wingnut population is growing on the right, Napolitano is in a class by himself and uberlibertarian type.

Still no word from Fox itself on its talking heads going off the deep end?

 
At 02 December, 2010 10:47, Blogger Pat said...

Cons, check out the comments by "HuffPost Community Moderator" frameofmind, among others. Like I said in the post it appears they are chosen by some computerized criteria, having to do with how many posts they correctly flag as objectionable.

 
At 02 December, 2010 10:48, Blogger Garry said...

'"After all the investigations, they are rather ludicrous," he said. "Nine and a half years after, to bring something like this up, what kind of publicity is he looking for for himself? It appears to me to be rather self-serving. He is not worth getting upset about, he is just someone who is looking for publicity."'

In a nutshell, a perfect summary of the troof movement overall.

 
At 02 December, 2010 11:40, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Pat, any chance of correcting your earlier post about William R. being the only person to claim there were bombs that went off before the plane hit? I linked to a site with an embeded video of a second person from that day on mainstream media confirming William R's claim.

 
At 02 December, 2010 11:44, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

I'll take it from that response that Mask Boy can't explain why there hasn't been a shred of evidence for an inside job in any of Wikileaks dumps.

ROFLMAO@U

Ahhh yes, it wasn't an inside job because Wikileaks hasn't released anything.

Great logic, Ian. Really great logic.

So for you to believe 9/11 was an inside job, Wikileaks has to release information stating it as such.

You stick with Wiki, I'll stick with science and the evidence that has already been released to the public via FOIA, eyewitnesses testimony, physics, visual evidence, audio evidence, etc.

 
At 02 December, 2010 11:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Pat, any chance of correcting your earlier post about William R. being the only person to claim there were bombs that went off before the plane hit? I linked to a site with an embeded video of a second person from that day on mainstream media confirming William R's claim.

And nobody cares. Also, Mask Boy, can you tell me why it is that Wikileaks' Iraq and Afghanistan dumps don't have a single reference to 9/11 being an inside job?

 
At 02 December, 2010 11:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

So for you to believe 9/11 was an inside job, Wikileaks has to release information stating it as such.

I know this is hard for someone of your intellect to understand, but in order for me to accept that 9/11 was an inside job, I would like to see some evidence for that. If you'd stop wanking in mom's basement to "V for Vendetta", you'd be aware of all the documents related to Iraq and Afghanistan that were released by Wikileaks. Given that those wars are directly or tangentially related to 9/11, you'd think there'd be a passing mention of the conspiracy behind both wars, especially if "truther" narratives are taken at face value.

And yet....nothing.

I'll stick with science and the evidence that has already been released to the public via FOIA, eyewitnesses testimony, physics, visual evidence, audio evidence, etc.

And you'll keep wanking it to "V for Vendetta" too. Nobody cares.

 
At 02 December, 2010 13:37, Blogger Garry said...

'Pat, any chance of correcting your earlier post about William R. being the only person to claim there were bombs that went off before the plane hit? I linked to a site with an embeded video of a second person from that day on mainstream media confirming William R's claim'.

Fuck off and get a life, you twat.

 
At 02 December, 2010 13:51, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

On the note of "leaks", can Brian or V for Vendetta idiot or Dust Boy please let me know why Wikileaks hasn't dumped thousands of documents on the 9/11 conspiracy and its cover-up?

Oh, that's easy. Julian Assange says 9/11 Truth is bullshit.

 
At 02 December, 2010 13:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The Ass Rider said:

Pat, any chance of correcting your earlier post about William R. being the only person to claim there were bombs that went off before the plane hit?

Is that you, Andrew?

 
At 02 December, 2010 15:17, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat is terrified of answering questions that make him and his ilk look like idiots. You won't get an answer from him, 'Masked.

How many torches does it take to put thousands of tons of melted iron in the dust, Pat? Ask the RJ Lee group for help.

 
At 02 December, 2010 16:52, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

No bombs went off inside the WTC before the first plane hit, so who the fuck cares how many people claim that bombs went off?

Just because a lot of people think something is true doesn't make that thing true.

Just because Justin Bieber was nominated for two Grammys and thousands of teenage girls buy his music doesn't make him Elvis.

How many of those witnesses know the difference between a bomb exploding and something else exploding? Look at how many witnesses have changed their stories once they understood that what they were hearing durring the collapse was the concrete floors slamming together.

Who cares about Wikileaks, why has noy one single person stepped forward to tell his tale about being on the inside of the greatest crime in US History? People leaked documents and talked to reporters about waterboarding, NSA wiretaps,and secret CIA prisons yet none of the 2000 people needed to pull off 9/11 have said a word.

Why?

 
At 02 December, 2010 17:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Pat is terrified of answering questions that make him and his ilk look like idiots. You won't get an answer from him, 'Masked.

And dust boy shows up to jerk off mask boy. Well, it's probably more action that either has ever gotten....

 
At 02 December, 2010 18:09, Blogger Billman said...

YOu guys see this yet?

http://www.enews-press.com/article/169767/more/censorship-on-the-web-is-alex-jones-the-beginning

Looks like Alex Jones is getting the boot from google and YouTube!

Que the freak-out lawsuit by AJ in 3... 2... 1...

 
At 02 December, 2010 18:11, Blogger Billman said...

What I think is funny, is Alex JOnes posts a youtube video response... so the ban isn't immediate, apparently.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVtfSO28Upw&feature=player_embedded

 
At 03 December, 2010 00:18, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

I have an idea for a game that's kinda like "death pool" only instead of guessing who'll die next, you play this game by guessing which Fox News reporter will cry TRUTH! Taking suggestions for the games name, but I'll throw out "Kook pool."

