Thursday, April 07, 2011

April's Case Gallops Ahead

Here's an update from her lawyers:
Judge Cabranes asked Veale what had happened to the airplane, if, as the lawsuit suggests, it did not hit the Pentagon? Veale asked in response, “How would I know?”. The implied criticism of the irony that a lawyer who has been denied the ability to use the power of subpoena to learn the truth would be chided for not having an answer to the key to the unraveling of the entire conspiracy seemed to be lost on the judge. And the judge gave no sign that he was familiar with the details of the allegations in the Complaint concerning conflicts between the flight path of American 77 according to the NTSB and that same flight path according to the 9/11 Commission, or the scrubbing of the radar tracks of the area at the time of the attacks, or of the counter-intuitive strategy of the suicidal hijacker who chose NOT to kill 20,000 occupants of the building AND Secretary Rumsfeld, but instead flew into a sparsely occupied and recently reinforced section of the building that resulted in 125 deaths including only one flag officer, if one is to accept the government’s version.

Classic Trutherism; never mind that appeal courts are places where you discuss whether the law was properly applied in the case and not the facts.

Update: Richard Gage's Testicles posts the motion to dismiss Judge Walker from the appeal on the basis that he's a cousin of George Bush. You gotta love this part:
2. I am informed and believe that Judge Walker, assigned to the panel that will hear the oral argument in this appeal on April 5th, 2011 in New Haven, Connecticut, is a cousin of former President George W. Bush and of individuals named Wirt D. Walker III, and Marvin Bush.


And then this:
7. I am informed and believe that Wirt D. Walker III is a cousin of former President George Bush. He is either a cousin or a brother of Judge Walker who has been assigned to hear this appeal.

Which is it?

Labels:

103 Comments:

At 07 April, 2011 17:02, Blogger Triterope said...

I liked this part:

Walker, and fellow judges Cabranes and Winter, seemed more interested in making sure that Veale was properly licensed to practice before the court

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

This is going to be an even bigger pile of fail than the NYCCAN Ballot Smackdown.

 
At 07 April, 2011 18:51, Blogger Len said...

So who are the supposed "lawyers and legal scholars all over the world" confounded that a Bush cousin could have been one of the judges? Is being a relative of the ex-boss of the defendants considered a conflict of interest? Did the lawyers as him to recuse himself or file a motion to remove him? What difference does it make if the lose 2 - 0 or 3 - 0?

 
At 07 April, 2011 18:52, Blogger James B. said...

How exactly would they have killed 20,000 people? Was their some way they could have struck the entire Pentagon?

I am amused at how the troofers think that the hijackers were not skilled enough to even hit the Pentagon in the first place, but then insist that since they did they did so with absolute precision.

 
At 07 April, 2011 18:55, Blogger Len said...

"Walker, and fellow judges Cabranes and Winter, seemed more interested in making sure that Veale was properly licensed to practice before the court"

I think that's because he came across as such an idiot they doubted he passed the Appeals Court bar exam

 
At 07 April, 2011 18:58, Blogger Len said...

I was always curious as to how the truthers think AQ would have know which part of the Pentagon was being renovated or even that it was being renovated.

 
At 07 April, 2011 19:00, Blogger Len said...

That should have read "would have known"

 
At 07 April, 2011 20:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, Rusmfeld and Cheney were much more than employees. They were Bush's appointees. Judgments against them would be highly embarrassing to Bush's historical legacy.

James, I guess a strike though the roof might have killed 20,000 because of raging jet-fuel infernos, resulting inevitably in the total destruction of the building as each rank of supporting columns pulled down the next (as at WTC7) and the building fell like two rows of dominos that meet on the other side.

Len, it was obvious what part of the Pentagon was being renovated. There were construction trailers and stuff, very visible from highway 24.

 
At 07 April, 2011 21:53, Blogger James B. said...

But the Pentagon was not 47 stories tall, it was just wide. It actually did collapse in fact.

 
At 07 April, 2011 22:22, Blogger Greg said...

Len, it was obvious what part of the Pentagon was being renovated. There were construction trailers and stuff, very visible from highway 24.

Highway 24? What the hell are you talking about, Brian?

 
At 07 April, 2011 23:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B,, according to NIST, the collapsing interior columns of Building 7 pulled down the adjacent columns by tugging on the floor girders--even though the columns were built to take the weight of 40 floors above them.

If so, then it would have been all the easier for collapsing interior columns of the Pentagon to pull down their adjacent columns--since they were only built to carry the weight of four floors and a roof. Thus, is the model of WTC7 can be believed, we should have seen a total progressive collapse of the Pentagon with its interior crumbling like two ranks of dominos to meet on the other side. And then the exterior shell should have fallen straight down in perfect symmetry.

Highway 27, Greg. What do you think I'm talking about? I;'m talking about the construction trailers and generators and stuff that were clearly visible outside the Pentagon from highway 27.

 
At 08 April, 2011 06:11, Blogger James B. said...

That is moronic, even by your standards.

 
At 08 April, 2011 06:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I see Brian's arguments are yet again based on "I know what I am talking about".

 
At 08 April, 2011 08:30, Blogger Greg said...

ighway 27, Greg. What do you think I'm talking about? I;'m talking about the construction trailers and generators and stuff that were clearly visible outside the Pentagon from highway 27.

