Sunday, March 20, 2011

Still Moron Joshua Blakeney

Here's a YouTube video that Blakeney put together featuring his comments about Israel and 9-11. For some reason the twit felt compelled to add some music to the audio track which actually makes it harder to concentrate on the words (which may be the idea):

As you can see, Blakeney's "scholarship" consists of assembling the usual talking points of "the Zionists did 9-11" wing, with a little less subtlety than Kevin Barrett. Like I said in my previous post, it's a mixture of the Dancing Jews, Larry Silverstein's "pull it", the USS Liberty, etc.

He also speaks up for Holocaust Denier Barrett; those brave anti-Zionists have to stick together!

On the depth of Blakeney's research of 9-11, here's an article that he wrote a month ago on a Canadian website called Rabble:
As many involved in genuine 9/11 studies have noted, there were many reliable reports of the alleged hijackers engaging in un-Islamic activities prior to 9/11. Moreover, when the flight manifests were released indicating the names of the passengers on the four hijacked planes, none of the alleged hijackers' names were listed. Moreover, a number of the alleged hijackers turned up alive. The U.K.'s Telegraph made contact with two of the alleged hijackers and published interviews with them post-9/11.

If Mr. Kay wishes to propagate a theory about 19 conspiratorial adherents to "militant Islam" striking the United States he should demonstrate that such individuals were indeed Islamist militants and that they boarded the planes on 9/11. In his tenth 9/11-related book Cognitive Infiltration Professor David Ray Griffin opines: "Besides not being devout Muslims, the "hijackers" were evidently not even on the airliners [. . .] if the alleged hijackers had purchased tickets and boarded the flights, as the official story has it, their names would have been on the manifests."

That is some genuine 9-11 studies being funded by Canadian taxpayers, eh?

The article includes a picture of Blakeney wearing a Palestinian headscarf, which is as fashionable among the anti-Israel crowd these days as Che posters were among the Marxists back in 1960s dormitories.

Here's Blakeney and his advisor, Anthony J Hall, making buffoons of themselves at a lecture by Michael Shermer:

Labels: , ,

234 Comments:

At 20 March, 2011 11:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Blakeney is a "no hijacker" idiot.

 
At 20 March, 2011 14:03, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

And Brian Good is just an idiot.

 
At 20 March, 2011 14:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, look at the pot calling the kettle black.

You're just as bad--probably worse, sex predator.

 
At 20 March, 2011 19:24, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

I think it's a little less pathetic to think that there were no hickers, than to think that the fires reaching the top of the towers was odd. Still pathetic, just less so.

 
At 20 March, 2011 19:46, Blogger Ian said...

Blakeney is a "no hijacker" idiot.

It's not as dumb as thinking smoldering carpets caused all the smoke at the WTC towers.

Brian, you're far dumber than most truthers, which is probably why they decided to kick you out of the movement.

 
At 20 March, 2011 22:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, please explain how fire can climb up ten stories of elevator shaft or stairwells when there's nothing in there to burn.

Ian, I never said smoldering carpets caused all the smoke at the WTC towers. I don't know what caused all the smoke. I do know from experience that it doesn't take much of a fire to make a hell of a lot of smoke, so I know that your belief that much smoke equals much fire is unjustified.

 
At 21 March, 2011 05:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Ian, I never said smoldering carpets caused all the smoke at the WTC towers."

Ummmm, yes you do.

All the time.

Not only are you an insane liar, you're a STUPID insane liar.

 
At 21 March, 2011 08:21, Blogger Greg said...

Greg, please explain how fire can climb up ten stories of elevator shaft or stairwells when there's nothing in there to burn.

So your argument is that the only way fires travel in buildings is through elevator shafts and stairwells?

Your stupidity has no limits.

 
At 21 March, 2011 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL, it's not my fault that you are unable to perceive nuance in statements.

When somebody says "No way can thermite be installed without detection" and I say "Sure, it can be sprayed on in the elevator shaft" that doesn't mean I believe thermite was sprayed on in the elevator shaft. That's just saying I don't know and you don't know either.

When someone says "Big smoke means big fire" and I point out that smoldering carpets make a lot of smoke, and I point out that if the fireproofing shivered off like NIST claims then there would have been 3/8" of fireproofing all over the carpets, that doesn't mean I'm saying the smoke came from smoldering carpets. I'm saying I don't know and you don't either.

Greg, please explain how the fire climbed twelve stories to the roof. NCSTAR1 pp. 25 and 28 shows that the fires never got higher than 98.

 
At 21 March, 2011 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys are very fond of the argument from personal incredulity--which is also one of the favorite arguments of the least able of the truther crowd. "No way an airplane went through that hole in the Pentagon, dude!"

 
At 21 March, 2011 10:55, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

You can't stop reading something just because you get to a section that supports your beliefs. You have to keep reading to understand the whole story. Don't be an idiot!

On page 32 the report states:

"At 10:01 am flames began coming out of the south side of the west face of the 104th floor, these floors were higher than any floor where fire had been previously observed and five floors above the highest floor with a major fire. After a rapid growth period, this fire burned intensely up to the time the tower collapsed"

In other words, the fire kept spreading past the 98th floor up until the time of the collapse. The fire's grew, and went higher and higher up in the building. Further proving that you can't comprehend reality or you are a liar or you are stupid.

 
At 21 March, 2011 12:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, thanks for pointing that out. Come to think of it, I had noticed that bizarre little isolated fire above the others in pictures and I'd wondered about it. How did that get started? Somebody playing with matches?

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/pagemaster/10_26_8_114_w.jpg

Now, why did NIST leave it out of their diagram? Because it was not significant or because it's mysterious and they can't explain it? Also, how did the fire get from floor 104 to the roof six floors above?

(That's assuming there actually was a fire on the roof. I was taking ConsDemo's word for it that there was.)

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/03/debate-between-box-boy-gage-and-chris.html

Where do you get the idea that the fire "spread" from 98 to 104? Looks to me like the one at 104 is a separate fire. How can it "spread" without showing some evidence of spreading?

 
At 21 March, 2011 12:12, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

Trying to make up your own narrative to hide the fact that you are an idiot and a liar never works.

You can create a million new what-ifs every time you are proven wrong, but the fact is, you are always wrong.

 
At 21 March, 2011 12:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 March, 2011 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, there is no evidence provided about the origin of the 104th floor fire. There is no evidence provided connecting the 104th floor fire to any fire on the 111th floor (the roof).

When you can't answer any of the questions, your empty claims of victory only discredit yourself.

 
At 21 March, 2011 13:29, Blogger Greg said...

Greg, there is no evidence provided about the origin of the 104th floor fire. There is no evidence provided connecting the 104th floor fire to any fire on the 111th floor (the roof).

Your requests to have every dot connected for you further proves your stupidity.

I have answered this question many times. The fires on the upper floors were caused by the spreading of the fires on the lower floor. It is the simplest and most obvious answer.

What else do you surmise caused these fires? If you don't have an answer or theory then you must accept the one everyone else accepts.

Admit you were wrong about the 98th floor being the highest floor with a fire.

 
At 21 March, 2011 15:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

NCSTAR1 pp. 25 and 28 shows that the fires never got higher than 98. NIST posts miskleading diagrams. Yes, that isolated fire on 104, which I'd noticed before, slipped my mind.

So now instead of one mysterious fire NIST didn't explain, we've got two: one on the roof (assuming ConsDemo was telling the truth about it becausd frankly, I didn't see any fire on the roof in the video he cited) and the one on 104.

I expect the official hyothesis to explain as many of the observed phenomena as possible. When NIST ignores stuff, I want to know why. What caused the fire on 104? What burned up so aggressively? Why don't they tell us?

How did a fire on 98 "spread" to 104 without showing evidence that it appeared on 99,100,101,102,and 103? How come when it "spread" it appeared at an isolated spot and burned far more fiercely that other fires?

NIST provides no theory to explain the fire on 104. I don't have to accept anything. If they could explain it, don't you think they would?

 
At 21 March, 2011 15:38, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

Your a buffoon.

The NIST break down of the fires is chronological. So things being discussed on earlier pages does not negate things being discussed on later pages.

You really need to learn reading comprehension.

And again, there is no need for NIST to detail and explain the obvious. Why didn't they include an analysis of gravity, or explain why fire is hot? They are not doing their work for the lowest common denominator of intelligence (e.g. people like you).

What do you theorize caused the fires on the upper floors, if it was not the spreading of fires on the lower floors?

 
At 21 March, 2011 16:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

So why didn't they do a third graphic for the later period? Ummm, maybe because the fires were going out?

I have no need to theorize about what caused the fire on 104.
I don't see how fire can "spread" through the agency of invisible fires, so it appears that the fire on 104 was a new and separate fire.

I thought the WNBC TV station office might have some high-powered electrical gear that might account for some localized fires, and when I look at the 104th floor blueprint I do see a "tenant space" labeled "storage & microwave & am" that seems to confirm that guess. But the TV space was in the NE corner, not the SW, so that's out.

NCSTAR1 p. 78 describes 104 as a trading floor with tables and monitors. I see no reason that the fire should be so isolated or so fierce. NIST shows its usual lack of curiosity on the matter.

 
At 21 March, 2011 16:52, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

Do you demand levi strauss explain to you how to put your pants on?

Do you scream at your television because Comcast has given no explanation of how those crazy Glee kids appear in your magic image box?

NIST doesn't need to give an explanation. No one cares, and you are not special.

(I know I know, widows widows...get a new act)

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, I don't buy Levi Strauss's overpriced crap. I suppose I could demand to know why they put those copper rivets on when my cheap jeans never break a seam, but I already know.

NIST needs to give an explanation. Their hypothesis should explain all the phenomena. They were charged with explaining the collapse. If they can't explain how a fire climbed six floors with no plausible mechanism they have failed to do their duty to improve public fire safety.

You are constantly returning to the ideologically-based position that the government owes me nothing. The government owes the people everything.

Patty Casazza and Mindy Kleinberg, whose husbands worked on the 104th floor at Cantor Fitzgerald, both deserve to know how that fire got there from the 98th floor.

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:15, Blogger Ian said...

You guys are very fond of the argument from personal incredulity--which is also one of the favorite arguments of the least able of the truther crowd. "No way an airplane went through that hole in the Pentagon, dude!"

Uh, no, that's you Brian. You can't believe that the towers could have collapsed the way they did, so you create stories about magic thermite elves and remote-controlled jetliners and meatballs on forks.