 
At 03 December, 2010 00:23, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

Also, I think this will make Pat and JB shit in their cereal. I got an update on Jason Bermas from my local Whackos and OOOOHhhhhhhh how the mighty have fallen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr_P63V1tHM

I love how @ about 38 seconds in, Bermas is introduced as being "instrumental in the 9/11 cover-up." LOL!

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:14, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Ian, I thought for sure you wouldn't result to Ad Hom, but alas, next to the fallacy of omission, that is the other favorite arguement fallacy that debunkers like to use.

Ferrris-How many of those witnesses know the difference between a bomb exploding and something else exploding?

Well Ferris, that is why most intelligent thinking individuals look at the entire examination of evidence to arrive at the bomobs in the basement conclusion. It is NOT just the testimony of survivors, but the physical damage that was caused to the environment in the basement as described in the Port Authority Transcripts that you have never read. One must also examine the damage to human beings as a whole down in the basement, and finally eyewitness descriptions of what they saw, heard, felt, and experienced. And when you examine the body of evidence as a whole, the intelligent thinking individual arrives at the same conclusion the FBI did on that day. There were explosives, bombs if you will, used in the basement of the North Tower. Or as some debunkers, Ron Weick and Mark Roberts like use to say years ago, "those weren't bombs, those were pop cans! MUWAHAHA

Ian, your right, nobody does care...about the accuracy of this blog or it's authors. But apparently you do enough to cut and past my comment and waste your time typing a response. With that in mind, I will leave the wanking to you.

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:17, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Ian G. and PATricide sure love those gay jokes...

When you're tired of shutting the fuck up in fear, you can try to answer my questions, Pat, including your charge that GutterBitch is 'retarded' for not believing your "explanation" of the melted iron in the dust. Are you man enough, Pattie? Show your work, and explain why you beg to differ with the scientists from the RJ Lee group. Don't forget your 'sources', you fat dumbunkass.

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian G. and PATricide sure love those gay jokes...

It's not a gay joke so much as it's a joke about truthers' inability to get laid. Becoming a truther is pretty much a vow of celibacy.

 
At 03 December, 2010 07:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I thought for sure you wouldn't result to Ad Hom, but alas, next to the fallacy of omission, that is the other favorite arguement fallacy that debunkers like to use.

Aw, poor mask boy is upset! Well, what do you want from me? It's been 9 years, and all you do is spout the same nonsense over and over again. It was debunked 100 times before, and there's little left to do except laugh at you.

Ian, your right, nobody does care...about the accuracy of this blog or it's authors.

Well, you knuckleheads care about this blog, otherwise you wouldn't be posting here.

But apparently you do enough to cut and past my comment and waste your time typing a response. With that in mind, I will leave the wanking to you.

Yes, as I've explained to Brian Good many times, I find you guys hilarious (Oooh, he's got a "V for Vendetta" mask as his avatar! How edgy!) and I enjoy poking you. I suppose it's not very classy of me, but obnoxious 20-year-old dateless, jobless losers who accuse thousands of Americans of mass murder without a shred of evidence kind of annoys me.

 
At 03 December, 2010 08:29, Blogger Billman said...

Pretty much what Ian said. The V for Vendetta stuff is just as cliched as the constant recycled Matrix references: "How deep does the inside jobby job rabbit hole go?"

I've lost track of how many times troofers have said "Rabbit hole", "Blue pill", etc...

This is the perfect metaphor for the troofers. They get so wrapped up in fiction, they think that if they emulate it, they'll bring about revolution just like in the movies!

They desperately want V for Vendetta to be real, they want to be "The One" and "unplug from the Matrix" and save the world from fictional threats to it.

But hey, troofers have freedom of expression too. They just all express the same thing. So whatever. Masked boy can has his avatar. Its no less ridiculous than mine. Only difference is, he probably really thinks he's as awesome as V.

"Ooh! I'll go on this blog that has maybe 10 repeat visitors who still bother with it, repeat the same debunked crap over and over, and I'll bring about revolution! It all starts here! V for Vendetta!!!! T for Thermite!!!"

 
At 03 December, 2010 08:54, Blogger Pat said...

Cosmos, have you apologized yet for lying that Mickey Rothenberg was your uncle on that Australian broadcast?

http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=668

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator scribbles, "...Ian, your [SIC] right, nobody does care."

The Masked Prevaricator doesn't know the difference between you're and your and we're expected to take this urchin seriously?

Please.

 
At 03 December, 2010 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Andrew Bernstein (aka "Cosmos," "Pat Cowardly", etc.,) whines, "...Show your work, and explain why you beg to differ with the scientists from the RJ Lee group."

Again, for the 100th time, Andrew, this is a link to the RJ Lee Report:

Source: WTC Dust Signature Report: Composition and Morphology: Summary Report, Prepared for: Deutsche Bank.

Now Andrew, cite the RJ Lee Report as concerns the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres. A simple cut-and-paste from the RJ Lee Report will suffice.

You can't cite the RJ Lee Report as concerns the source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres?

Then STFU, Andrew.

 
At 03 December, 2010 14:02, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

How does anybody here know what I have and have not read?

If there had been a bomb detonated in the basement of the WTC then where were the secondary reports on the live news coverage. With the hundreds of reporters swarming the part of NYC that morning why was there not one report? There was more than enough time between the "detonation" and the collapse for varified reports. There were none.

They found no evidence of explosives in the wreckage. The signs that you pathetically point to as being consistant to a bomb also consistant to the physics of a passenger jet slamming into the tower and then the collapse of that tower almost straight down.