You said highway 24, which...ok typo, but you still don't know what the hell you are talking about. Route 27 is a surface street, and you can't see the area around the Pentagon until you are right next to the building. Stop talking about shit you know nothing about. You even get minor details wrong in an effort to sound smart.

 
At 08 April, 2011 09:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Here's the motion to disqualify Walker. It's kind of cute.

http://filebucket.info/?54smnoxus

When they post the transcript of the actual argument I'll put that up too.

 
At 08 April, 2011 09:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B., the notion that the entire Pentagon would undergo total progressive collapse like two rows of dominos is no more moronic than the notion that the interior of WTC7 should do the same thing--especially given that the interior columns of WTC7 were massive, built to hold up 47 floors, while the Pentagon columns, being built to hold up only 4 floors, were relatively wimpy.

Greg, you can clearly see the wall of the Pentagon and the construction trailers as you drive by on hwy 27. Rush-hour traffic jams made for plenty of opportunity for scenery gazing.

I don't "even" get the details wrong. I knew it was hwy 27. I mixed up the number because after some very intensive work on the Pentsgon, I haven't given it any thought in the last 6 weeks.


as you drive by

 
At 08 April, 2011 10:23, Blogger Len said...

Why was the case filed in NYC and why was the appeal hearing held in New Haven? And who are the supposed "lawyers and legal scholars all over the world" confounded that the motion to dismiss Walker was denied? What difference will it make it they lose 2- 0 or 3 - 0?

Also Veale is misinformed Wirt Walker is not related the the former presidents.

 
At 08 April, 2011 12:12, Blogger Greg said...

Brian, have you ever been near the Pentagon? Have driven on s. Arlington blvd.?

 
At 08 April, 2011 14:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, Gary, I have driven past the Pentagon--on I-593 if I remember right.

Hwy 24 was just a brain fart. I used to drive Hwy 24 to work.

If you take a look from Google Streetview you'll see the west wall of the Pentagon is readily visible from Hwy 27, and the construction trailers and all would have been very conspicuous.

 
At 08 April, 2011 15:25, Blogger James B. said...

Still, it is idiotic. The reason the hijackers hit the rarest side is simple, that is the side the place was coming from.

 
At 08 April, 2011 15:26, Blogger James B. said...

Err, west side. Damn auto spell.

 
At 08 April, 2011 15:36, Blogger Ian said...

James B., the notion that the entire Pentagon would undergo total progressive collapse like two rows of dominos is no more moronic than the notion that the interior of WTC7 should do the same thing--especially given that the interior columns of WTC7 were massive, built to hold up 47 floors, while the Pentagon columns, being built to hold up only 4 floors, were relatively wimpy.

Hey, we should listen to him. He's a PhD in structural engineering.

Oh wait, no, he's a failed janitor and liar who spends every waking hour calling people "girls" on the internet.

Yes, Gary, I have driven past the Pentagon--on I-593 if I remember right.

Uh, no, you don't remember right. I-593 does not exist, but if it did, it would be in Boston or Manchester, NH. But at least you got the correct time zone...

If you take a look from Google Streetview you'll see the west wall of the Pentagon is readily visible from Hwy 27, and the construction trailers and all would have been very conspicuous.

So the hijackers were driving AA 77 along the highway instead of flying it? That seems rather inefficient.

 
At 08 April, 2011 16:00, Blogger texasjack said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 April, 2011 16:01, Blogger texasjack said...

"I think that's because he came across as such an idiot they doubted he passed the Appeals Court bar exam"

I think this is route she should have taken on the appeal--Incompetent counsel.

 
At 08 April, 2011 18:10, Blogger Greg said...

Brian, Google maps or a person who lived near the pentagon for ten years....where do you think you can get the most reliable perspective?

 
At 09 April, 2011 05:45, Blogger Triterope said...

I think this is route she should have taken on the appeal--Incompetent counsel.

Sometimes I wonder whose lawsuit this really is. Google William Veale's name and you'll see he's bought the 9-11 Truth Professional Package: Lawyers for 9-11 Truth, a conspiracy blog, a DVD "Improbable Collapse", and running for Congress.

Also, he doesn't seem to have any other cases. Loose Change blog called him a "retired public defender."

 
At 10 April, 2011 20:15, Blogger triathlete247 said...

snug.bug,

You do realize that the Pentagon used reinforced concrete, and not steel sprayed with SFRM, right?

You do realize that most concrete structures do not collapse, because concrete is a wonderful insulator from heat, right?

Go back to FailLand.

 
At 11 April, 2011 20:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 April, 2011 01:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator bald-faced lies, "...According to the NIST report, while fire was the cause of the initiating event of the WTC7 collapse--the failure of column 79, the rest of the collapse was not fire-related. They say the failing column 79 pulled down also column 80 and 81, that the three of them pulled down the adjacent columns 76,77, and 78--which then pulled down the adjacent three, which pulled down the next three, etc. etc. etc. and it had nothing to do with fires after the initial failure."

That's right, sex predator, be sure to conveniently omit that column 79A was considered a critical column because column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section of World Trade Center building 7.

Additionally, comparing World Trade Center building 7 to the Pentagon is so brain dead and dishonest that only a failed janitor, sex predator and filthy, scurrilous compulsive liar of your ilk would attempt to make such a thoroughly bogus analogy.

Now go play in the freeway, goat molester.