It's to be expected from someone too dumb to mop floors competently.

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:18, Blogger Ian said...

Where do you get the idea that the fire "spread" from 98 to 104? Looks to me like the one at 104 is a separate fire. How can it "spread" without showing some evidence of spreading?

Brian, we'd explain it to you, but you're a failed janitor who is too dumb to understand. It would be like trying to explain quantum physics to a gerbil. It's a waste of time.

When you can't answer any of the questions, your empty claims of victory only discredit yourself.

My, such squealing!

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I can believe that the towers collapses the way they did. In fact I did believe it for four years, until the blatant dishonesty and incomplete nature of the NIST report showed that they didn't even try to convince me that the towers came down the way they did.

And then I started to call for new investigations that I could believe.

What makes you think I'm a failed janitor?

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:24, Blogger Ian said...

I have no need to theorize about what caused the fire on 104.

We don't either. A jetliner loaded with jet fuel crashed into the tower. You'd know this if you learned to Google.

Greg, I don't buy Levi Strauss's overpriced crap.

Right, because you can't afford it because you're unemployed. Mommy and Daddy have to buy your clothes for you.

NIST needs to give an explanation. Their hypothesis should explain all the phenomena. They were charged with explaining the collapse. If they can't explain how a fire climbed six floors with no plausible mechanism they have failed to do their duty to improve public fire safety.

No they don't. NIST does not exist to give explanations on demand to failed janitors who live with their parents while babbling all day on the internet.

The government owes the people everything.

Yup, and if Cynthia McKinney's performance in the 2008 election is any indication, the people don't give a flying fuck about the demands of 9/11 truthers, so the government isn't going to do what truther want. See how that works?

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:24, Blogger Ian said...

Patty Casazza and Mindy Kleinberg, whose husbands worked on the 104th floor at Cantor Fitzgerald, both deserve to know how that fire got there from the 98th floor.

A 767 loaded with jet fuel hit the tower. You're welcome.

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I can believe that the towers collapses the way they did.

Uh, no you don't. You can't believe it so you think something malevolent was going on.

In fact I did believe it for four years, until the blatant dishonesty and incomplete nature of the NIST report showed that they didn't even try to convince me that the towers came down the way they did.

See what I mean?

Brian, you've proven yourself too stupid to mop floors, and yet you think people care about your opinions of the NIST report. It's hilarious.

And then I started to call for new investigations that I could believe.

And nobody cares.

What makes you think I'm a failed janitor?

The fact that you are unemployed and used to be a janitor. You failed at it.

 
At 21 March, 2011 17:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you want to claim that a jetliner crashing into floors 92 to 98 caused a fire at floor 104, apparently without fires on the intervening floors, you're going to have to come up with a theory to explain it.

I can afford Levis just fine. I choose not to buy overpriced crap.

Ian, you provide no evidence whatsoever that I failed as a janitor. Your ad hominems are delusions stemming from frustration in your inability to defend your irrational beliefs.

How did a fire on 98 "spread" to 104 without showing evidence that it appeared on 99,100,101,102, and 103? How come when it "spread" it appeared at an isolated spot and burned far more fiercely than other fires?

Patty Casazza and Mindy Kleinberg, whose husbands worked on the 104th floor at Cantor Fitzgerald, deserve to know.

 
At 21 March, 2011 18:13, Blogger Ian said...

Jet fuel, Brian. A 767 crashed into the tower. If you knew how to Google, you'd know this.

 
At 21 March, 2011 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

How did this supercalifragilistic jetfuel spread from the 98th floor to the 104th floor without setting the intervening floors on fire, Ian?

Do you know what jet fuel is? It's not like a low-octane version of rocket fuel. It's kerosene.

 
At 21 March, 2011 19:03, Blogger Ian said...

How did this supercalifragilistic jetfuel spread from the 98th floor to the 104th floor without setting the intervening floors on fire, Ian?

Jet fuel causes fires, Brian. That's how a fire appeared on the 104th floor. Normal people who aren't failed janitors understand this fine.

Do you know what jet fuel is? It's not like a low-octane version of rocket fuel. It's kerosene.

Yes, and it catches fire readily. You're not very bright, are you?

 
At 21 March, 2011 19:04, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, Levis are not expensive. You think they are because you have no job and no money and need your elderly parents to provide for you while you spend every waking hour stalking Willie Rodriguez and babbling about magic thermite elves on the internet.

 
At 21 March, 2011 19:30, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Fires can skip floors through elevator shafts, HVAC ducts, plumbing and cable chases, etc. An example is the First Interstate Bank fire in Los Angeles, 1988:

"The gypsum walls failed during the fire, and flames entered on the 12th floor. They spread to the 13th and 14th floors by way of the return air shaft, then skipped to the 27th floor, where they broke out of the shaft into a storage room."

Anyway, how would an "inside job" explain the fire skipping to the 104th floor? Did Darth Cheney accidentally hit the "Floor 104" button on his WTC detonation panel?

 
At 21 March, 2011 19:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Heat rises, goat molester. Are you still working on that concept?

In fact, I have an experiment that should amply demonstrate the concept.

Have your friend's tie you to a stake atop a pile of pre-dried wood. Once you're secured to the stake, have your friend's toss a match on the pile of wood.

Give it a try sometime.

 
At 21 March, 2011 21:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't say Levis are expensive. I said they were overpriced.

Mike Rosefierce--Saints be Praised! Somebody who knows what he's talking about and doesn't lie about what his sources say! That's certainly refreshing in this putrid swamp!

OK, I'll bite. I note that the nearest Return Air duct (and supply air and A/C) is about 60 feet from the
fire on 104--so why wouldn't that fire spread out over the whole floor?

I note also that the corner core column 1001 is only 25 feet or so from the fire, and that includes some kind of duct that goes down to 95 at least and up to 107 at least. Can you read what that says? Pipe Shaft?

Office fires only burn in on place 20 minutes before the fuel is consumed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf
See also NCSTAR1 p. 129.

So even if we supposed that plane debris broke down the drywall surrounding the shaft, how does a 20 minute fire penetrate the drywall six floors above--especially when she shaft continues on at least to 108? And isn't there firestopping in a pipe shaft to prevent this very thing?

And why, when the ostensible purpose of the NIST study is fire safety, why is the mechanism for a fire leaping six floors not an issue of interest?

As to Darth Cheney et. al, I prefer to study the facts without ideological blinders: "Oh it doesn't prove inside job, therefore it's of no interest."

GutterBall, I'm not surprised that burning at the stake is one of your favorite fantasies. In modern times it's considered a somewhat less-than-respectable means of arriving at truth.

 
At 21 March, 2011 21:54, Blogger Greg said...

As to Darth Cheney et. al, I prefer to study the facts without ideological blinders

Proof that you have no self awareness, Brian.

 
At 21 March, 2011 22:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Proving schmooving, Greg. I want to talk about 9/11. You guys all want to talk about your fantasies about me.

 
At 21 March, 2011 22:09, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

You want to talk about 9/11, but you refuse to admit when you're wrong, and you refuse to accept that common sense is an aspect of problem solving and everything DOES NOT need to be written out for you.

Debating with you is like debating with a four year old. A very very stupid four year old.

 
At 21 March, 2011 22:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

So how did the fire "spread" Greg, from 98 to 104? If it went up the Air Return shaft, how come it was isolated at that spot 60 feet away? If it went up the pipe shaft, how did it break through the drywall at 104 when the shaft went on up to 108? And how did hot combustion gases that would have spread out over the ceiling manage to create an isolated fire? And why isn't a $20 million study done by NIST to improve fire safety interested in determining the exact mechanism for this fire propagating and proposing a means by which it won't happen again? And why weren't there firestops in the pipe shaft?

And why don't the widows deserve an investigation that makes some effort to answer those questions?

 
At 22 March, 2011 00:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fire is a real serious matter on the 104th floor, kind of like fire on a ship at sea, 'cause you're kind of a long way from help. If the elevators don't work, 104 flights of stairs are a long way. So are you claiming there wasn't firestopping in the pipe shaft?

Is that why NIST won't explain the fire, because it would be pointing fingers?

 
At 22 March, 2011 00:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"putrid swamp"?

That would be your mind, goat molester.

 
At 22 March, 2011 01:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

No that would be the pollution you and Ian pour on this forum. Some of the others like Greg and MGF and DK are ignorant, but you two lie blatantly, persistently, and disgustingly.

 
At 22 March, 2011 04:45, Blogger Ian said...

I want to talk about 9/11. You guys all want to talk about your fantasies about me.

There's nothing left to talk about with regard to 9/11. But your homosexual desires for Willie Rodriguez and your status as a failed janitor living at home with your parents are certainly worth revisiting.

So how did the fire "spread" Greg, from 98 to 104?

Jet fuel, Brian. Learn to Google.

And why don't the widows deserve an investigation that makes some effort to answer those questions?

Because nobody cares.

No that would be the pollution you and Ian pour on this forum. Some of the others like Greg and MGF and DK are ignorant, but you two lie blatantly, persistently, and disgustingly.

Squeal squeal squeal! Brian, you're the one who lies about Laurie Van Auken and Mindy Kleinberg every day. They're not widows and they don't have questions. Sorry.

 
At 22 March, 2011 08:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Greg, please explain how fire can climb up ten stories of elevator shaft or stairwells when there's nothing in there to burn."

Well if you were not so hopelessly lacking in ability to think you would know as things like plastic burn or get hot there release gas, and these gasses can be vert hot and very capable of burning. When low on oxygen they’re very dangerous, Once they find a source of oxygen you get a flash over, They don't even need an ignition source.

You see your problem Brian id your 9 year old mentality that can never grow because of your retardation issue.

 
At 22 March, 2011 08:18, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"That's just saying I don't know and you don't know either."

Oh, but we do know, that is the problem with you, you live in a world where everyone you meet is way smarter than you. Your problem is you are to simple to even know how stupid you truly are. You sound exactly like Bill O'Reilly and his inability to understand why the tides go in and out, or why we have a moon. like you he thinks he is making a giant point but to the rest of the thinking world he is just proving what an idiot he is.

 
At 22 March, 2011 08:32, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Proving schmooving, Greg. I want to talk about 9/11. You guys all want to talk about your fantasies about me.

There is no issue involving 9/11. BUT there is an issue involving the increasing ignorance of the average American, that in some of our more clueless citizens like you leads to buying silly conspiracies. People like you Brain drain our economy because you as a person offer nothing of value to the rest of us. You may not like to hear it but talented capable people like me and there others here are more valuable to the US, we can always find some doofus to mop the floors or we can do it ourselves, it takes no skill to do after all.