The bomb in the basement is a lie. The burden of proof is on you.

 
At 03 December, 2010 15:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Greg, there were multiple news reports of secondary explosions in the WTC. Chief Ray Downey offered the opinion that WTC2 had been brought down with explosives. Chief Turi reported secondary explosions.

I am not aware that anyone reported explosions before the planes hit other than William Rodriguez, whose blatant lies about his exploits on that day discredit his testimony and everyone who believes him.

No evidence of explosives was found in the wreckage because nobody looked for it.

 
At 03 December, 2010 16:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, etc.) prevaricates, "...No evidence of explosives was found in the wreckage because nobody looked for it."

[GB shakes his head in amazement]

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.

 
At 03 December, 2010 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course he didn't find any det cord. Why would the perps use det cord?

Your expert is like an executioner looking at a murder victim and saying "I don't see any electric chair, so death must have been from natural causes."

 
At 03 December, 2010 18:01, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."
-RJ Lee report.

How hot do jet fuel and office contents burn, GutterBitch?

 
At 03 December, 2010 19:07, Blogger Billman said...

Pat Cowardly said:
"Many of the materials, such as lead, cadmium, mercury and various organic compounds, vaporized and then condensed during the WTC Event."
-RJ Lee report.

How hot do jet fuel and office contents burn, GutterBitch?


Maybe focusing your argument on how hot the fires were is not the way to go. Instead, focusing on the part where something heavy, like a building collapsing, might have something to do with the whole condensing thing you just referenced.

 
At 03 December, 2010 19:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

M Greg, there were multiple news reports of secondary explosions in the WTC. Chief Ray Downey offered the opinion that WTC2 had been brought down with explosives. Chief Turi reported secondary explosions.

Wow, secondary explosions in a massive, uncontrolled fire! This is almost as shocking a revelation as that there was iron in the wreckage.

Also, stop lying about Downey. He's a hero who gave his life to save others. You're an unemployed loser who stalks people online.

No evidence of explosives was found in the wreckage because nobody looked for it.

False. Also, nobody cares about Willie Rodriguez.

Of course he didn't find any det cord. Why would the perps use det cord?

They didn't. They used jetliners. Learn to google.

 
At 04 December, 2010 04:51, Blogger Garry said...

'Chief Ray Downey offered the opinion that WTC2 had been brought down with explosives. Chief Turi reported secondary explosions'.

The job of clearing up Brian's lies is a tough and unpleasant one, but someone has to do it:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1997183&postcount=1

John Delendick (Priest) We heard a rumbling noise, and it appeared that that first tower, the south tower, had exploded, the top of it. That's what I saw, what a lot of us saw. We ran down underneath the Financial Center.

'I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even. As we've since learned, it was the jet fuel that was dropping down that caused all this. But he said it was too even'.

Deputy Chief Downey is of course not in a position to offer a retrospective judgement on the events of 9/11, due to the fact that he died in the line of duty trying to save people's lives. But I think it is disgusting that low-life troofers seek to twist the words of a genuine hero to prove their points.

 
At 04 December, 2010 08:17, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"But I think it is disgusting that low-life troofers seek to twist the words of a genuine hero to prove their points." -blaring

Twist his words by repeating his initial impression of what the "collapse" looked like? They're his own words, glary. How were they "twisted"?

 
At 04 December, 2010 08:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

Twist his words by repeating his initial impression of what the "collapse" looked like? They're his own words, glary. How were they "twisted"?

Not twisted, just used in a cowardly manner since the man is no longer alive to refute you idiots. But since his words came 2nd hand from someone who says there weren't bombs in the tower, I think this issue is settled.

Now go on babbling about iron some more.

 
At 04 December, 2010 09:11, Blogger Garry said...

I never thought I'd see the day when a sicko and a stalker - who was reduced to posing as the relative of a 9/11 victim - can accuse others of being deceitful.

 
At 05 December, 2010 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Billman, condensing and vaporization are two different things. One takes cooling, one takes heat. Getting cooling out a a heavy building collapse is an interesting concept.

Ian, I'm not lying about Captain Ray Downey. His comments to Father Delendick are public record. Captain Downey thought WTC2 was brought down with explosives, and he was one of the premier building collapse experts in the USA.

 
At 05 December, 2010 16:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I'm not lying about Captain Ray Downey. His comments to Father Delendick are public record. Captain Downey thought WTC2 was brought down with explosives, and he was one of the premier building collapse experts in the USA.

Stop lying, Brian.

 
At 06 December, 2010 04:15, Blogger Garry said...

'Captain Downey thought WTC2 was brought down with explosives, and he was one of the premier building collapse experts in the USA'.

No, Brian. Deputy Chief (get his rank right, FFS) Downey's initial assessment on arriving on the scene was that there MIGHT be explosives in the building. He was not - unfortunately - in a position to reassess this first impression, because he then went on to do what no troofer would ever do - namely, sacrifice his life in a bid to save others.

 
At 06 December, 2010 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, I meant Chief. Captain was a slip.

According to Father John Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."

 
At 06 December, 2010 10:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

According to Father John Delendick, Downey "said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even."

And then what does Delendick say? He says that the initial speculation about bombs was wrong. How come you always leave that part out, Brian? It's almost as if you don't want to get the whole picture, since it would wreck the delusional fantasy you've built up.

 
At 06 December, 2010 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

The opinion of a priest about the bombs is irrelevant. Chief Ray Downey was the collapse expert, not Father Delendick. Chief Downey's opinion was that the collapse was too even to be natural, and he was not alone in that opinion. That remains the opinion of a number of highly qualified people, and NIST's dodging of the issue by stopping their report at the moment of collapse initiation casts great doubt on the competence and integrity of their report.