 
At 12 April, 2011 08:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 April, 2011 08:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B, if the west wall was chosen because the plane came from the west, why did it do a 270 degree turn to get there?

Greg, anybody who looks at Google streetview can see the view from the ... er... street. You can clearly see the west wall and any construction paraphernalia that might be there.

Triathlete, concrete structures do collapse from earthquakes and from demolition. True, they do not collapse from fires, but high rise steel frame buildings don't collapse from fires either.

According to the NIST report, while fire was the cause of the initiating event of the WTC7 collapse--the failure of column 79, the rest of the collapse was not fire-related. They say the failing column 79 pulled down also column 80 and 81, that the three of them pulled down the adjacent columns 76,77, and 78--which then pulled down the adjacent three, which pulled down the next three, etc. etc. etc. and it had nothing to do with fires after the initial failure.

Same thing at the Pentagon. If NIST's WTC7 theory is correct then at the Pentagon each column should pull down the adjacent column in a total progressive collapse all the way around the building--at the speed of sound--because the Pentagon columns, being built to hold up only 4 stories, are much lighter than the WTC7 columns that were built to hold up 40 stories.

 
At 12 April, 2011 08:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, thanks for once again proving your total incompetence. I didn't lie about anything. But you did. There were at least three columns (79, 80, and 81) holding up the floors at the eastern end of WTC7, and it would be more accurate to say six columns (76-81).

You don't know what you're talking about. All you can do is mutter insults at those who know what you're too lazy to learn.

The only thing making the analogy between WTC7 and Pentagon less-than-apt is that WTC7 was built so much stronger than the Pentagon was. The fact remains--if collapsing columns could pull down the adjacent columns that were strong enough to hold up 40 floors, then collapsing columns in the Pentagon should have set off a chain reaction progressive collapse that fell like a row of dominos.

 
At 12 April, 2011 14:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm a liar?

Really, Pinocchio? No kidding?

Would you like me to quote the NIST Report directly?

The only person who's lying is you, sex predator.

So, would you like me to quote the NIST Report directly, Pinocchio?

 
At 12 April, 2011 15:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's a perfect example of the sex predator lying and misrepresenting the contents of the NIST Report--and I quote:

"...There were at least three columns (79, 80, and 81) holding up the floors at the eastern end of WTC7, and it would be more accurate to say six columns (76-81)."

But that's not what the NIST Report says, does it sex predator?

Here's a direct quote from the NIST Report that proves you're lying:

"...The remaining three columns (79, 80 and 81) were particularly large, as they provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building." -- NCSTAR1A, Page 47.

Thus, it's not "more accurate to say six columns," it's a bald-faced lie.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, SEX PREDATOR.

Now, squirm--you lying weasel, squirm.

 
At 12 April, 2011 15:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And that, sex predator, is the reason why I have two advanced degrees, a family and a career. I have more competence and integrity in the quick of my pinky than you have in your entire being.

This also explains why you're a failed janitor, sex stalker and compulsive liar.

And you wonder why sane people despise you. You're a lying, arrogant sack of shit with the morals of a street-walking whore.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 12 April, 2011 15:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's another quote from the NIST Report that proves you're lying and misrepresenting the contents found therein--and I quote:

"...Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse...The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7...Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." -- NCSTAR1A, page 67.

Thus, we can see that it was only necessary for one column to fail--column 79A--in order for the global collapse to proceed. It's also clear that "the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." Hence, contrary to your lying assertions, fire played a major role in the collapse. In addition, we can see that your post at 8:26 completely and wantonly misrepresents the contents of the NIST Report.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, SEX PREDATOR.

Now, squirm--you lying weasel, squirm.

 
At 12 April, 2011 18:34, Blogger Ian said...

Greg, anybody who looks at Google streetview can see the view from the ... er... street. You can clearly see the west wall and any construction paraphernalia that might be there.

That's nice. Did Google streetview exist in 2001? Did the hijackers drive AA 77 along the highway? No? Then why are you babbling about this?

The only thing making the analogy between WTC7 and Pentagon less-than-apt is that WTC7 was built so much stronger than the Pentagon was. The fact remains--if collapsing columns could pull down the adjacent columns that were strong enough to hold up 40 floors, then collapsing columns in the Pentagon should have set off a chain reaction progressive collapse that fell like a row of dominos.

Brian knows! After all, being a failed janitor who once watched a building under construction makes one an expert on these sort of things!

 
At 13 April, 2011 09:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, what you said was absolutely wrong, and what I said was absolutely correct.

You claimed that "column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section". That was a lie.

I said at least six columns were responsible for holding up the east section. That is true.

NIST says that three columns were responsible for holding up the floors at the east end, which is also true,

GutterBall, if I had your family, your career, and your degrees, I certainly wouldn't brag about them. Any idiot can do it, and you're living proof.

Your quotespam is only an attempt to obscure the fact that you lied about the function of column 79.

Ian, all you're good for is playing dumb, and even after all the practice you've had, you're still not even very good at that.

 
At 13 April, 2011 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Palo Alto's number 1 cocksucker scribbled, "...Your quotespam is only an attempt to obscure the fact that you lied about the function of column 79."

Really, pud huffer? No kidding?

When will you learn that a psychopathic homosexual's opinion isn't evidence?

Prove it, or go honk a cock, Pinocchio.

 
At 13 April, 2011 14:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Palo Alto's number 1 cocksucker scribbled, "...I said at least six columns were responsible for holding up the east section. That is true."