 
At 22 March, 2011 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, how did the jet fuel spread from 98 to 104 without setting the intervening floors on fire? Did modified attack baboons scoop it up in little buckets and carry it up there? And how come the fire on floor 104 didn't start until an hour after the jet fuel had all burned off?

Why do you try to make a virtue out of not caring about the widows?

DK, how do hot gases flash over through an undamaged drywall barrier? Why did they flash over to the 104th floor and none of the higher floors that shared the same ducts? Why was the fire isolated at the south west corner?

I know why the tides go in and out. How do you know how the fire spread to 104? NIST doesn't tell you. You make it up--hey I did it too. Until I started to investigate the facts about 9/11, I invented plausible-sounding explanations for why I didn't need to investigate. They were wrong.

So Mr. Know it All, can you explain why GutterBall's belief that all 424,000 tons of concrete in the WTC was pulverized is absurd?

I don't know upon what basis you have such an exalted opinion of yourself, but it would appear to be based in your own emotional needs instead of reality.

 
At 22 March, 2011 11:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...DK, how do hot gases flash over through an undamaged drywall barrier?"

OBJECTION YOUR HONOR: The question assumes facts not in evidence.

You have no evidence to prove the drywall was "undamaged."

And we all "know" that dry wall can readily withstand an impact with an object traveling at 450 MPH. NOT.

On the other hand, it would take little or no effort to prove that you're brain damaged.

Now hurry, goat fucker, and cough up another spitball of lies and obfuscation.

 
At 22 March, 2011 12:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Mr. Know it All, can you explain why GutterBall's belief that all 424,000 tons of concrete in the WTC was pulverized is absurd?

NO, the idea you would need or even want to pulverize concrete is the absurd part, but then your rather pathetic thinking process is absurd.

Bright people know to pulverize concrete you simply can't plant some explosive on it, you need to plant explosives IN it, literally drill thousand of holes and plate and wire thousands of explosive charges. You wouldn't know that because your are Brian Good, a retarded janitor.

 
At 22 March, 2011 12:31, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I don't know upon what basis you have such an exalted opinion of yourself, but it would appear to be based in your own emotional needs instead of reality.
----

Its just based on the fact I am better that you or any of your fellow low life idiots. That is just a given, its is a sorry state of affairs that you were born so cheated in the brains and talent department, good thing mom and dad take care of you. And it sucks I don't coddle you and point out your obvious issues with intelligence and education. But you are a low life idiot who is disrespecting the dead of 9/11, and I have no respect for that and being you better I can shit on you as I see fit because you have nothing, no wit, no intelligence and no facts.

 
At 22 March, 2011 12:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Here you have a classic case of anomaly hunting in a futile attempt to prove something.

There was a fire on the 104 floor, ergo it must have been a controlled demolition. As if a controlled demolition requires having a fire on this floor. and it is not that big an anomaly considering just several floors below you have had a fuel loaded jet hit the building at high speed! So there was a fire on the 104 floor, what does that have to do with the fact fires caused the towers to collapse?

Truthers are so desperate for something, anything they have to resort to this lame conspiracy theorist tactic and have to try and elevate personal ignorance to the level of proof. And as you can see with Brain ignorance is an art form with truthers.

 
At 22 March, 2011 12:53, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This is typical of what workers had to deal with after 9/11. lots of dry wall dust and insulation dust and CHUNKS of concrete.
un-pulverized concrete

----

 
At 22 March, 2011 13:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I don't have to prove the drywall on 104 was undamaged. It can be assumed to be undamaged, because there was nothing to damage it. There were no objects traveling 450 mph on the 104th floor. That's the point.

Now you might be able to make the case that somebody broke down the drywall to get into the RA or SA shaft because they thought they could escape that way, but that's 60 feet away from the isolated fire, so it's a pretty thin hypothesis.

So DK, thanks for confirming that GutterBall's belief that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is really really dumb. Do you know why it's dumb?

DK, how is it disrespecting the dead to try to find the truth about how they died, and to try to get their widows' questions answered? Why don't you badmouth Ian when he claims the widows murdered their husbands or that they're not widows?

The fire on the floor is a mystery. Sometimes an examination of a mystery can lead to unexpected and useful truths. That's what science is about, but then you wouldn't know anything about science because to you there are no mysteries in the world and you already know everything.

 
At 22 March, 2011 13:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"OPERATOR: Hello, F.D.? Yes, this is PD 179, on the World Trade. Hello? I think they hung up. They're saying -- we got two calls, one from the 104th Floor and one the 64th Floor. They said they broke the windows out, but they can't breathe. There's too much smoke."

WOW! Smoke and they broke windows

MORE: " At that point he told me the office was getting smoky. I asked him if they had any water. They didn't. I said did they have any ventilation. They said they had taken a computer terminal and broken one of the windows. So they had some air coming in. This is all prior to the second building falling."

 
At 22 March, 2011 13:16, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The fire on the floor is a mystery.

Yes a mystery to a guy like you, but then you are not the brightest.

And it was you who first asked why all the concrete was pulverized months ago, and I who showed you it was not. Just another one of your dumb questions that burned you latter on.

 
At 22 March, 2011 13:21, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, how is it disrespecting the dead to try to find the truth about how they died,

Funny, but holocaust deniers say the exact same thing.

Its what low life like you do in a vain attempt to sound legitimate. you fool no one, you are a cultist pimping a cult idea. You are in your personal life a loser and it make you feel good to pretend you are being a seeker of truth. In reality you are a nobody retarded janitor and will be for life.

 
At 22 March, 2011 13:30, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"That's what science is about, but then you wouldn't know anything about science because to you there are no mysteries in the world and you already know everything."

Said like a true religious kook. Buy my truther god and enjoy the mysteries.

Yes Brian to a simpleton like you all things are a mystery, I prefer to be intelligent and informed, for you ignorance is bliss.

 
At 22 March, 2011 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator whines, "...GutterBall, I don't have to prove the drywall on 104 was undamaged. It can be assumed to be undamaged, because there was nothing to damage it. There were no objects traveling 450 mph on the 104th floor. That's the point."

Really? No kidding?

According to the NIST Report, structural members (ie. columns and trusses) that never made contact with the airliner were displaced.

Given that fact, how can you claim with any certainty, that the drywall on floor 104 was left unscathed?

Oh, that's right, I forgot. You cherry pick the NIST Report and ignore all evidence that proves you're wrong. My bad.

Go play in the freeway, goat fucker.

 
At 22 March, 2011 15:43, Blogger Ian said...

Another day, another series of pointless posts from our unemployed janitor. You'd think Brian would get a real hobby one of these days.

Ian, how did the jet fuel spread from 98 to 104 without setting the intervening floors on fire?

Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.



Objection, your honor. Speculation.

And how come the fire on floor 104 didn't start until an hour after the jet fuel had all burned off?

Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Stuff like this is why you're not a lawyer or a police officer or a private investigator, Brian. On the other hand, you don't need to be able to think logically to be a janitor. Too bad you can't mop floors well...

Why do you try to make a virtue out of not caring about the widows?

What makes you think Mindy Kleinberg is a widow? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

 
At 22 March, 2011 16:17, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"GutterBall, I don't have to prove the drywall on 104 was undamaged. It can be assumed to be undamaged, because there was nothing to damage it. There were no objects traveling 450 mph on the 104th floor. That's the point."

Holy fuck you just keep ascending to unthinkable levels of dipshitdom.

The windows AND the marble walls in the LOBBY were cracked or broken by the impact of the airliner. So if there was that much damage 104 floors DOWN, then it must have been a shitstorm on the adjacent floors.

Then lets talk about your precious elevator shafts. Aside from your magical painted-on nanothermite the other thing that you would have found in those shafts were eleavtors! It is a resonable assumption that there may have been a few elevators near the impact zone. Those elevators would have frozen in place creating a step-ladder for the fire. The flames on a single floor could have been caused by an elevator door being torn/wedged/stuck open.

There is no mystery here.

Do I need to mention the blizzard of paper flying around the towers?

There are thousands of possible causes of the fires that relate to the crash. The fact is that the only people who find the fires on 104 strange are nut-cases.

 
At 22 March, 2011 20:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

So DK, am I to suppose that your answer to the question of how the fire got on the 104th floor is that there was smoke on the 104th floor? Isn't that sort of chicken-and-eggy?

I never said all the concrete was pulverized. All of the tower floors, 180,000 tons worth, were pulverized. There's another 242,000 tons that GutterBall says were pulverized, but he's an idiot.

So you're claiming I'm disrespecting the dead because I'm a cultist and a janitor? How is that disrespecting the dead? Who says I'm a janitor? Do you have a credible source for that claim?

No, to me not all things are mysteries. I understand the tides and the seasons. I understand the laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws, why hot is hot and cold is cold and why insulation works. It is precisely because I understand how the world operates that I see the mysteries in things like symmetry of collapse, speed of collapse, totality of collapse, and a fire "spreading" from 98 to 104 by means of smoke.

UtterFail, according to NCSTAR1, figure 2-4, the column 1001 that was near to the isolated fire on 104 was not damaged and the plane's "footprint" on the perimeter, columns 112-150, does not impinge on column 1001 at all. In any case, after the wingtip of the plane went through the perimeter wall, it was in no shape to displace columns.

Ian, if you have evidence that floors 99-103 were on fire, please provide it. I think Mindy Kleinberg is a widow because she says so and the other widows say so. If you're going to call her a liar, please prove it.

 
At 22 March, 2011 20:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I never said all the concrete was pulverized. All of the tower floors, 180,000 tons worth, were pulverized. There's another 242,000 tons that GutterBall says were pulverized, but he's an idiot."

Lying again, goat fucker?

Of course you're lying.

And if you're looking for an idiot, look no further than the nearest mirror.

The 242,000 tons of pulverized building material figure comes from the NRDC, and was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence at a FEDERAL TRIAL. No one has ever proven that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect. Thus, you're caught lying again.

"...UtterFail, according to NCSTAR1, figure 2-4, the column 1001 that was near to the isolated fire on 104 was not damaged and the plane's "footprint" on the perimeter, columns 112-150, does not impinge on column 1001 at all. In any case, after the wingtip of the plane went through the perimeter wall, it was in no shape to displace columns."

That's gobbledygook--not to mention your unprofessional, unqualified, unproven and, ultimately, worthless opinion.