 
At 06 December, 2010 13:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug whines, "...and NIST's dodging of the issue by stopping their report at the moment of collapse initiation casts great doubt on the competence and integrity of their report."

Say whom? An unemployed janitor?

 
At 06 December, 2010 13:39, Blogger Garry said...

'The opinion of a priest about the bombs is irrelevant'.

But the opinion of a theology professor - namely David Ray Griffin - on all matters scientific is not.

 
At 06 December, 2010 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you will note that I "left out" Dr. Griffin's opinions from the issue of Chief Downey's opinion. Neither Father Delendick's nor Dr. Griffin's opinions are relevant to the matter.

 
At 06 December, 2010 19:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

The opinion of a priest about the bombs is irrelevant. Chief Ray Downey was the collapse expert, not Father Delendick.

And the opinions of someone who didn't live to examine the evidence is also irrelevant. And the opinions of an unemployed janitor and obsessed liar and sex stalker on any topic are irrelevant.

That remains the opinion of a number of highly qualified people, and NIST's dodging of the issue by stopping their report at the moment of collapse initiation casts great doubt on the competence and integrity of their report.

False. It remains the opinion of nobody of any consequence.

Garry, you will note that I "left out" Dr. Griffin's opinions from the issue of Chief Downey's opinion. Neither Father Delendick's nor Dr. Griffin's opinions are relevant to the matter.

And yet you, an obsessed lunatic and liar, are giving out your opinion on this matter as if anyone cares...

 
At 06 December, 2010 21:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish between my opinion and Chief Downey's opinion goes a long way to explain why your beliefs are so out of whack with reality.

 
At 07 December, 2010 05:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your inability to distinguish between my opinion and Chief Downey's opinion goes a long way to explain why your beliefs are so out of whack with reality.

Chief Downey is dead, petgoat. He doesn't have an opinion. You're using him to shield yourself from some unpleasant truths that you'd rather not confront, since it will shatter the only thing (9/11 truth) that gives your life meaning.

Seek professional help, petgoat.

 
At 07 December, 2010 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Chief Downey's opinion as reported by Father Delendick is that he thought explosives were used in tower 2 because the collapse was too even. That opinion does not change simply because he's dead.

Newton's laws were not repealed when Newton died, and you have no idea what gives my life meaning.

 
At 07 December, 2010 12:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Chief Downey's opinion as reported by Father Delendick is that he thought explosives were used in tower 2 because the collapse was too even.

And then Father Delendick qualified that statement by pointing out that Downey was wrong. Initial impressions can be wrong you know, Brian. Carol Brouillet, for example, once considered you a friend before she realized you're an obsessed liar.

That opinion does not change simply because he's dead.

Right, it just becomes completely irrelevant given everything we know about what happened on 9/11.

Newton's laws were not repealed when Newton died, and you have no idea what gives my life meaning.

Right, because Newton's laws were correct, while Downey's opinions were wrong. You're really not very good at grasping reality, are you Brian?

Your life is given meaning by stalking people and your delusional belief that 9/11 "truth" will make you famous. Seek professional help.

 
At 07 December, 2010 23:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Father Delendick does not have the expertise to say that Chief Downey was wrong.

Chief Downey's opinion is not irrelevant, nor has it been shown to have been wrong. Nobody has dealt credibly with the fact that the collapse was too even to be natural.

Why do you think fame is desirable at all--let alone desirable to me? I've never sought fame.

 
At 08 December, 2010 05:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Father Delendick does not have the expertise to say that Chief Downey was wrong.

Ah, Brian, this is why you're so entertaining. You dig your heels in on everything, no matter how ridiculous.

Chief Downey is dead, Brian. He died before he had any opportunity to examine the evidence. Thus, his initial impression is meaningless.

Why don't you name another member of the FDNY (and one who is still alive) who believes there were bombs in the towers?

Chief Downey's opinion is not irrelevant, nor has it been shown to have been wrong.

Um, Brian? It has been shown to be wrong because, uh, there is no evidence that bombs were placed in the towers.

You don't even believe bombs were in the towers, Brian. Otherwise, you wouldn't babble about thermite all the time.

Nobody has dealt credibly with the fact that the collapse was too even to be natural.

Nobody cares, Brian.

Why do you think fame is desirable at all--let alone desirable to me? I've never sought fame.

Yes, you prefer the quiet anonymity of posting your gibberish all over the internet and telling people at DU that you "have reason to believe that one of these days you're going to see some diagrams from more authoritative sources that look something like these." and then posting your "meatball on a fork" and "rake on rake" gibberish.

Brian, it's obvious that even in your delusional mind, your life has been a failure so far. 9/11 "truth" is your last chance to become someone important, which is why you cling so desperately to it. That's also why I find you so hilarious.

 
At 08 December, 2010 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Chief Downey's opinion was that the collapse was "too even" to be natural so there must have been explosives. No credible evidence has been produced to refute this point. Chief Downey was one of the foremost collapse experts in the world, and so is unlikely to have been fooled by Dr. Bazant's piledriver fantasies.

John Schroeder believes there were bombs in the towers. Chief Albert Turi spoke of secondary devices. 118 first responders spoke in their oral history interviews of sounds and sights of explosions. Read the testimony of Carlson, Cruthers, Murray, Banaciski, Cacchia, Gregory, Reynolds, Rogers, Burke, and Deshore.

Ian, your "nobody cares" argument wears thin when almost 1400 architects and engineers care very much, and you can not name a single independent engineer who has overtly endorsed the NIST report.