Another bald-faced.

NIST wrote, "...The remaining three columns (79, 80 and 81) were particularly large, as they provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building." -- NCSTAR1A, Page 47.

Get it through your lying skull, ass wipe: 3 ≠ 6.

"...GutterBall, if I had your family, your career, and your degrees, I certainly wouldn't brag about them. Any idiot can do it, and you're living proof."

Obviously. After all, you're so dishonest that you'll try to claim 3 == 6.

And if those degrees are something "any idiot" can achieve, why have you utterly failed to obtain one?

The proof's in the pudding, and you'll always be a high school dropout and a failed janitor.

Loser.

 
At 13 April, 2011 14:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shit-for-brains prevaricates,"...You claimed that "column 79A ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section". That was a lie."

Another bald-faced lie.

I've proven that the failure of one column--column 79A--was all that was necessary for the global collapse to proceed.

The reader will notice that the sex predator can't refute the evidence I provide at 15:35. Instead, he ignores the evidence presented in that post and continues to lie through his terracotta teeth.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 April, 2011 14:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The double-talking conspiracy loon continues to lie, "...NIST says that three columns were responsible for holding up the floors at the east end, which is also true."

So which is it, asshole? You can't have it both ways. You just claimed that six columns support the east side of the building.

One minute you claim the number is six, and then you turn around and tell us the number is three.

Do you take the time to read the transparent lies you spew like a fire hose?

FAIL

Grade: F-

Now hurry, goat fucker, and bury your latest defeat in an avalanche of gay squeal spam.

 
At 13 April, 2011 18:17, Blogger Triterope said...

The redoubtable LashL at the JREF forum has posted some of the legal documents:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7078556&postcount=230

 
At 13 April, 2011 23:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, 4/12 1:09 you ignorantly claimed that one column, column 79, "ALONE was responsible for supporting the entire east section" of the building.

NIST tells us that three columns held up the floors at the east SIDE of the building.

If there's an east section, then there's a west section, and there's a middle section. There are 24 core columns--6 in the east section, 6 in the west section, and 12 in the middle section.

The east section is not the east side, and I never said six columns hold up the east side.

You're really not equipped for this. You're not smart enough to recognize your ignorance. And you're not man enough to admit it when you're wrong.

What makes you think I'm a high school dropout? Any idiot can get a college degree, and you're living proof of that.

 
At 13 April, 2011 23:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, sex predator, keep pretending that my post at 15:35 doesn't exist, while you try to bury the post in your gay squeal spam and bald-faced lies.

Here's another quote from the NIST Report that proves you're lying and misrepresenting the contents found therein--and I quote:

"...Sufficient breakdown of the connections and/or beams resulted in loss of lateral support and buckling of at least one of the critical columns supporting the large-span floor bay on the eastern side of the building on or below floor 13. This was the initiating event of the collapse...The initial local failure progressed upward to the east penthouse. As the large floor bays became unable to redistribute the loads, the interior structure below the east penthouse collapsed into WTC 7...Triggered by damage due to falling debris and loss of lateral support to interior columns, the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." -- NCSTAR1A, page 67.

Thus, we can see that it was only necessary for one column to fail--column 79A--in order for the global collapse to proceed. It's also clear that "the failure progressed westward in the region of floor 7 through 14, where the floors had been WEAKENED BY FIRES. This ultimately resulted in the collapse of the entire structure." Hence, contrary to your lying assertions, fire played a major role in the collapse. In addition, we can see that your post at 8:26 completely and wantonly misrepresents the contents of the NIST Report.

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, SEX PREDATOR.

Now, squirm--you lying weasel, squirm.

 
At 14 April, 2011 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're once again dodging and obfuscating. The issue under discussion was not whether column 79's failure was sufficient to bring down all the other interior structure of the building.

The issue was your confident and false claim that column 79 held up the entire eastern section of the building--a claim so recklessly ignorant as to be a lie.

I didn't lie about anything. NIST provided no evidence that the floors west of column 79 had been weakened by fires. That is an example of their reverse-engineered circular reasoning: since the floors had fires and the floors fell, the floors must have been weakened by fires.

 
At 14 April, 2011 17:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're the one who tries to hide what you don't know to begin with.

 
At 14 April, 2011 18:32, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, all you're good for is playing dumb, and even after all the practice you've had, you're still not even very good at that.

Brian has no reply to my points about Google street view, so all he can do is squeal.

Poor Brian, life is tough when you're a failed janitor desperate to be taken seriously.

 
At 14 April, 2011 20:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you don't have a point about google street view. The photos from 9/11 show the same thing as Google Street View--a clear uninterrupted view of the west wall of the Pentagon, so that any construction trailers and other equipment can clearly be seen.

 
At 15 April, 2011 06:13, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you don't have a point about google street view.

False.

The photos from 9/11 show the same thing as Google Street View--a clear uninterrupted view of the west wall of the Pentagon, so that any construction trailers and other equipment can clearly be seen.

So the hijackers were driving a 757 along the highway? Seems a rather inefficient way for them to get it there.

Also, did they use an iPhone or a Droid to look at street views while they were in the plane?

Keep squealing about Google street views, Brian. It's hilarious.

 
At 15 April, 2011 07:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

No Ian, the issue was not what the hijackers could see from the airplane.

The issue was what planners could see from surveillance of the target. Did you think they just made up their flightpath on the spot, including a 273 degree diving turn?