When will you learn, goat fucker, that your worthless opinion is just that--worthless?"

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 22 March, 2011 20:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, how do you know what cracked the marble and windows in the lobby? Did NIST study that? I'm not aware that they did. Actually they claim (NCSTAR1 p. 24) that a flash fire from jet fuel blew out the lobby windows. I'm not aware that any study has been made of how jet fuel can fall down a 1000 foot elevator shaft and not simply coat the walls of the shaft. I'll also point out that the lobby of WTC1 was on the north side of the building, but the only elevator shafts connecting to the impact zone are in the center of the core and the south side of the core. Any clarification you can provide on this issue would be appreciated.

Your theory of step-ladder elevators is certainly ingenious, but I don't quite understand.

I suppose that fire could enter an elevator car that had open doors at 96. But then how does the fire get out the closed doors at 104?

Even if you had your stepladder and the doors were open at both 98 and 104, what's to burn in the elevator lobby on 104?

 
At 22 March, 2011 21:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, I would be surprised that someone who claims a degree in Applied Mathematics can not distinguish between the 424,000 tons of concrete NRDC claims were destroyed, and the 242,000 tons that represent the difference between the 424k and the 180,000 tons of tower floors that were destroyed.

But in your case I won't be surprised, because there's no reason to believe your claim of a degree in Applied Mathematics.

If you would bother to look at Figure 2-4 of NCSTAR1, UtterFail, you would see that flight 11 was not capable of damaging column 1001
(the extreme SW core column).

Your ad hominem straw man is the only refuge of someone who has no command of the facts.





you are such an utter fool that you can not distinguish

 
At 22 March, 2011 21:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, goat fucker?

Of course you're lying.

You're conveniently omitting an important fact. The floors were not the only components of the towers that were made of concrete. In addition, you're conveniently omitting the remaining buildings that made up the WTC complex. They were destroyed, too. Thus, to claim that only 180,000 tons of concrete was available is pure sophistry--not to mention a lie of omission.

Your nonsense concerning column 1001 is irrelevant, and does nothing to invalidate the perfectly reasonable claim that the aircraft damaged the tower's dry wall above or below the point of impact.

And if you honestly think I care about the know nothing opinion of a simpering, whining, sex stalker and homosexual degenerate, you're sadly mistaken, because in the end, you're a loser.

 
At 22 March, 2011 21:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, there is no evidence that any of the WTC structures other than the twin towers--buildings 3,4,5,6, or 7--had pulverized concrete.

Please explain how the airplane could have damaged the drywall surrounding column 1001 above the floor of impact. I'd recommend that you take a good look at Figure 2-4 before you do.

UtterFail, where did you get the idea that I'm a homosexual?

 
At 22 March, 2011 22:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

I mean, it's not like I spent ten years in San Francisco "living in a motor home" like Barrett did, or was ever an employee of Randi, like Willie was.

 
At 22 March, 2011 23:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, there is no evidence that any of the WTC structures other than the twin towers--buildings 3,4,5,6, or 7--had pulverized concrete."

According to whom? You?

Again, your unprofessional, unqualified, unproven and, ultimately, worthless opinion is NOT evidence.

The 242,000 tons of pulverized building material figure comes from the NRDC, and was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence at a FEDERAL TRIAL. No one has ever proven--including you--that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect.

"...Please explain how the airplane could have damaged the drywall surrounding column 1001 above the floor of impact. I'd recommend that you take a good look at Figure 2-4 before you do."

Irrelevant.

Again, your unprofessional, unqualified, unproven and, ultimately, worthless opinion is NOT evidence.


Get it through your thick skull, goat fucker, don't waste my time with your idiotic and unprofessional opinion.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 22 March, 2011 23:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, there is no evidence that any concrete was pulverized aside from the 180,000 tons of above ground floors of the towers because you have not provided it. Don't ask me to prove a negative. The NRDC report is not credible because their 424,000 ton figure is impossible for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows about the WTC buildings, or who has even a high school grasp of Applied Mathematics.

UtterFail, where in the NRDC report do they say that 242,000 tons of concrete was pulverized?

So you refuse to provide any evidence to support your silly and ridiculous claim that an airplane could have damaged the drywall surrounding column 1001 above the impact zone. Thanks for making your position clear.

You're a joke.

 
At 22 March, 2011 23:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 March, 2011 23:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, there is no evidence that any concrete was pulverized aside from the 180,000 tons of above ground floors of the towers because you have not provided it. Don't ask me to prove a negative. The NRDC report is not credible because their 424,000 ton figure is impossible for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows about the WTC buildings, or who has even a high school grasp of Applied Mathematics."

False.

The 242,000 tons of pulverized building material figure comes from the NRDC, and was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence at a FEDERAL TRIAL. No one has ever proven--including you--that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect.

Get it through your thick skull, goat fucker, don't waste my time with your idiotic and unprofessional opinion.

"...So you refuse to provide any evidence to support your silly and ridiculous claim that an airplane could have damaged the drywall surrounding column 1001 above the impact zone. Thanks for making your position clear."

On the contrary, you're a joke.

You pretend that the aircraft's impact with the tower didn't cause damage from the point of impact to the ground floor, including the lobby. It's preposterous to conclude that the damage didn't extend to the floors above the point of impact.

You're a clown--and a lying clown at that.

Furthermore, you can't read. I have an advanced degree in Computer science and Applied Mathematics. Learn to read, goat fucker.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 22 March, 2011 23:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

You also refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim that I am homosexual, and have no rebuttal to offer to the fact that Barrett claims he spent ten years in San Francisco "living in a motor home", and the fact that Willie was an employee of Randi, whose liking for young men was remarked upon by TIME Magazine years before he admitted that he was himself homosexual.

So hey, what's your bracket for the college basketball thingee? I mean, after a hard 65 hour workweek normal married men like to relax by watching young unmarried men prance around in their underwear, right?

 
At 22 March, 2011 23:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you are embarrassing yourself. There was 180,000 tons of concrete and 160,000 tons of steel in the towers alone--340,000 tons! The NRDC never claimed that 242,000 tons of building material was pulverized. They claimed 424,00 tons of concrete was pulverized, but this claim was absurd for reasons you are too ignorant to comprehend.

Pray tell, how did the airplane's impact damage the lobby more than 1,000 feet below? How did it damage drywall six floors above?

If you really had the education you claim, it wouldn't be necessary for you to use bullying tactics.

 
At 23 March, 2011 00:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You also refuse to provide any evidence to support your claim that I am homosexual...[blah][blah][blah]."

Thankfully, I have no personal experience with you, goat molester. Willie Rod and Carol Brouillet, however, have extensive personal experience with you. In addition, they have leveled compelling accusations against you, that lead me to conclude you're kind of...well, for lack of a better term, gay.

In fact, Carol Brouillet threatened to have you arrested. That said, I have no reason to doubt Carol Brouillet (or Willie Rod, for that matter) because she has never lied to me. You, on the other hand...

"...So hey, what's your bracket for the college basketball thingee? I mean, after a hard 65 hour workweek normal married men like to relax by watching young unmarried men prance around in their underwear, right?"

I have no interest in professional sports, because professional sports has no bearing on my life. It's irrelevant--a waste of time.

 
At 23 March, 2011 00:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, you are embarrassing yourself. There was 180,000 tons of concrete and 160,000 tons of steel in the towers alone--340,000 tons! The NRDC never claimed that 242,000 tons of building material was pulverized. They claimed 424,00 tons of concrete was pulverized, but this claim was absurd for reasons you are too ignorant to comprehend."

Again, the 242,000 tons of pulverized building material figure comes from the NRDC, and was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence at a FEDERAL TRIAL. No one has ever proven--including you--that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect.

Until you provide evidence that proves the NRDC wrong, your commentary is nothing more than opinion. In fact, it's intellectually dishonest to claim that the floor assemblies were the only concrete components of the towers, while you ignore the remainder of the structures that sat on the NY & NJ Port Authorities land.

"...Pray tell, how did the airplane's impact damage the lobby more than 1,000 feet below? How did it damage drywall six floors above?"

Eyewitness accounts confirm the damage. In fact, people on the ground floor were killed by the impact. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the floors above the point of impact escaped damage, including, but not limited to, the drywall.

Any claim to the contrary on your part is the realm of unsubstantiated opinion, and unsubstantiated opinion alone.

How many times must I tell you, moreover, that I don't want you to waste my time with opinion? Provide verifiable facts, or stow it.

Got it?

"...If you really had the education you claim, it wouldn't be necessary for you to use bullying tactics."

No one is "bullying" you, Pinocchio. I'm fed up with your never ending lies. Additionally, I'm fed up with your arrogance and conceit. Your opinion is not evidence, and it never will be evidence.

Got it?

 
At 23 March, 2011 00:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Ms. Brouillet's threats to have me arrested are news to me. I suspect these reports come from Dr. Kevin Barrett.

No reason to doubt Willie Rodriguez? He's a blatant and immoral liar who steals his glory from the dead in order to convince the gullible to give him money! He claimed that he single-handedly rescued 15 people. Apparently none of these people have names and none of them are willing to come forward to thank him. He claimed that his Key of Hope saved hundreds of lives, but he can't explain who nobody (not one!) died under the impact zone because Willie never reached their floors.

You're dodging your claims of extensive impact damage, 242,000 tons of debris, 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete, and homosexuality.

 
At 23 March, 2011 00:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail you continue to embarrass yourself with your shifting liespam that NRDC claims 242,000 tons of pulverized building material. Nowhere does the NRDC report make such a claim.

I can prove wrong in an instant the NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized.

That there was damage to the lobby does not mean it was from the airplane. I am aware of no scientific study explaining how airplane impact at 95 can blow out windows on the ground floor. NIST claims (NCSTAR1 p. 24) that the windows were blown out by a flash fire, but provide no analysis to support that claim, and this claim is not credible given that it looks like the front rank of lobby elevators did not extend to the impact floors in the north tower.

You're bullying me, UtterFail, with your continuing libels against me. If you had a factual base to stand on, you wouldn't need to lie.

 
At 23 March, 2011 00:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Ms. Brouillet's threats to have me arrested are news to me. I suspect these reports come from Dr. Kevin Barrett."

No, the report comes from Carol Brouillet, and you know it. Stop lying, pet goat.

And frankly, I don't care what Willie Rod claims to have done or not done. He may, or may not, be a hero. In my opinion, the Willie Rod saga is wholly irrelevant.