Petgoat's "meatball on a fork" model and his "rake on rake" model may be gibberish to a graphically illiterate person like yourself or to someone like yourself whose abstact reasoning skill are so inadequate, but they are quite apt representations of certain principles applicable to the study of the demise of the twin towers. I bet you can't even name what those principles are.

You are only arguing from ridicule, Ian. If you were a truther you would be giggling about giant zippers in the twin tower exposing the rigid structural core, you would be giggling about the impracticality of airlifting in giant piledrivers to pound the towers into dust, and you would embarrass the cause of the truthers as much as you embarrass the cause of 9/11 complacency here.

Why would I want to be someone important, Ian? What makes you think I want that?

 
At 08 December, 2010 09:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

Chief Downey's opinion was that the collapse was "too even" to be natural so there must have been explosives. No credible evidence has been produced to refute this point. Chief Downey was one of the foremost collapse experts in the world, and so is unlikely to have been fooled by Dr. Bazant's piledriver fantasies.

Let's see, the speculation of a dead man is taken as ironclad proof, the fact that said speculation hasn't specifically been refuted is just more ironclad proof, and then some more idle speculation about the original speculation.

This is Brian Good's method in a nutshell: just pile speculation on top of speculation while treating each layer of speculation as proof.

And again, Brian, sights and sounds of explosions in a huge, uncontrolled fire are exactly what one should expect. It boggles my mind that you're stupid enough to think explosions constitute some sort of evidence of CD.

Ian, your "nobody cares" argument wears thin when almost 1400 architects and engineers care very much, and you can not name a single independent engineer who has overtly endorsed the NIST report.

Nobody cares. Also, I named Uncle Steve. You, however, have not named a single independent engineer who rejects the NIST report.

Petgoat's "meatball on a fork" model and his "rake on rake" model may be gibberish to a everyone with a grasp of reality, but they make me feel smart since I'm a delusional liar who thinks people believe me when I deny being petgoat.

fix'd

 
At 08 December, 2010 09:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

You are only arguing from ridicule, Ian.

You're a ridiculous person, Brian. Of course I'm laughing at you.

If you were a truther you would be giggling about giant zippers in the twin tower exposing the rigid structural core, you would be giggling about the impracticality of airlifting in giant piledrivers to pound the towers into dust, and you would embarrass the cause of the truthers as much as you embarrass the cause of 9/11 complacency here.

Ah, but I'm not a truther because I'm a normal human being, not a failed janitor and sex stalker and delusional liar like you.

Why would I want to be someone important, Ian? What makes you think I want that?

Because you're a narcissistic lunatic, Brian. Literally every single thing you post, here and all over the internet, makes it crystal clear how desperate you are to be taken seriously.

Why else do you keep babbling nonsense to a bunch of "giggling girls" at an obscure blog, except that it makes you feel important because you're a delusional lunatic.

Seek professional help.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am getting really tired of your girly straw dolls. I never said anything about "ironclad proof".
Chief Downey's perception that the collapse was unnaturally even was not a speculation but an observation; his suggestion that bombs had been planted was a not a speculation but a hypothesis.

Explosions, when coupled with symmetry, totality, speed, pulverization, molten metal, and incredible and dishonest investigations can be regarded as evidence of CD.

"Steve" is not named, Ian. And his alleged endorsement of NIST is covert, not overt. Tell him to start "Architects and Engineers for NIST" and see how many he can sign up. None of the AE911truth engineers or architects have been shown to have conflicts of interest with respect to their advocacy of new investigations.

Ian, there is nothing wrong in my wish that clear thinking on an important subject be taken seriously. I thus greatly resent your making light of the facts and of the family members' wish for answers.

Why would you think posting to giggling girls makes me feel important?

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I am getting really tired of your girly straw dolls.

YES!!! Brian, I love it when you call us girls. It really shows how unbelievably insane you are.

I never said anything about "ironclad proof".
Chief Downey's perception that the collapse was unnaturally even was not a speculation but an observation; his suggestion that bombs had been planted was a not a speculation but a hypothesis.


Brian, it wasn't a hypothesis. Leave big words like that to people who understand how to use them. Also, Downey was doing preliminary speculation. He's now dead and thus cannot follow up on his speculation, but that allows liars like you to use it as proof.

Explosions, when coupled with symmetry, totality, speed, pulverization, molten metal, and incredible and dishonest investigations can be regarded as evidence of CD.

Um, no. Let the people who know what they're talking about decide what constitutes evidence of CD.

"Steve" is not named, Ian.

Brian, learn to read. His name is Steve.

And his alleged endorsement of NIST is covert, not overt.

False.

Tell him to start "Architects and Engineers for NIST" and see how many he can sign up.

He's a busy man, Brian. He has better things to do with his time than form pointless cheerleading squads.

None of the AE911truth engineers or architects have been shown to have conflicts of interest with respect to their advocacy of new investigations.

Nobody cares.

Ian, there is nothing wrong in my wish that clear thinking on an important subject be taken seriously.

It has been. The adults took care of this long ago, Brian. You should try reading the NIST report instead of just babbling about what you want it to say.

I thus greatly resent your making light of the facts and of the family members' wish for answers.

Back to babbling about widows, Brian? I've told you many times, they have no questions.

Why would you think posting to giggling girls makes me feel important?

Because you're suffering from mental illness.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, when a collapse expert suspects finds the mechanism of a collapse is unnatural, his speculations are a hypothesis. His "preliminary speculation" remains cutting-edge because, as I pointed out, it has never been credibly refuted.

1400 architects and engineers are capable of deciding what constitutes evidence of CD.

Where did Uncle Steve overtly endorse the NIST report?