Len seemed to find the notion unbelievable that the attackers should know that the building was undergoing renovations. I invoked Google streetview as a good resource for showing the view from hwy 27.

I know it's too much to expect that you would actually read the thread you are commenting on--you just want to tell the same Ianane jokes again and agian and agian and agian.

 
At 15 April, 2011 09:56, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, you didn't answer my question: did they use an iPhone or a Droid when they were using Google street view to plan the attack on the Pentagon?

 
At 15 April, 2011 10:26, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, you're arguing from incredulity again (which you always do). One again, I have to remind you that nobody cares what you believe because you're an ignorant, insane liar and failed janitor.

 
At 15 April, 2011 13:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it was Len who was arguing from incredulity, and the issue is not what the hijackers saw. You are not even reading the posts.

 
At 15 April, 2011 13:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it was Len who was arguing from incredulity, and the issue is not what the hijackers saw.

False. You argue from incredulity because you don't understand 9/11. You understand 9/11 because you have the mind of a failed janitor who needs his parents to take care of him as an adult.

Now Brian, you still haven't answered my question. What do you think Laurie Van Auken would think of you if she knew you refused to answer questions?

You are not even reading the posts.

False.

 
At 16 April, 2011 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I understand 9/11 just fine. I know much more about it than you do.

For example, I know why UtterFail's claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is absurd, and apparently nobody else knows enough about the WTC to know why it's absurd.

 
At 16 April, 2011 10:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian, I understand 9/11 just fine. I know much more about it than you do.

A failed janitor who mops & sweeps floors for a living knows more about 9/11 than we do? ROTFLMFAO!

The only thing Bwian knows how to do is knowing how to take off spray paint with turpintine then afterwards huffing the turpintine to get high.

 
At 16 April, 2011 10:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, where did you get the idea that I mop floors for a living? Did you read it in your own bloig, perhaps?

Can you explain why UtterFail's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd?

You guys don't want to talk about 9/11 because you don't know anything about 911. Instead you want to lie about me.

 
At 16 April, 2011 12:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More bald-faced lies, goat fucker?

The 424,000 ton 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.

You haven't proven anything. In fact, all you offer are lies and opinion.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it's obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC that the NRDC's claim of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is absurd. That you don't know why it's absurd and nobody else on this board knows why it's absurd (except me) shows you all to be extremely ignorant on the subject. Why don't you ask your buddy RKOwens, and see if he can explain it to you?

 
At 16 April, 2011 13:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not evidence, gay boi. That's your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion. And the opinion of a delusional homosexual degenerate and compulsive liar isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Now, go honk a cock, Pinocchio.

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not just evidence, UtterFail, it's proof that you don't know what you're talking about. Neither you, nor anyone you know, can explain why the 424,000 ton figure of pulverized concrete is absurd.

You don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 16 April, 2011 15:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your position, gay boi.

This is another example of argument from ignorance, which is a naked logical fallacy.

You couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFaiol, it's incumbent on you to prove YOUR position. And since you don't even know why it's absurd, you can't.

I'm not arguing from ignorance. I know what I'm talking about. You don't.

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to bury your latest defeat in an avalanche of gay squeal spam, felcher?

 
At 16 April, 2011 16:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you defeat nothing but yourself. You make ignorant statements, then refuse to admit you were wrong, and then try to bury everything under an avalanche of irrelevance and insult-spam.

 
At 16 April, 2011 17:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I understand 9/11 just fine. I know much more about it than you do.

False and false. Your "understanding" of 9/11 is meatballs on forks, smoldering carpets, remote-controlled planes, and magic thermite.

WAQo, where did you get the idea that I mop floors for a living? Did you read it in your own bloig, perhaps?

Brian, you don't mop floors for a living. You're an unemployed loser who lives with his parents at age 60. That's why you have all this time to spend posting your dumbspam all over the internet.

 
At 16 April, 2011 17:41, Blogger Ian said...

You guys don't want to talk about 9/11 because you don't know anything about 911. Instead you want to lie about me.

We know 9/11 perfectly well. We like to talk about you because a) there's nothing left to talk about with regard to 9/11, and b) it's wildly entertaining to have a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement for being a sex stalker posting his nonsense here and then squealing and calling people "girls" when they laugh at him.

You're wildly entertaining, Brian. And entertainment is why I come to this blog.

 
At 16 April, 2011 17:42, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet? No? Well, that's probably because their questions don't count.

 
At 17 April, 2011 10:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there's nothing magic about thermite. It's a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum that creates an exothermic reaction. That's all.

You don't know about 9/11. You don't know what Dr. Sunder told NOVA, you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC, and you don't know about the 1st law and 2d law of thermodynamics and Newton's third law. You don't know about the NORAD hijacked-airliners-as-weapons drills before 9/11 which included a hijacked-airliner-into-WTC drill.

Why wouldn't the widows' questions count? What about question 32 (to GWB) doesn't count?

Please explain your 14 month opposition to the creation of an independent commission to investigate 9/11 and your request to Senator Daschle to quash such an investigation.

What about question 34?

When did you first become aware of “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”( RAD) proposed by the New American Century’s (PNAC)? Who introduced it to you?

How about question #3 to Cheney?

On the morning of September 11th, when did you first become aware that America was under attack? Who informed you?

Why don't these questions count?