And anyone, in my opinion, who would spend as much time as you have spent discrediting such a minor figure as Willie Rod is insane.

 
At 23 March, 2011 00:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail you continue to embarrass yourself with your shifting liespam that NRDC claims 242,000 tons of pulverized building material. Nowhere does the NRDC report make such a claim."

That paragraph is more proof that you're an insane liar.

"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

You can't create a huge "cloud" of concrete dust unless the concrete was pulverized--you dork.

"...That there was damage to the lobby does not mean it was from the airplane. I am aware of no scientific study explaining how airplane impact at 95 can blow out windows on the ground floor. NIST claims (NCSTAR1 p. 24) that the windows were blown out by a flash fire, but provide no analysis to support that claim, and this claim is not credible given that it looks like the front rank of lobby elevators did not extend to the impact floors in the north tower."

More opinion spam.

Again, I don't want your unprofessional and unqualified opinion. Your opinion is worthless.

Get it through your damned skull.

"...You're bullying me, UtterFail, with your continuing libels against me. If you had a factual base to stand on, you wouldn't need to lie."

I didn't formulate or influence the accusations made against you by Carol Brouillet and Willie Rod. They made the accusations against you. Thus, I'm not "lying" at all. I'm repeating accusations leveled against you by members of the 9/11 "truth" movement. And frankly, given your behavior and well-documented propensity for dishonesty, their accusations are, for the most part, quite credible.

If you have a problem with their accusations, I suggest that you sue them in civil court. Victory in civil court will exonerate you, and restore your reputation. If and when that day comes, I'll apologize. Until then, you have provided not a shred of evidence to discredit Carol Brouillet or Willie Rod.

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail you continue to embarrass yourself with your shifting liespam that NRDC claims 242,000 tons of pulverized building material. Nowhere does the NRDC report make such a claim."

That paragraph is more proof that you're an insane liar.

"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

You can't create a huge "cloud" of concrete dust unless the concrete was pulverized--you dork.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...That there was damage to the lobby does not mean it was from the airplane. I am aware of no scientific study explaining how airplane impact at 95 can blow out windows on the ground floor. NIST claims (NCSTAR1 p. 24) that the windows were blown out by a flash fire, but provide no analysis to support that claim, and this claim is not credible given that it looks like the front rank of lobby elevators did not extend to the impact floors in the north tower."

More opinion spam.

Again, I don't want your unprofessional and unqualified opinion. Your opinion is worthless.

Get it through your damned skull.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You're bullying me, UtterFail, with your continuing libels against me. If you had a factual base to stand on, you wouldn't need to lie."

I didn't formulate or influence the accusations made against you by Carol Brouillet and Willie Rod. They made the accusations against you. Thus, I'm not "lying" at all. I'm repeating accusations leveled against you by members of the 9/11 "truth" movement. And frankly, given your behavior and well-documented propensity for dishonesty, their accusations are, for the most part, quite credible.

If you have a problem with their accusations, I suggest that you sue them in civil court. Victory in civil court will exonerate you, and restore your reputation. If and when that day comes, I'll apologize. Until then, you have provided not a shred of evidence to discredit Carol Brouillet or Willie Rod.

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, no such report came from Ms. Brouillet. You are not just a liar, you are an incompetent liar.

The fact that you state "I have no reason to doubt ... Willie Rod" and then less than an hour later say "I don't care what Willie Rod claims to have done or not done" shows you to be incompetent.

William Rodriguez lies for money. That's fraud.

He's hardly a minor figure. He managed to spoil a very good relationship the truth movement had with C-span. That's not minor.

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

I note that you still seem to be unable to perceive the difference between 424,000 tons and 242,000 tons. Strange for a guy who claims a degree in Applied Mathematics.

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, no such report came from Ms. Brouillet. You are not just a liar, you are an incompetent liar."

Wrong again, Pinocchio.

Carol Brouillet's accusations against you were posted to SLC and Barrett's 9/11 nutter website, TruthJihad.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

And don't claim that the story never appeared here on SLC. As I explained previously, the thread was lost when Pat and James uninstalled Haloscan and went back to the default comment manager provided by blogger.com.

"...The fact that you state "I have no reason to doubt ... Willie Rod" and then less than an hour later say "I don't care what Willie Rod claims to have done or not done" shows you to be incompetent."

I was referring to his alleged heroics on 11 September 2001, not your malfeasance. Learn to read, goat molester.

"...William Rodriguez lies for money. That's fraud."

That may, or may not, be true. Frankly, I don't care.

"...He's hardly a minor figure. He managed to spoil a very good relationship the truth movement had with C-span. That's not minor."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now I've heard it all.

Excuse me while I die laughing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it goat molester, you're killing me...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, no such report came from Ms. Brouillet. You are not just a liar, you are an incompetent liar."

Wrong again, Pinocchio.

Carol Brouillet's accusations against you were posted to SLC and Barrett's 9/11 nutter website, TruthJihad.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

And don't claim that the story never appeared here on SLC. As I explained previously, the thread was lost when Pat and James uninstalled Haloscan and went back to the default comment manager provided by blogger.com.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The fact that you state "I have no reason to doubt ... Willie Rod" and then less than an hour later say "I don't care what Willie Rod claims to have done or not done" shows you to be incompetent."

I was referring to his alleged heroics on 11 September 2001, not your malfeasance. Learn to read, goat molester.

"...William Rodriguez lies for money. That's fraud."

That may, or may not, be true. Frankly, I don't care.

"...He's hardly a minor figure. He managed to spoil a very good relationship the truth movement had with C-span. That's not minor."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now I've heard it all.

Excuse me while I die laughing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it goat molester, you're killing me...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, no such report came from Ms. Brouillet. You are not just a liar, you are an incompetent liar."

Wrong again, Pinocchio.

Carol Brouillet's accusations against you were posted to SLC and Barrett's 9/11 nutter website, TruthJihad.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

And don't claim that the story never appeared here on SLC. As I explained previously, the thread was lost when Pat and James uninstalled Haloscan and went back to the default comment manager provided by blogger.com.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I note that you still seem to be unable to perceive the difference between 424,000 tons and 242,000 tons. Strange for a guy who claims a degree in Applied Mathematics."

And you're still unable to grasp the concept of a typo.

In any case, it's irrelevant, because I've provided the relevant quote from the NRDC:

"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

Do you honestly believe that picking gnat shit out of pepper impresses anyone, goat molester?

After all, so far you've provided not one shred of credible evidence to prove NRDC wrong. The fact remains that the 424,000 tons figure was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven--including you--that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect.

Furthermore, you can't read. I have an advanced degree in Computer science and Applied Mathematics. Learn to read, goat fucker.

It may come as a surprise for you to discover that Computer Science is a branch of Applied Mathematics. Get an education and this might not prove so mysterious for you, pet goat.

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I note that you still seem to be unable to perceive the difference between 424,000 tons and 242,000 tons. Strange for a guy who claims a degree in Applied Mathematics."

And you're still unable to grasp the concept of a typo.

In any case, it's irrelevant, because I've provided the relevant quote from the NRDC:

"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

Do you honestly believe that picking gnat shit out of pepper impresses anyone, goat molester?

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 01:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

After all, so far you've provided not one shred of credible evidence to prove NRDC wrong. The fact remains that the 424,000 tons figure was cited by the RJ Lee Report and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven--including you--that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect.

Furthermore, you can't read. I have an advanced degree in Computer science and Applied Mathematics. Learn to read, goat fucker.

It may come as a surprise for you to discover that Computer Science is a branch of Applied Mathematics. Get an education and this might not prove so mysterious for you, pet goat.

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, so you say you have no reason to doubt Willie R, and then you say you don't care if he lies.
You're incompetent.

Whatever is said on SLC and at TruthJihad is not Ms. Brouillet's accusation but only someone's assertion. You're incompetent.

The difference between 424,000 tons and 242,000 tons is hardly a typo, UtterFail. That's 182,000 tons! You're incompetent.

So you still can't figure out why the claim by NRDC of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is ludicrous? Then you still don't know beans about the WTC. You're incompetent.

What makes you think I don't have an education?

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Utterfail, so you say you have no reason to doubt Willie R, and then you say you don't care if he lies. You're incompetent."

No, incompetence has nothing to do with it. Some issues are not worth my attention. If Willie Rod lies to his gullible sheep and empties their pockets, why should I care?

Furthermore, for all I know, he's telling the truth, as far as he perceives events. In fact, you've never proven to me that he's a liar. After all, people hear things and misinterpret the source of the sound constantly. Perception is NOT reality. So should I have a hissy fit because a janitor heard what he perceives as an explosion?

Yes, he claims to have heard explosions on 11 September 2001, but there's no evidence to support this claim. Thus, for the most, I ignore him, because in the grand scheme of things, he's mice nuts.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Whatever is said on SLC and at TruthJihad is not Ms. Brouillet's accusation but only someone's assertion. You're incompetent."

No, you're a liar.

Carol Brouillet is on record as regards your sex stalking and insanity.

She has also stated--for the record--that she threatened to call the authorities if you didn't cease and desist in stalking and sexually harassing her.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course you provide no evidence whatsoever of your assertions.
You're incompetent.

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The difference between 424,000 tons and 242,000 tons is hardly a typo, UtterFail. That's 182,000 tons! You're incompetent."

Again, you're a liar.

A typo is a typo, whether an insane liar of your ilk accepts my explanation for a perfectly innocent error, or not.

The fact remains that you have failed to present one iota of evidence to prove the NRDC is wrong. Your opinion, as I've pointed out, at least a thousand times, is not evidence.

Thus, YOU are incompetent, because you continually fail to recognize that your worthless, unprofessional and unqualified opinion is NOT evidence.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So you still can't figure out why the claim by NRDC of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is ludicrous? Then you still don't know beans about the WTC. You're incompetent."

No, lies promoted by an insane former janitor is not evidence.

Your opinion, as I've pointed out, at least a thousand times, is not evidence.

Thus, YOU are incompetent, because you continually fail to recognize that your worthless, unprofessional and unqualified opinion is NOT evidence.

Continued...

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2011 02:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Of course you provide no evidence whatsoever of your assertions. You're incompetent."

It's not my job to prove your innocence or guilt.

That's your burden, and your burden alone.

Since you failed to sue Willie Rod and Carol Brouillet in a civil court and restore your reputation, it's safe to assume that you have something to hide.

And don't give me that "court is expensive" crap. A lawyer will happily take your case if the evidence is in your favor.