Ian, I have read enough of the NIST report to see its blatant dishonesty and its egregious omissions (willful blindness). What's not in the report is more revealing than what is.

I don't babble about what I want it to say. Section 6.14.4 says the building came down "essentially in free fall". I know you're just going to lie about that, as you continue to lie about the widows' 300 questions, only 27 of which were answered.

 
At 08 December, 2010 12:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, when a collapse expert suspects finds the mechanism of a collapse is unnatural, his speculations are a hypothesis. His "preliminary speculation" remains cutting-edge because, as I pointed out, it has never been credibly refuted.

Another thing that's so entertaining about you, Brian, is that, unlike most abysmally stupid people, you don't have a sense of how dumb you are, and thus you post gibberish like this in total seriousness.

1400 architects and engineers are capable of deciding what constitutes evidence of CD.

Not the ones in Gage's group, apparently.

Where did Uncle Steve overtly endorse the NIST report?

He was on the computer in his bedroom when he did it.

Ian, I have read enough of the NIST report to see its blatant dishonesty and its egregious omissions (willful blindness). What's not in the report is more revealing than what is.

Try reading it again. You obviously didn't understand it the first time.

I don't babble about what I want it to say.

False. You follow the above sentence with:

Section 6.14.4 says the building came down "essentially in free fall".

Which is not true. It's what you want it to say because you're delusional.

I know you're just going to lie about that, as you continue to lie about the widows' 300 questions, only 27 of which were answered.

Brian, you're really getting desperate now. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist.

 
At 08 December, 2010 13:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, section 6.14.4 says the building came down "essentially in free fall".

Unless you are claiming that the "building section above" fell off the top of the building and then the lower part of the building just spontaneously collapsed, there is no other way to interpret it other than "the building section above" falling through the lower section of the building with minimal resistance.

Your obstinate and irrational lies on this and other points are very discrediting to this forum.

 
At 08 December, 2010 14:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, section 6.14.4 says the building came down "essentially in free fall".

It's amazing to me that you can continue to lie as if the next time you say it, it will magically become true. I assume that's what this is. It's also possible that you're too dumb to read, but many people have tried to correct you. I'm going with the former since you lie about everything else.

Unless you are claiming that the "building section above" fell off the top of the building and then the lower part of the building just spontaneously collapsed, there is no other way to interpret it other than "the building section above" falling through the lower section of the building with minimal resistance.

Ah, so you acknowledge that you're full of shit, but apparently the rules of reality don't apply because you're petgoat!

Your obstinate and irrational lies on this and other points are very discrediting to this forum.

Squeal squeal squeal!!!

 
At 08 December, 2010 14:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

"essentially in free-fall" is probably my favorite of your babbling points, Brian. It's as if I can't read the report myself and can't see how blatant your dishonesty is on this point. Perhaps you've convinced yourself that the report says this (and perhaps you've convinced yourself that you're not petgoat, and that you're not in love with Rodriguez, etc.) but who are you kidding in trying to convince others?

Stuff like this is why you're so hilarious.

 
At 08 December, 2010 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your lies about section 6.14.4 of the NIST report are obvious to anyone who bothers to read it. In addition, the clear logical fallacy of your bare assertion betrays you.

 
At 08 December, 2010 15:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your lies about section 6.14.4 of the NIST report are obvious to anyone who bothers to read it. In addition, the clear logical fallacy of your bare assertion betrays you.

Just keep telling yourself this, Brian. Just like you tell yourself that you're not petgoat, that Willie will someday fall in love with you, and that your "rake on rake" model will be accepted by the engineering community.

I wonder if you could have done more with your life than be a failed janitor if only you stopped living in a fantasy world...

 
At 08 December, 2010 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you simply pile your fantasies on your lies. You are only trying to obfuscate the facts.

 
At 08 December, 2010 16:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you simply pile your fantasies on your lies. You are only trying to obfuscate the facts.

Yeah, you've already said this Brian. *yawn* You're actually starting to bore me, can you come up with some new loony thing to dig your heels in over?

 
At 08 December, 2010 16:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Ian, section 6.14.4 says the building came down 'essentially in free fall'."

There you go again, Brian.

When will you learn? Do you honestly believe we don't notice that you're cherry picking the NIST Report to support the lies you spew like a fire hose?

It's illogical to claim the NIST Report is a "fraud" and then turn around and cite the NIST Report when it supports your idiotic conspiracy theory. That's cognitive dissonance--Orwellian Doublethink--on a grand scale.

You're an idiot and a liar, Brian.

Pathetic.

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

Ian,

Don't let Brian cite the NIST Report. He can't have it both ways.

Brian is using Orwellian doublethink--a simultaneous belief in two contradictory ideas--to manipulate the debate. Don't fall for Brian's brand of non-logic. Either he accepts the NIST Reports' conclusions, or he MUST PRESENT HIS OWN EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS COCKAMAMIE IDEAS. Remember, he can't have it both ways.

 
At 08 December, 2010 17:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Bill, I know. I just like poking him to see him go off on a rant. Besides, he tries to have it both ways in his "theories" as to what brought down the towers. Sometimes, it's explosives, other times, it's thermite.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, there is nothing illogical about citing the NIST report as evidence for what the NIST report says. Sorry that point eludes you, but I guess they didn't teach you that at DeVry, eh?

Ian, I don't have any theories about what brought the towers down.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, there is nothing illogical about citing the NIST report as evidence for what the NIST report says.

Right, which is why I'll cite it to tell you that it says there's no evidence for any of the "theories" that you and other truthers put forth.

Sorry that point eludes you, but I guess they didn't teach you that at DeVry, eh?