 
At 17 April, 2011 11:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ian, there's nothing magic about thermite. It's a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum that creates an exothermic reaction. That's all.

And this is a good example of Truth Movement dishonesty. When they need to explain why no thermite was found, it becomes a special nano-thermite. When they need to explain who supplied the special nano-thermite, thermite becomes easy-to-get stuff. The nature of the stuff used depends not on any rational analysis, but on what question they're responding to at that moment.

Why wouldn't the widows' questions count?

Because the widow(er)s lack standing to demand answers.

And really, the widow(er)s only have one question -- "Why is my husband/wife dead?". They're not seeking data about what happened on 9/11, they're seeking closure by applying a rational meaning to their loss.

 
At 17 April, 2011 12:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

What dishonesty? It is the opinion of the Jones team that the exothermic chips they recovered from the WTC dust were a highly-engineered military grade nanomaterial. That's their opinion. What's dishonest about that?

Some other people suspect that a poor-man's version might be created by mixing aluminum flash powder with iron oxide primer paint. That too is an opinion. What is dishonest about different people having different opinions? That's why we need a proper investigation--to thoroughly examine these issues.

Thermitic material was discovered in the dust. The nature of the stuff is the nature of the stuff--it doesn't change.

Ian said thermite was magic. I said it wasn't. What's dishonest about that?

Oh so now in RGT's world, the widows have no standing? Where does that doctrine come from--John Yoo? Their husbands died because of an attack that succeeded only because of what can most charitably be described as gross negligence on the part of the Bush administration. They want the responsible parties held accountable. On what theory do you strip them of their standing to demand that on the basis of the injuries they suffered?

If the widows have only one question, then why did they give the 9/11 Commission 300 questions? Who are you to say they only have one question?

Besides, I'm sure Ian can answer that question. The spouses are dead because their hearts stopped beating and their brains ceased to function.

 
At 17 April, 2011 12:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What is dishonest about different people having different opinions?

Nothing. But it is dishonest for one person to have different, incompatible opinions which they invoke as needed.

Oh so now in RGT's world, the widows have no standing?

No than any other person who has suffered a similar loss.

If the widows have only one question, then why did they give the 9/11 Commission 300 questions? Who are you to say they only have one question?

Read up on the process that psychologists call "rationalization".

And you're in way over your head here, calling me out for speaking for the widows. As much as you talk about the widows and claim to support them, you can't name a single widow who expresses confidence in your advocacy on their behalf.

 
At 17 April, 2011 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're not speaking for the widows, you're speaking AGAINST them, claiming absurdly that they gave no standing to expect answers to their questions.

 
At 17 April, 2011 15:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You're not speaking for the widows, you're speaking AGAINST them, claiming absurdly that they gave no standing to expect answers to their questions.

I'm speaking only for myself. Maybe you should clarify where you think their standing to expect answers comes from. From US law? Some other law? From God? From nature? From your imagination? From your ass, perhaps?

 
At 17 April, 2011 16:29, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there's nothing magic about thermite. It's a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum that creates an exothermic reaction. That's all.

Right, so why do you keep babbling about it as if it were magical?

You don't know about 9/11. You don't know what Dr. Sunder told NOVA, you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC, and you don't know about the 1st law and 2d law of thermodynamics and Newton's third law. You don't know about the NORAD hijacked-airliners-as-weapons drills before 9/11 which included a hijacked-airliner-into-WTC drill.

False.

 
At 17 April, 2011 16:32, Blogger Ian said...

Why wouldn't the widows' questions count?

Because they're old and ugly. Find some hot widows with big knockers and then maybe someone will care about their questions.

What about question 32 (to GWB) doesn't count?

That question is stupid, and the widows are old and ugly, so it doesn't count.

What about question 34?

Nobody cares about that question.

How about question #3 to Cheney?

Eh, that one is better, but I've already told you, the widows are old, ugly hags whose husbands were probably looking to ditch them, so nobody cares.

Why don't these questions count?

See above.

 
At 17 April, 2011 16:35, Blogger Ian said...

It is the opinion of the Jones team that the exothermic chips they recovered from the WTC dust were a highly-engineered military grade nanomaterial. That's their opinion.

Nobody cares.

On what theory do you strip them of their standing to demand that on the basis of the injuries they suffered?

They're old and ugly. We've been over this, Brian.

If the widows have only one question, then why did they give the 9/11 Commission 300 questions? Who are you to say they only have one question?

Those questions don't count, Brian. I've told you this already.

The spouses are dead because their hearts stopped beating and their brains ceased to function.

It was probably suicide. If you had to live with Laurie Van Auken, you'd probably kill yourself too.

 
At 17 April, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you were the one who claimed that "the widow(er)s lack standing to demand answers."

Upon what basis is your claim made? In court the issue of standing normally rests on whether someone was injured or not. Do you maintain that the widows were not injured?

Why do you want to act as defense attorney for George Bush?

 
At 17 April, 2011 17:45, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, you were the one who claimed that "the widow(er)s lack standing to demand answers."

This is true. Nobody cares about them.

Upon what basis is your claim made? In court the issue of standing normally rests on whether someone was injured or not. Do you maintain that the widows were not injured?

They were not injured, and even if they were, nobody would care.

Why do you want to act as defense attorney for George Bush?