 
At 23 March, 2011 03:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, so first you say you have no reason to doubt Willie R, and an hours later you say you don't care if he lies or not. You're incompetent.

Your claim that Ms. Brouillet is or record vis a vis stalking, insanity, and threatening to call authorities is a lie. You're incompetent.

The difference between 424,000 and 242,000 is hardly a typo. You might as well claim that "format C:" is a typo. You're incompetent.

The NRDC claim that 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is ludicrous, as anyone who knows the first thing about the WTC can see.
But you can't, because you're incompetent.

I don't have to prove my innocence. You have to prove your assertions. And you can't, because you're incompetent.

 
At 23 March, 2011 03:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Utterfail, so first you say you have no reason to doubt Willie R, and an hours later you say you don't care if he lies or not. You're incompetent."

No, I said nothing of the sort. But it's well established that you can't read beyond the third grade-level and quote mine like a psychopath on steriods, so there's no surprise here.

"...Your claim that Ms. Brouillet is or record vis a vis stalking, insanity, and threatening to call authorities is a lie. You're incompetent."

The opinion of a proven compulsive liar is not evidence.

Prove it.

"...The difference between 424,000 and 242,000 is hardly a typo. You might as well claim that "format C:" is a typo. You're incompetent."

The opinion of a proven compulsive liar is not evidence.

Prove it.

"...The NRDC claim that 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is ludicrous, as anyone who knows the first thing about the WTC can see.
But you can't, because you're incompetent."


Again, the opinion of a proven compulsive liar is not evidence.

Prove it.

"...I don't have to prove my innocence. You have to prove your assertions. And you can't, because you're incompetent."

They're not my assertions, goat fucker. They're Willie Rod and Carol Brouillet's assertions.

You're a liar--and a transparent liar at that.

 
At 23 March, 2011 03:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, at 0:03 you wrote "I have no reason to doubt ... Willie Rod"

AT 0:44 you wrote: "And frankly, I don't care what Willie Rod claims to have done or not done."

You're incompetent.

I can prove that your claims are lie simply by challenging you to prove your claims. Your inability to do so proves that you lie.

You're incompetent.

Your inability to see that when you claim that X says Y, that is your own assertion and not X's assertion, shows you to be incompetent.

 
At 23 March, 2011 03:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, at 0:03 you wrote 'I have no reason to doubt ... Willie Rod'...AT 0:44 you wrote: 'And frankly, I don't care what Willie Rod claims to have done or not done.'"

Quote mining again, gay boy?

Quote mining isn't evidence.

You're a liar.

"...I can prove that your claims are lie simply by challenging you to prove your claims. Your inability to do so proves that you lie."

Such squealing, gay boy.

They're not my assertions, goat fucker. They're Willie Rod and Carol Brouillet's assertions.

You're a liar.

"...Your inability to see that when you claim that X says Y, that is your own assertion and not X's assertion, shows you to be incompetent."

More gobbledygook, gay boy?

Your pseudo-intellectual squealing and gobbledygook isn't impressive, gay boy.

You're a liar.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 23 March, 2011 03:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, goat fucker, what are you trying to bury in squealspam?

Let me guess.

Your transparent lies about floor 104 of WTC 1?

Yep.

 
At 23 March, 2011 03:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you claim your own words posted on this very blog are quote mined. You're a liar.

Your claim that you're quoting Ms. Brouillet's assertions is given the lie by the fact that you can not provide a link. You're a liar.

I haven't lied about anything. I see you're exercising the "Samson Option" again--the equivalent of turning over the checker board when you see you can't win.

You're pathetic. You can't even prevail over the people you regard as the dumbest on earth. What does that say about you, GutterBall?

 
At 23 March, 2011 04:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, you claim your own words posted on this very blog are quote mined. You're a liar."

The opinion of a compulsive liar isn't evidence.

You're a liar.

"...Your claim that you're quoting Ms. Brouillet's assertions is given the lie by the fact that you can not provide a link. You're a liar."

I have given the link on numerous occasions, including this thread.

You're a liar.

"...I haven't lied about anything."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it, goat fucker, you're killing me.

You lie like a rug.

"...I see you're exercising the "Samson Option" again--the equivalent of turning over the checker board when you see you can't win."

Win?

How does one win a "debate" with a compulsive liar?

You're delusional--not to mention a liar.

"...You're pathetic. You can't even prevail over the people you regard as the dumbest on earth. What does that say about you, GutterBall?"

The opinion of a proven compulsive liar is not evidence.

You're a liar. But we know that.

So, goat fucker, what are you trying to bury in squealspam?

Let me guess.

Your transparent lies about floor 104 of WTC 1?

Yep.

 
At 23 March, 2011 04:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall your links to Ms. Brouillet's remarks do not contain the remarks you claim or contain remarks that are not hers.

You're incompetent.

 
At 23 March, 2011 04:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat fucker, don't you think you should go to bad?

After all, you'll be late for your self-appointed rounds, which includes stalking Willie Rod and Kevin Barrett, among others.

At least I have an excuse for being up this late. I have work to complete.

You, on the other hand, have to meet your hectic masturbation and cyber-stalking schedule.

Keep it up, and one day you'll be infamous like your hero Jerad Loughner.

Just be sure to warn us before you go postal in the corner Burger King. Okay, squirrel bait?

 
At 23 March, 2011 04:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, not even Ian's attack baboons can save you as you sink into the earth wailing "I'm melting, I'm melting".

 
At 23 March, 2011 04:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Patting yourself on the back again without justification, squirrel bait?

In fact, you're projecting, because you've been up all night doing your best to bury your latest humiliation is an avalanche of squealspam.

So, goat fucker, are you still obsessed with sick sexual fantasies about high profile 9/11 troofers? Do you continue to inflict your utterly disgusting sexual fantasies on poor Carol Brouillet and Willie the Rod?

So how long did it take before Carol Brouillet told you to get lost or she would call the police?

And we'd like to know, did Carol's husband have the opportunity to kick your ass for sexually harassing his wife?

inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 23 March, 2011 04:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, you claim that my "quoting Ms. Brouillet's assertions is given the lie by the fact that you can not provide a link" about your ongoing sexual harassment of the poor woman.

Well, I can prove you're a liar.

What's this, goat fucker?

Carol Brouillet wrote, "...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you...Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality."

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=932bca5c6f420d2c43b2984356d506cc&showtopic=1092&st=0&#entry2389508

Check and mate

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You pathetic little freak!

 
At 23 March, 2011 10:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if I have been humiliated please show where. You are the one who has lied about the contents of the RJ Lee and NRDC reports, who does not know why your belief that 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is absurd, who gets tripped up between 242,000 tons and 424,000 tons, and who tries to confuse computer models with empirical studies.

Carol Brouillet never told me to get lost or she would call the police. That story is the fantasy of Dr. Kevin Barrett who, according to his book "TruthJihad" lived in a motorhome in San Francisco for ten years before he decided on a cross-country train trip to change his life by becoming a Muslim, immediately after which he met the Moroccan woman who was foolish enough to become his wife. Yeah, right.

Carol Brouillet's husband has had plenty of opportunity to kick my ass. He's had no reason to do so.

Oh, so now you're quoting the Citizen Investigation Team as an authority on what Ms. Brouillet says? Your credibility is zilch if you have to cite a source like that.

(And I note that the quote you cite says nothing about calling the police, or stalking, or "utterly disgusting sexual fantasies" which you libelously allege.)

I also note that after you are shown to lie and lie and lie, as you walk the plank you must resort to the ad hominem lie--the last refuge of those who can not make their arguments based on facts. That would be Ranke, Rodriguez, Barrett, and you.

 
At 23 March, 2011 10:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I also note that the information that I have provided above about column 1001 is solid, and your claims that it could have been damaged are totally specious and show that you have not even bothered to look at Fig 2-4 of NCSTAR1.

 
At 23 March, 2011 12:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian uses the 9/11 Families as a human shield. Talk about being a coward & a hypocrit.

 
At 23 March, 2011 12:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you use an on-line pseudonym and lying claims of affiliation to FDNY as a shield. Talk about your hypocrites!

 
At 23 March, 2011 14:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator prevaricates, "...I also note that the information that I have provided above about column 1001 is solid, and your claims that it could have been damaged are totally specious and show that you have not even bothered to look at Fig 2-4 of NCSTAR1."

I never said one word about column 1001, nor did I claim that it was damaged.

Thus, we have more proof that you're a liar.

Learn to read, sex predator.

Furthermore, your never ending lies about Carol Brouillet are contradicted by her testimony, which I reproduced above.

"...You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me...You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things."

Again, since you failed to sue Willie Rod and Carol Brouillet in a civil court and restore your reputation, it's safe to assume that you have something to hide.

 
At 23 March, 2011 14:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...WAQo, you use an on-line pseudonym and lying claims of affiliation to FDNY as a shield."

Really? No kidding?

You've never proven that he's lying.

And what the Hell is "snug.bug" if not a pseudonym?

Your middle name?

Do you bother to read the crap you write, bug.fuck?

 
At 23 March, 2011 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2011 15:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, in the context of a discussion of column 1001 you wrote:

22 March, 2011 23:38 "It's preposterous to conclude that the damage didn't extend to the floors above the point of impact."

The quote you have reproduced comes from a source lacking in credibility and says nothing supporting your claims. I have many times explained that Ms. Brouillet's discomfort was probably based on crank phone calls made my unknown parties, and not me.

GutterBall, you can hardly claim that I am hiding behind a pseudonym when WAQ9o claims he has published my address and phone number and you refuse to reveal even your stage name. If it's "Guitar Bill" you must not get many gigs.

Why should I waste my time suing Willie Rodriguez? I can expose his lies just fine without resorting to the expense of the court system. I wouldn't sue Ms. Brouillet because she's got enough troubles already.

 
At 23 March, 2011 15:25, Blogger Greg said...

UtterFail, in the context of a discussion of column 1001 you wrote:

22 March, 2011 23:38 "It's preposterous to conclude that the damage didn't extend to the floors above the point of impact."


Brian,

What is your highest level of education completed?

 
At 23 March, 2011 15:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

I daresay more than yours. I'm not here to talk about me, or your obvious educational deficits.

Let's talk about how the fire got from floor 98 to floor 1104. Do you think column 1001 and its pipe shaft are the key, or do you think it was by some other means?

 
At 23 March, 2011 15:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Thanks for proving that I never said a word about column 1001, Mr. Straw Man Argument.

And the bilge about "crank phone calls" wouldn't hold up for 5 seconds in a court of law.