It's always amusing to have one's educational credentials mocked by a guy who is unemployed and lives with his parents at age 57.

Ian, I don't have any theories about what brought the towers down.

I know. You just repeat scattershot nonsense over and over again.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know they didn't bother to teach you in school, but when you "cite" something you're supposed to give a reference that people can check.

I was mocking GutterBall's educational credentials, not yours. You clearly have no educational credentials to mock, or else you're doing a very good job of impersonating such a person.

 
At 08 December, 2010 20:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I know they didn't bother to teach you in school, but when you "cite" something you're supposed to give a reference that people can check.

http://wtc.nist.gov/

Learn to Google.

I was mocking GutterBall's educational credentials, not yours.

Which is hilarious for the exact reasons I mentioned: You. Failed Janitor. Unemployed. Parents. Age 57. etc. etc.

You clearly have no educational credentials to mock, or else you're doing a very good job of impersonating such a person.

Ah, the resentful squealing of a failed janitor. I'll tell you what, Brian. I'll hook you up with a job emptying the trash cans at my company if you promise to stop babbling about thermite. Deal?

 
At 10 December, 2010 00:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your "cite" to an institution, NIST, is not a reference people can check. Educated people understand these things.

What makes you think I failed as a janitor? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that? I was a successful janitor. Then when I finished college and was able to work in the daytime, I moved on to other things.

 
At 10 December, 2010 04:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your "cite" to an institution, NIST, is not a reference people can check. Educated people understand these things.

Well obviously you haven't checked it, since you babble endlessly about NIST without actually knowing what the NIST report says.

What makes you think I failed as a janitor?

The fact that nobody will still employ you as a janitor.

Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

No, Brian. You're the one obsessed with him, remember?

I was a successful janitor.

Wow, Brian actually admits to being a janitor. Too bad he lies about everything else.

Then when I finished college and was able to work in the daytime, I moved on to other things.

Yes, and you also claim that you aren't petgoat. C'mon, Brian, I can only see two reasons why you might set foot on a college campus: 1, to stalk students there (male or female), or to have your brain examined by neuroscientists who want to figure out what makes people into obsessed liars.

 
At 10 December, 2010 10:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know what the NIST report says.

Your beliefs about my professional life are childish illogic.

Ian, have you noticed that whatever the topic of the post, you always wind up talking about me. And you think I'm the obsessed one!

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

Ian, I know what the NIST report says.

Well, you're a deranged liar then, since you claim the NIST report says things that it doesn't.

Your beliefs about my professional life are childish illogic.

Brian, you have no professional life. You're an unemployed loser who lives at home with his parents at an age where you're old enough to be my father.

Ian, have you noticed that whatever the topic of the post, you always wind up talking about me. And you think I'm the obsessed one!

Yes, as I've explained many times, I come here for the amusement I get from loons like you. Since the "truth" movement is dead, you're pretty much the only one left here, and mask boy and dust boy are nowhere near as entertaining as you are, so I poke you in order to make you babble about your obsessions (and it never fails to work).

I also post at other blogs. It doesn't make me obsessed with (say) John Cole (who is one blogger I follow over at his Balloon Juice).

You, however, spend pretty much every waking hour posting the same gibberish about 9/11 and Willie Rodriguez all over the internet.

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

Ian, you don't know anything about me, but that doesn't stop you from indulging in lots of nonsense fantasies.

I know what the NIST report says, and anyone who reads section 6.14.4 can verify for themselves that you lack the analytical skills to comprehend it.

NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

The truth movement is not dead, only preparing for the big push next year. Within a couple of months the architects and engineers will have 1500.

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you don't know anything about me, but that doesn't stop you from indulging in lots of nonsense fantasies.

False. I know what I've read from people who know you, most of whom are other "truthers" who hate your guts (like Carol Brouillet).

I know what the NIST report says, and anyone who reads section 6.14.4 can verify for themselves that you lack the analytical skills to comprehend it.

You don't know what the NIST report says, Brian. Either that, or you're a deranged liar.

NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

See what I mean? Neither of these is true. You're either illiterate or a liar.

The truth movement is not dead, only preparing for the big push next year. Within a couple of months the architects and engineers will have 1500.

Nobody cares.

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, section 6.14.4 says that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and anyone who reads the section can see that. Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and anyone who checks the recording at 1:03 can see that. Your reckless and easily-checkable lies are polluting this forum.

 
At 10 December, 2010 12:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, section 6.14.4 says that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and anyone who reads the section can see that.

No.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and anyone who checks the recording at 1:03 can see that.

No.

Your reckless and easily-checkable lies are polluting this forum.

Seek professional help.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for sharing, Ian.

 
At 14 December, 2010 06:50, Blogger Garry said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 December, 2010 06:52, Blogger Garry said...

'The truth movement is not dead, only preparing for the big push next year'.

Hmmm ... now when was the last time I read the phrase 'big push'?

Ahhh yes ... now I remember. It was the phrase Generals used repeatedly during WWI to describe all their offensives that were really going to work this time round.

 
At 14 December, 2010 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

If that was the last time you heard it, you haven't been paying attention, and you haven't been around many successful enterprises either.

Also, there's a big difference between the truth movement and the Wehrmacht. The former is poised to reap the karma from being right, and the latter was reaping the karma from being wrong.

Thanks for sharing.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

If that was the last time you heard it, you haven't been paying attention, and you haven't been around many successful enterprises either.

Brian has been around a successful enterprise: he once cleaned out the trash cans for Larry Page and Sergey Brin!

Then he's also been around AE911Truth, a total joke and failure of an organization.

Also, there's a big difference between the truth movement and the Wehrmacht.