Brian, you're the greatest defender of George W. Bush this country ever had. By babbling about imaginary crimes of his, he could point to you and say, "See, my critics are just insane failed janitors who believe in modified attack baboons."

This is why people like Chomsky dismiss you as the joke that you are.

 
At 17 April, 2011 18:06, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Upon what basis is your claim made? In court the issue of standing normally rests on whether someone was injured or not. Do you maintain that the widows were not injured?

In court, the issue of standing regards whether or not somebody can bring an action. What you're describing is something else, some kind of "standing to have your questions answered", which I had never heard of before. That's why I'm asking where you got it.

Of course the widows were injured, but they don't get to choose who injured them.

Why do you want to act as defense attorney for George Bush?

So you've decided that George Bush is liable? I thought you were open-minded on that.

 
At 17 April, 2011 18:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here we go again. More crap about the widows.

This is another argument from ignorance.

Here's how gay boy's "logic" works: If NIST is unable to answer my question, then the only explanation is INSIDE JOBBY JOB.

This is precisely the same crappy, illogical argument that creationists employ when they "debate" atheists.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 April, 2011 18:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, since you are the one who claims the widows "lack standing to demand answers", it is up to you to explain from whence this theory derives. Seems to me they can demand whatever they want.

The widows did not choose to be injured by the failure of the intelligence and military defenses, but they were.

The perception that you are acting as defense attorney for GWB is a separate issue from the question of his liability.

 
At 17 April, 2011 20:18, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, since you are the one who claims the widows "lack standing to demand answers", it is up to you to explain from whence this theory derives. Seems to me they can demand whatever they want.

Yes, they can demand whatever they want. And they will be ignored. Just like your demands for a new investigation are met with howls of laughter.

The widows did not choose to be injured by the failure of the intelligence and military defenses, but they were.

What makes you think the widows were injured? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

Anyway, now that we've established that the widows' questions don't count, let's talk about more important things, like why you continue to pretend that you're not petgoat.

 
At 18 April, 2011 08:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's just mocking & making a pardoy of a tragedy. That's why he's as ignorant as the rest of the hardcore loons of the Truth Movement.

Jack Nicholson said it best in "A Few Good Men":

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

 
At 18 April, 2011 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not mocking the tragedy, WAQo, and your tolerance for Ian's glee about the widows' frustration shows you to be a hypocrite.

 
At 18 April, 2011 10:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm not mocking the tragedy, WAQo, and your tolerance for Ian's glee about the widows' frustration shows you to be a hypocrite.

Yes you are Brian. You use the 9/11 Widows as a human shield for your own failures. You quote-mine the witness statements & that on the NIST Report. I agree with Ian that the widows questions have been answered & you didn't like hte answers given. Actually you're the hypocrite you dumb retarded motherfucker.

 
At 18 April, 2011 10:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian did admit that he's just mocking the nearly 3,000 people who died on 9/11. He thinks this whole thing is just another parody so he can laugh at the tragedy. He calls everyone a "hypocrite", well he's the only one around trying to dumb down the experts.

 
At 18 April, 2011 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the widows say that 273 of their 300 questions have not been answered. The only way you guys are able to maintain your opinions is by denying or inventing facts.

"Trying to dumb down the experts" makes no sense at all. You're babbling.

 
At 18 April, 2011 13:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, since you are the one who claims the widows "lack standing to demand answers", it is up to you to explain from whence this theory derives. Seems to me they can demand whatever they want.

You're confusing the right to ask questions with the right to have answers. They can demand anything they want, but unless the demands conform to some recognized cause of action, they're invalid. Being a "9/11 Widow" does not confer any special status.

The widows did not choose to be injured by the failure of the intelligence and military defenses, but they were.

Is that really the cause? Or did the actions of the attackers play the primary role?

 
At 18 April, 2011 14:06, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Oh no. I just realized something. The widows have 273 unanswered questions, and Flight 77 made a 273-degree diving turn. That CAN NOT be a coincidence. I hereby apologize to the entire 9/11 Truth Movement for ever doubting them.

 
At 18 April, 2011 15:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Being a 9/11 widow confers the special status of being a 9/11 widow. The widows have standing to confront George Bush and Condi Rice in any public venue and demand answers for why they failed to protect the country before 9/11.

The 9/11 plot could not have succeeded without the (at best) negligence of the Bush administration--demoting Richard Clarke, ignoring warnings from 13 foreign countries. Cofer Black said the CIA "did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to [Condi's] head."

When a mad dog is permitted by negligent parties to run wild, only counsel for the defense will try to put the blame on the dog.

Maybe you should put on a comedy act for the widows and orphans and see if you can cheer them up.

 
At 18 April, 2011 17:30, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, the widows say that 273 of their 300 questions have not been answered.

False. The widows have no questions.

The only way you guys are able to maintain your opinions is by denying or inventing facts.

False. The only one denying facts is you, since you claim you weren't kicked out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

Also, you invent facts about the NIST report.

 
At 18 April, 2011 17:36, Blogger Ian said...

Being a 9/11 widow confers the special status of being a 9/11 widow.

So in other words, there's no special status. What about widows of the Loma Prieta quake, Brian? Have they had their questions answered?

The widows have standing to confront George Bush and Condi Rice in any public venue and demand answers for why they failed to protect the country before 9/11.

And they will be ignored. Wee, this is fun!

The 9/11 plot could not have succeeded without the (at best) negligence of the Bush administration--demoting Richard Clarke, ignoring warnings from 13 foreign countries. Cofer Black said the CIA "did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to [Condi's] head."