No wonder you won't sue her. She's telling the truth.

You're truly pathetic, sex predator.

FAIL

 
At 23 March, 2011 15:36, Blogger Greg said...

I daresay more than yours.

I am willing to bet all of my net worth versus yours that that I have at least 6 more years of education than you. (I'm even willing to go as high as 8 years more).

Let's talk about how the fire got from floor 98 to floor 1104. Do you think column 1001 and its pipe shaft are the key, or do you think it was by some other means?.

I vote, who cares.

 
At 23 March, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2011 18:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 March, 2011 18:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, where I come from, PhDs like Dr. Kevin Barrett are a dime a dozen, and taking 8 years to finish your dissertation is hardly anythung to brag about.

UtterFail, Ms. Brouillet's phone calls would never even get into court. Her lawyer would ask me "Why did you make those calls?" and I'd say "I didn't." Then he'd ask Ms. Brouillet "How do you know Brian made those calls?" and she's say "I don't" and that would be the end of it.

 
At 23 March, 2011 18:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if you have evidence that floors 99-103 were on fire, please provide it.

Brian, I'll show you the evidence once you admit that you are petgoat.

I think Mindy Kleinberg is a widow because she says so and the other widows say so. If you're going to call her a liar, please prove it.

Brian, if you have evidence that Mindy Kleinberg is a widow, please provide it.

 
At 23 March, 2011 19:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Ms. Brouillet's phone calls would never even get into court. Her lawyer would ask me "Why did you make those calls?" and I'd say "I didn't." Then he'd ask Ms. Brouillet "How do you know Brian made those calls?" and she's say "I don't" and that would be the end of it."

Bullshit. Have you ever heard of caller ID?

In addition, there are records for all phone calls. They are stored in the company's database, and may be accessed by the phone company or cellular phone provider at will. Furthermore, it would be child's play for the court to subpoena and examine the phone records and determine when the calls were made and by whom.

Stop lying, pet goat.

 
At 23 March, 2011 19:18, Blogger Greg said...

Greg, where I come from, PhDs like Dr. Kevin Barrett are a dime a dozen, and taking 8 years to finish your dissertation is hardly anythung to brag about.

The value of the education is not the topic at hand.

What is the highest level of education you have completed?

 
At 23 March, 2011 19:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, what seems to have escaped your notice is the logical possibility that the phone records would show that I made no such calls. In fact, I have phoned Ms. Brouillet only about ten times in the six years I have known her.

Greg, GutterBall says I'm a high school dropout. Isn't it obvious what level of education I have achieved?

 
At 23 March, 2011 19:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Greg, where I come from, PhDs like Dr. Kevin Barrett are a dime a dozen...[blah][blah][blah]."

Goat molester, just because you live across the El Camino Real from Stanford University, doesn't qualify you as a member of academia.

Besides, it's common knowledge that you have a severe case of Ph.D envy, which, of course, is analogous to penis envy.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x028066tl33g82p5/

 
At 23 March, 2011 19:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, what seems to have escaped your notice is the logical possibility that the phone records would show that I made no such calls...[blah][blah][blah]."

Good for you. And if you're telling the truth, I'll happily apologize.

Take her to civil court and restore you reputation. I'm rooting for you, man.

%^)

 
At 23 March, 2011 20:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pffffft. Only the truth hurts.

 
At 23 March, 2011 21:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

You really haven't a clue, have you, about why NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd.

 
At 24 March, 2011 00:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've already explained why you're full-of-shit, pet goat.

And you really shouldn't use the word "truth," goat molester, because the word truth, in your case, is like water to witch.

 
At 24 March, 2011 00:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

You've already explained why your own claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is absurd?

Please provide details!

 
At 24 March, 2011 00:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Learn to read.

It's not my claim, sex predator. The figure comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council; was cited by the RJ Lee Report; and was used as evidence in a FEDERAL TRIAL. That means the NRDC figure was used as expert testimony. No one has ever proven that the figure cited by the NRDC is incorrect--including you.

And your unprofessional, unqualified, unproven and, ultimately, worthless opinion isn't evidence.

Got evidence?

I won't hold my breath.

FAIL

 
At 24 March, 2011 00:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Evidence? I've got proof that the 424,000 tons claim is absurd. Bulletproof.

And nobody on this board knows enough to know why. Except me.

 
At 24 March, 2011 01:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, you have not a shred of evidence. All you have is your unprofessional, unqualified, unproven and, ultimately, worthless opinion.

FAIL

 
At 24 March, 2011 01:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have bulletproof evidence, and you have no clue.

 
At 24 March, 2011 01:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So why are you so careful to hide the alleged evidence?

 
At 24 March, 2011 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because I want to see if there's anybody in this place who knows anybody who knows enough about the World Trade Center to answer the question.

 
At 24 March, 2011 10:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Well, I suppose you can count yourself out.

 
At 24 March, 2011 10:58, Blogger Greg said...

Because I want to see if there's anybody in this place who knows anybody who knows enough about the World Trade Center to answer the question.

We all know you, so answer the question for us.

 
At 24 March, 2011 11:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

But it's so much more fun to let y'all squirm.

 
At 24 March, 2011 12:08, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat will DEFINITELY answer. He cares about honest research, and he's not afraid to show his sources!

Right Pat?




*crickets*

































*crickets*
















































*crickets*









































































*crickets*














































































































*crickets*

 
At 24 March, 2011 12:59, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

In other words, you have nothing and you're lying again.

 
At 24 March, 2011 14:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't lie, Greg, and your claim that I do is a lie.

The answer is obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the World Trade Center as to why the NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized is absurd.

 
At 24 March, 2011 14:35, Blogger Greg said...

Brain,

Educate us.....

 
At 24 March, 2011 16:38, Blogger Ian said...

More squealing from the two losers who still haven't figured out that 9/11 "truth" is dead. Guys, please move on. Birtherism is the new hot conspiracy theory among the mentally unstable.

 
At 24 March, 2011 23:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Ian, can you tell us why the NRDC's claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is absurd? Do you need a lifeline?

 
At 25 March, 2011 04:33, Blogger Ian said...

So Ian, can you tell us why the NRDC's claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is absurd? Do you need a lifeline?

Well, there's the fact that the concrete wasn't pulverized. You really aren't too bright, are you Brian?

 
At 25 March, 2011 04:38, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, enough about concrete. I think it's time to talk about those Norwegian hackers Willie Rodriguez hired to attack your computer, Brian.

 
At 25 March, 2011 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know it's a fact that all 424,000 tons of concrete wasn't pulverized. But GutterBall very foolishly continues to insist that 424,000 tons of concrete WAS pulverized. And he believes that's because the NRDC can not be wrong, and because their report was cited by RJ Lee, and because it was introduced in evidence in court somewhere.

So I guess you agree with me that GutterBall is a fool.

I never said Willie Rodriguez hired Norwegian hackers to attack my computer. It's pretty obvious to me that somebody attacked my computer though, because I had two of them knocked out of action on the same day when I was having a debate with (IIRC) Aldo Marquis.

The Linux machine had its PCMCIA driver wiped out so I couldn't use the ethernet card any more.

Windows machine I was able to get running again by using an emergency fix-it disk.

I said someone who seemed an awful lot like William Rodriguez once bragged that he had a team of Norwegian hackers out to get me.

Ian, until you learn to distinguish between assertions of facts "somebody bragged about X" and offerings of opinions "somebody did Y" you are going to be very confused by the world and your opinions will continue to be very foolish.

 
At 25 March, 2011 10:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 March, 2011 10:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, you use an on-line pseudonym and lying claims of affiliation to FDNY as a shield. Talk about your hypocrites!"
==============
You haven't proven me wrong, so what I said about you using the 9/11 Families as human shields proves my point, you're a coward and a hypocrite!

Brian, live knowing that I know you far better than you're own father does. Actually, who's your daddy?

 
At 25 March, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the families aren't shielding me from creeps like you. Your claim that I use them as a shield is a lie.

 
At 25 March, 2011 16:13, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

I don't think you know what a lie is.

 
At 25 March, 2011 16:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

A lie is something that's not true that's spoken by a liar. WAQo is a liar. He, she, or it is thus undeserving of the benefit of the doubt when he expressed opinions that are not true, or says things that if someone else said them might merely be mistakes.

 
At 25 March, 2011 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

A lie is something that's not true that's spoken by a liar.

Yes. Examples of these would be your claim that NIST said the buildings came down essentially in free-fall, or that Dr. Sunder said they collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds.

 
At 25 March, 2011 18:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Sunder tells NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html (at 1:00)

NIST says (NCSTAR1, section 6.14.4)

"The building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

 
At 25 March, 2011 18:48, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean?

 
At 26 March, 2011 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

If they go to the references I cite, they will see what you mean and they will see that you lie.

 
At 26 March, 2011 09:49, Blogger Greg said...

If they go to the references I cite, they will see what you mean and they will see that you lie.

They who?

 
At 26 March, 2011 09:56, Blogger Ian said...

If they go to the references I cite, they will see what you mean and they will see that you lie.

False. You lose again, Brian.

They who?

Part of Brian's shtick is that he seems to think that there are millions of people who are being converted to the truth movement by his posting here. That's how badly he's in need of psychiatric care.

So "they" is Brian's imaginary friends who read this blog.

 
At 26 March, 2011 10:00, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, let's talk about more interesting and important stuff than 9/11 truth.

Do you think the Giants can repeat as World Champions? I honestly think they'll have a hard time winning the west again if Colorado stays healthy.

Going to any games this summer? I hope to get to a Giants game during a vacation out west this summer.

 
At 26 March, 2011 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sunder tells NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html (at 1:00)

NIST says (NCSTAR1, section 6.14.4)

"The building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

 
At 26 March, 2011 11:41, Blogger Ian said...

Sunder tells NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html (at 1:00)

NIST says (NCSTAR1, section 6.14.4)

"The building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."


Brian, what exactly are you trying to accomplish by posting this dumbspam again and again?

 
At 26 March, 2011 12:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not dumbspam, it's proof that you lie.

 
At 26 March, 2011 12:37, Blogger Ian said...

It's not dumbspam, it's proof that you lie.

Brian, shortening your dumbspam posts doesn't make them any less dumbspammy.

Also, you never answered my questions about the San Francisco Giants above.

 
At 27 March, 2011 08:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there aren't any giants in San Francisco.