Yes, the number of members of each differs by several orders of magnitude. You aren't going to get anything accomplished with the handful of clowns who are "truthers".

The former is poised to reap the karma from being right, and the latter was reaping the karma from being wrong.

Yup, just like all good religious faiths promise paradise at the end, Brian awaits his heavenly reward for being a faithful "truther".

Seek professional help.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:15, Blogger Garry said...

'Also, there's a big difference between the truth movement and the Wehrmacht'.

Brian, the Wehrmacht was the name of the German armed forces in WWII. But then that just goes to show what a complete and utter cretin you are.

Talking of which, tell me about all the achievements of the troof movement over the last 9 years. I'm itching to hear the inside track on how Cynthia McKinney won the White House in 2008, and on how the special tribunal to try the real conspirators is going.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:18, Blogger Garry said...

A quick remedial history lesson for Brian - explaining the differences between the two world wars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

I use Wikipedia because this is all he's likely to read.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

A thousand pardons, please, Garry that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and supposed that "WWI" was a typo. So the last time you heard "Big Push" was WWI?

Have you been deaf for 90 years?

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you plan on being deaf for the next 90 years, too?

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, section 6.14.4 says that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and anyone who reads the section can see that. Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and anyone who checks the recording at 1:03 can see that. Your reckless and easily-checkable lies are polluting this forum.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:12, Blogger Garry said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:13, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, I asked you a question. Tell me about all the progress the 'troof' movement has achieved over the past nine years.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, section 6.14.4 says that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and anyone who reads the section can see that.

Stop lying, petgoat.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and anyone who checks the recording at 1:03 can see that.

Stop lying, petgoat.

Your reckless and easily-checkable lies are polluting this forum.

Your hysterical squealing is amusing, petgoat.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Much progress. The truth movement has largely escaped being associated with the lunatic no-planers, mini-nukers, jews-did-it, and con artist crowd.

Respectable people like Jimmy Carter, Robert Fisk, Amy Goodman, Kevin Bracken, and Daniel Ellsberg have indicated that they support those who call for new investigations.
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth will soon be 1500 strong.

Authors of the 9/11 Commission report have spoken out about the shortcomings of that investigation.

NIST acknowledged 2.5 seconds of freefall in the WTC7 collapse, and abandoned the structural damage and diesel fuel hypotheses for the WTC7 collapse, leaving it with a ridiculous explanation for the collapse. NIST removed the claim that its analysis was "consistent with physical principles" from its report.

The "Building What?" campaign has exposed hundreds of thousands to the unbelievable collapse of WTC7.

There has not been a poll of citizens' 9/11 attitudes for several years--probably because the news media don't want to know how out of touch with the public they are. In my experience 9/11 truth is a one-way door. Once people have developed doubts, they almost never go back to the official story. So our numbers are surely greater than they were back in 2007 when 84% expressed doubts about the official story.

You guys are really a lunatic fringe--and your faulty logic and outright lies prove it.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Poor Brian, he really, REALLY wants to believe that 9/11 truth has a substantial set of followers. He's insane enough to trot out the 84% line again.

So how come President McKinney hasn't started a new investigation, Brian? Given how the vast majority of Americans agree with you, it should be a cinch getting it approved by Congress.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Congress has showed repeatedly that they don't listen to the people but only to their campaign contributors.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Congress has showed repeatedly that they don't listen to the people but only to their campaign contributors.

Given that, according to you, more people in this country are truthers than believe in Jesus, it should be really easy to get a large PAC together to raise millions of dollars to influence elections. Where is the truther PAC?

And why did that 84% vote for Obama or McCain (or Barr or Nader or Baldwin) instead of McKinney when 9/11 truth was such an important issue? How come neither candidate ran as the candidate who promised an investigation into Steven Jones' claims?

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

The candidates don't bring it up because they are afraid. Look what happened to Tom Daschle, Mark Dayton, Cynthia McKinney, and Howard Dean.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

The candidates don't bring it up because they are afraid. Look what happened to Tom Daschle, Mark Dayton, Cynthia McKinney, and Howard Dean.

Afraid of what, petgoat?

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Afraid of what happened to Tom Daschle, Mark Dayton, Cynthia McKinney, and Howard Dean.

Not to mention Paul Wellstone, of course.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Afraid of what happened to Tom Daschle, Mark Dayton, Cynthia McKinney, and Howard Dean.

What happened to these people, petgoat?

Not to mention Paul Wellstone, of course.

Ah yes, one lunatic conspiracy theory deserves another. Brian, are you going to do like the Mormons do and retroactively declare dead people to be truthers? You already did it with Ray Downey, why not with Wellstone too?

Hell, claim that Thomas Jefferson, FDR and John Brown were truthers as well. It would be no more insane than any of your other beliefs.

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

Ian, you're not qualified to state my beliefs.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you're not qualified to state my beliefs.

False.

 
At 14 December, 2010 17:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are qualified? So then you're mis-stating them deliberately?

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

You are qualified? So then you're mis-stating them deliberately?

I'm not misstating your beliefs, petgoat. I've accurately described them, and since everyone knows you are an obsessed liar, everyone knows your denials are lies.

I win.

 
At 14 December, 2010 21:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

You win inside the safe confines of your pointy little head. And you do so at great cost to the credibility of this site.

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

You win inside the safe confines of your pointy little head. And you do so at great cost to the credibility of this site.

Stop squealing, petgoat. I win.

 
At 15 December, 2010 08:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

You win what? A heap of your own bullshit? You prop up for one more day your precious illusions?

What does anyone win by slathering lies on truth?

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

I win, petgoat. I win. Please stop squealing so hysterically.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home