Perhaps. But if you think the Bush administration was negligent, why do you waste your time babbling about thermite and remote-control airplanes and smoldering carpets and meatballs on forks?

You can't have it both ways, Brian. Either the Bush administration caused 9/11, or they didn't.

When a mad dog is permitted by negligent parties to run wild, only counsel for the defense will try to put the blame on the dog.

Brian has definitely been sniffing lots of glue today. His analogies are even more insane than normal.

Maybe you should put on a comedy act for the widows and orphans and see if you can cheer them up.

I know, we'll put you on stage to babble about modified attack baboons. Your gibberish always makes me laugh, so it should make everyone else laugh too.

 
At 18 April, 2011 18:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the only ones babbling are you and WACo.

WACo is so dumb he doesn't realize he's babbling, and you are so dumb you think it's funny.

 
At 18 April, 2011 18:33, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the only ones babbling are you and WACo.

False. Brian, you're very confused about 9/11, which is probably why you don't understand that what you post is such comedy gold.

WACo is so dumb he doesn't realize he's babbling, and you are so dumb you think it's funny.

You are funny, Brian. Everything you post is hilarious in its deranged insanity.

Hey Brian, did they widows have their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 18 April, 2011 21:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 19 April, 2011 03:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Being a 9/11 widow confers the special status of being a 9/11 widow. The widows have standing to confront George Bush and Condi Rice in any public venue and demand answers for why they failed to protect the country before 9/11.

Isn't that a First Amendment thing? Doesn't everybody have that same right? Or are you trying to say that the Widows have some special privilege to demand and receive answers?

The 9/11 plot could not have succeeded without the (at best) negligence of the Bush administration--

Maybe you're right. Hindsight is 20/20. But it also could not have succeeded without the plotters. I ask again, who is more responsible? What was the root cause of the attacks' success?

When a mad dog is permitted by negligent parties to run wild, only counsel for the defense will try to put the blame on the dog.

I see what you're getting at, but you're getting it wrong. Mad dogs can't be held responsible for their actions. Plotters of premeditated terrorist acts can be. I do like the notion of comparing homicidal Muslims with mad dogs though, that's a racist touch I bet you didn't intend. Maybe you're spending too much time in Palo Alto.

 
At 19 April, 2011 04:30, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian, he gets pwn3d every night and all he can do is post "see what I mean" in a desperate attempt to be relevant.

 
At 19 April, 2011 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you said (4/17 1:50) that the widows "lack standing to demand answers". Now you're asking rhetorical questions about a "special privilege".

We don't know what the root cause of the attackers' success. That's why we need a new investigation. The scheme of flying hijacked airliners hundreds of miles and simply hoping there would be no interference was crazy.


I would be delighted to see an effort to hold the responsible parties accountable. Allowing the humiliated intelligence agencies to torture the accused until he will admit to setting the Chicago Fire is not holding anyone accountable.

Bin Laden was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda fighters, a few months later Bush said he had no interest in him, and in 2005 the CIA head said they had an excellent idea of where he was but they weren't going after him.

I wasn't comparing Muslims to dogs, I was comparing GWB and Condi to dogcatchers.

Ian, the only one you pwn is yourself.

 
At 19 April, 2011 14:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, you said (4/17 1:50) that the widows "lack standing to demand answers". Now you're asking rhetorical questions about a "special privilege".

Fair enough. Revise the comment at 4/17 1:50 to read "lack standing to compel answers". Special privilege to get answers I cannot explain... that was your creation, based on the "special status" of 9/11 Widow.

We don't know what the root cause of the attackers' success. That's why we need a new investigation.

Could it have been the decision to attack?

The scheme of flying hijacked airliners hundreds of miles and simply hoping there would be no interference was crazy.

Now that's interesting. The scheme was crazy, yet you find gross negligence in failing to predict and prevent it. Please elaborate a bit on why the attacks were both foreseeable and not foreseeable at the same time.

Allowing the humiliated intelligence agencies to torture the accused until he will admit to setting the Chicago Fire is not holding anyone accountable.

Uh-oh... somebody's been watching Reservoir Dogs...

 
At 19 April, 2011 17:10, Blogger Ian said...

We don't know what the root cause of the attackers' success.

False. YOU don't know it because you're a deranged lunatic who doesn't understand anything about the world around him.

The scheme of flying hijacked airliners hundreds of miles and simply hoping there would be no interference was crazy.

See what I mean?

I would be delighted to see an effort to hold the responsible parties accountable.

No you don't. You want to pin the blame on the Bush administration because you hate the Bush administration and you think blaming them for 9/11 makes your hatred justified.

 
At 19 April, 2011 17:11, Blogger Ian said...

Bin Laden was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda fighters, a few months later Bush said he had no interest in him, and in 2005 the CIA head said they had an excellent idea of where he was but they weren't going after him.

See what I mean?

Ian, the only one you pwn is yourself.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 19 April, 2011 17:48, Blogger Max said...

"Bin Laden was allowed to walk out of Tora Bora with 1600 al Qaeda fighters, a few months later Bush said he had no interest in him, and in 2005 the CIA head said they had an excellent idea of where he was but they weren't going after him"

Brian writes this shit which would get him tortured and killed in many countries...from a military junta...pure comedy gold!!!

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home