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predatorwhines, "...I don't lie, Greg, and your claim that I do is a lie."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it , Pinocchio, YOU'RE KILLING ME!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 27 March, 2011 13:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there aren't any giants in San Francisco.

False. Learn to Google.

 
At 27 March, 2011 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, when did I lie? Argument by HAHAHA is logically fallacious, as well as juvenile.

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:00, Blogger Ian said...

GutterBall, when did I lie?

Well, for one, you lie when you say the NIST report says the towers came down "essentially in free-fall".

Brian, don't bother posting your squealspam response with a link to the NIST report. Everyone knows you're lying.

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, in history what "everybody knows" is frequently shown to be wrong.

NIST section 6.14.4 says that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Shyam Sunder told NOVA the same thing, saying that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:24, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, in history what "everybody knows" is frequently shown to be wrong.

Yup, but in this case, what everyone knows is that you're a liar, sex stalker, failed janitor, and lunatic who has been thrown out of the truth movement. Also, you post endless dumbspam that just shows how little you know about 9/11.

NIST section 6.14.4 says that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Shyam Sunder told NOVA the same thing, saying that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html


See what I mean?

 
At 27 March, 2011 19:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

In this case, Ian, what "everybody knows" is a lie, and you have shown yourself to be so cynical that there's no reason to think that you even believe it yourself.

It's an empty, lying, ad hominem attack, which is levied by people who can not even be bothered to go to section 6.14.4 of the NIST report and the NOVA segment and find out.

 
At 28 March, 2011 06:06, Blogger Ian said...

In this case, Ian, what "everybody knows" is a lie, and you have shown yourself to be so cynical that there's no reason to think that you even believe it yourself.

False. What everybody knows about you is true. Also, we all know you're petgoat, so why not admit it?

I mean, you used to deny you were punxsutawneybarney until you posted under that name here. Oops!

It's an empty, lying, ad hominem attack, which is levied by people who can not even be bothered to go to section 6.14.4 of the NIST report and the NOVA segment and find out.

False. You just don't know how read, Brian. It would explain why you're a failed janitor who is extremely confused about 9/11.

 
At 28 March, 2011 09:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I want to talk about 9/11.

You want to engage in girly gossip about me.

 
At 28 March, 2011 09:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I want to talk about 9/11.

OK, let's talk about 9/11: where is your evidence that it's an inside job?

You want to engage in girly gossip about me.

Brian, you've never gotten laid in your life, have you?

 
At 28 March, 2011 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am not interested in stupid "inside job" claims. The aggressive coverups, for instance the redaction of the 28 pages in the joint House/Senate report, show that there is much that the PTB want to hide.

Your fascination with other people's sex lives suggests that your own is not fulfilling.

NIST section 6.14.4 says that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Shyam Sunder told NOVA the same thing, saying that the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

If the fireproofing shivered off like NIST claims, there would have been 3/8" of fireproofing all over the carpets, making for pretty smoky fires.

How did a fire on 98 "spread" to 104 without showing evidence that it appeared on 99,100,101,102,and 103? How come when it "spread" it appeared at an isolated spot and burned far more fiercely that other fires?

If NIST can't explain how a fire climbed six floors with no plausible mechanism they have failed to do their duty to improve public fire safety. Patty Casazza and Mindy Kleinberg, whose husbands worked on the 104th floor at Cantor Fitzgerald, both deserve to know how that fire got there from the 98th floor.

if you want to claim that a jetliner crashing into floors 92 to 98 caused a fire at floor 104, apparently without fires on the intervening floors, you're going to have to come up with a theory to explain it.

Office fires only burn in on place 20 minutes before the fuel is consumed.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf
See also NCSTAR1 p. 129.

 
At 28 March, 2011 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

So how did the fire "spread" from 98 to 104? If it went up the Air Return shaft, how come it was isolated at that spot 60 feet away? If it went up the pipe shaft, how did it break through the drywall at 104 when the shaft went on up to 108? And how did hot combustion gases that would have spread out over the ceiling manage to create an isolated fire? And why isn't a $20 million study done by NIST to improve fire safety interested in determining the exact mechanism for this fire propagating and proposing a means by which it won't happen again? And why weren't there firestops in the pipe shaft?

And why don't the widows deserve an investigation that makes some effort to answer those questions?

Why do you try to make a virtue out of not caring about the widows?

How do hot gases flash over through an undamaged drywall barrier? Why did they flash over to the 104th floor and none of the higher floors that shared the same ducts? Why was the fire isolated at the south west corner?

Can you explain why GutterBall's belief that all 424,000 tons of concrete in the WTC was pulverized is absurd?

 
At 28 March, 2011 10:50, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, Brian, you sure typed a lot! If only you had a point to make. Unfortunately, I just see a lot of dumbspam about magic thermite elves, invisible widows, and smoldering carpets.

Try again. Or maybe get someone who isn't a failed janitor and thus is competent to talk about 9/11 to type for you.

 
At 28 March, 2011 10:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

How is it disrespecting the dead to try to find the truth about how they died, and to try to get their widows' questions answered? Why don't y'all badmouth Ian when he claims the widows murdered their husbands or that they're not widows?

NCSTAR1 p. 24 says that a flash fire from jet fuel blew out the lobby windows. I'm not aware that any study has been made of how jet fuel can fall down a 1000 foot elevator shaft and not simply coat the walls of the shaft. I'll also point out that the lobby of WTC1 was on the north side of the building, but the only elevator shafts connecting to the impact zone are in the center of the core and the south side of the core. Any clarification you can provide on this issue would be appreciated.

Figure 2-4 of NCSTAR1 shows that flight 11 was not capable of damaging column 1001 (the extreme SW core column).

No reason to doubt Willie Rodriguez? He's a blatant and immoral liar who steals his glory from the dead in order to convince the gullible to give him money! He claimed that he single-handedly rescued 15 people. Apparently none of these people have names and none of them are willing to come forward to thank him. He claimed that his Key of Hope saved hundreds of lives, but he can't explain who nobody (not one!) died under the impact zone because Willie never reached their floors.

Strangely, GutterBall has ahad time perceiving the difference between 424,000 tons and 242,000 tons. Strange for a guy who claims a degree in Applied Mathematics.

 
At 28 March, 2011 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail says he has no reason to doubt Willie R, and then says he don't care if Willie lies. UtterFail is incompetent. GutterBall can't even prevail over the people he regards as the dumbest on earth. What does that say about him?

Let's talk about how the fire got from floor 98 to floor 1104. Do you think column 1001 and its pipe shaft are the key, or do you think it was by some other means?

You really haven't a clue, have you, about why NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized is absurd.

 
At 28 March, 2011 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, until you learn to distinguish between assertions of facts like "somebody bragged about X" and offerings of opinions like "somebody did Y" you are going to be very confused by the world and your opinions will continue to be very foolish.

Ian, Sunder tells NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html (at 1:00)

NIST says (NCSTAR1, section 6.14.4)

"The building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

Gee, when you boil all the bs out of the thread there's not much left, is there?

 
At 28 March, 2011 12:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, until you learn to distinguish between assertions of facts like "somebody bragged about X" and offerings of opinions like "somebody did Y" you are going to be very confused by the world and your opinions will continue to be very foolish.

Brian, what does this have to do with the fact that you're a liar who stalked Carol Brouillet?

Ian, Sunder tells NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html (at 1:00)

NIST says (NCSTAR1, section 6.14.4)

"The building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."


False and false.

Gee, when you boil all the bs out of the thread there's not much left, is there?

Nope, there's just endless piles of squealspam from you. Maybe it's a sign that you should seek professional help?

 
At 28 March, 2011 12:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never stalked Carol Brouillet and she never said I did.

Anybody who checks out the links can see that you lie.

 
At 28 March, 2011 13:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, the families aren't shielding me from creeps like you. Your claim that I use them as a shield is a lie."
---------------
Well you dumb motherfucker, you're the one saying: "Well the 9/11 Families want their questions answered." You are using them as human shields becase you can't fight for yourself. That's not a lie, everyone here knows what you've wrote about the 9/11 Families, you drag them into every discussion you have on here. We're not blind Brian nor dumb like you are.

 
At 28 March, 2011 13:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can fight for myself, WAQo. I said the widows are still waiting for answers to 273 of their 300 questions, and that's true. Ian tries to make out like bashing the widows is something to be proud of, and you try to make out that supporting their quest for answers is something to be ashamed of.

You folks are depraved.

 
At 28 March, 2011 14:36, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never stalked Carol Brouillet and she never said I did.

Anybody who checks out the links can see that you lie.


False, false, and false. You hit the trifecta of spammy lies, Brian!

I said the widows are still waiting for answers to 273 of their 300 questions, and that's true.

And here's a fourth lie!

Ian tries to make out like bashing the widows is something to be proud of, and you try to make out that supporting their quest for answers is something to be ashamed of.

When have I bashed widows? You make up your facts.

 
At 28 March, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

You bashed them on the Jon Gold thread 27 March, 2011 19:03 when you wrote: Nobody cares about your imaginary widows, Brian, no matter how much you squeal about it.

Every night, I go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing that Laurie Van Auken will never have her questions answered. HA HA HA HA!!!!


You lie and lie and seem to think dissing the victims is funny.

 
At 28 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"I can fight for myself, WAQo. I said the widows are still waiting for answers to 273 of their 300 questions, and that's true. Ian tries to make out like bashing the widows is something to be proud of, and you try to make out that supporting their quest for answers is something to be ashamed of."

You haven't fought for yourself Brian, because every chance you get you throw in the 9/11 Families or the Widows like they're your own personal sheild. Using the widows to your own advantage is cowardice & calus on your part. Ian's not bashing the widows, you're bashing them by throwing them into every conversation or debate.

They had their chance, they got their questions answered. And since you didn't likethe outcome you think you can speak for them still? Well Brian, if I were a 9/11 Family member I'd make sure I'd sue your ass for slander.

 
At 28 March, 2011 17:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the widows had 300 questions. They got 27 answers. Your claim that the questions were answered is a lie.

 
At 28 March, 2011 18:02, Blogger Ian said...

So Brian, I'm still waiting for you to show me where I bashed your "widows".

WAQo, the widows had 300 questions. They got 27 answers. Your claim that the questions were answered is a lie.

Stop lying, Brian. Your phony "widows" have no questions.

 
At 28 March, 2011 18:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

see what i mean?

 
At 28 March, 2011 19:59, Blogger Ian said...

see what i mean?

Brian, stop pretending you mean something. You're just babbling because you're mentally ill.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home