Friday, April 01, 2011

Fascinating CBS Footage from 9-11



We can see the smoke pouring out of WTC-7 during some early footage, and the building collapses starting around 1:50 (when the penthouse disappears). Note in particular that although the woman is clearly frightened when the building collapses, there are no sounds of ear-splitting explosions prior to the collapse, as happens in controlled demolitions.

Around 20:00 in, there is some very scary footage of somebody walking around after the South Tower collapsed, but before the fall of the North Tower. Starting around 31:00 in, one of the CBS reporters and his cameraman go up close and personal to WTC-7; it's quite gripping footage. I had seen the part where the guy talks about this being as close as he's ever come to a war zone, but not the bit before with the views of WTC-7 as the flames roar.

And who's that who pops up at 43:54? Why, it's Brian Good's bete noir, Willie Rodriguez. For those who missed it, Brian commented in the last post:

Maybe Willie evacuated Felipe David (and maybe not) but I'd hardly call that heroic. Then he went into a burning building. Big deal--the fire was 90 floors above, and everybody knows modern buildings don't fall from fire. Not one person will verify his claim that he climbed to the 39th floor opening doors. David Lim is named in Willie's account six times at least, and Willie is named not once in Lim's account.

By Willie's account, as soon as he learned there was any danger at all, he abandoned his quest to rescue his friends at Windows on the World and he took his allegedly-life-saving "Key of Hope" with him and went to evacuate one man on the 27th floor.
If his claim that he saved hundreds of lives by opening doors up to 39 was correct, then by turning back he was abandoning hundreds of people to die. He covers this over by claiming that floors 65 to 43 fell down so they were already dead. It's total baloney. Hundreds of people did not die on floors 65 to 43.


But as you can hear, Willie's story was the same that day. He mentions Lim by name, and talks about a collapse of floor 65. You know what this makes me think of? Way back when, there was a History Channel documentary on the Troofers where a college professor remarked that they want to remake the story so that they're the heroes. Brian Good would have saved everybody in Windows on the World had he been there. And if he'd been at the Pentagon he would have shot down AA77 before it crashed.

But as it is, he can only be a hero on the internet by denying the heroism of others.

Update: Brian tries to rescue his point in the comments (ignoring his being corrected on prior mistakes):
Pat, Willie went into a burning building when the fire was 90 floors away. The only thing that makes his action heroic is if you believe his claims that there were bombs going off--and there's no reason to believe it. As soon as he understood that there was actual danger to himself, he started to leave--and lied about his reason for leaving, claiming a 22-story collapse that never happened.


But what's this:

Lim:
"I literally had to kick him out. This guy wanted to stay--"

Of course, Brian Good, the real hero janitor of 9-11 would not have submitted to being kicked out. He would have informed Lim that there was no chance the tower could collapse, and he would have saved everybody in the building. Because that's the kind of guy Brian Good is.

Labels: , ,

96 Comments:

At 02 April, 2011 06:07, Blogger Ian said...

Brian hates Rodriguez for rejecting his sexual advances, so he's obsessed with "revenge" on the man. That's all it is. Combine Brian's obsessive personality with his sex predator nature and that's what we have.

I do like that Brian covers all his bases: he's a homosexual sex stalker (Willie) and a heterosexual sex stalker (Carol).

 
At 02 April, 2011 06:49, Blogger Len said...

Note also the women at 21:00 in who said the saw the 1st plane and spoke to people who saw the 2nd, they were obvious MIBH plants :)

 
At 02 April, 2011 06:54, Blogger Ian said...

Note also the women at 21:00 in who said the saw the 1st plane and spoke to people who saw the 2nd, they were obvious MIBH plants :)

I expect the no-planers to have a field day with the guy around 23:00 who says he thought it was a missile.

 
At 02 April, 2011 06:55, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, it's almost 7 am in Palo Alto, so I expect Brian's mommy to wake him up, feed him, and give him his bath soon so he can be here to tell us that he doesn't see anything other than smoldering carpets in WTC 7 (and 1 and 2) and that we're a bunch of girls.

 
At 02 April, 2011 07:00, Blogger Ian said...

One last thought:

I have a new job in 1 Liberty Plaza downtown and this is the first time I've watched this stuff since I started that job, and working in lower Manhattan just adds another layer of dread to it (I was in college in upstate NY that day).

I mean, the video has images of people running up Park Row to escape the dust cloud. I just walked down Park Row (and stopped in a Starbucks) on my way to work yesterday.

The Brooks Brothers that became a makeshift morgue is in the lobby of my building.

 
At 02 April, 2011 10:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, best of luck in NYC. Either it's going to be a huge growth experience for you or a disaster. You've got a lot to learn.

Wow, 50 minutes of new video and everybody just wants to talk about me.

 
At 02 April, 2011 10:16, Blogger Pat said...

So Brian, are you ready to admit you were wrong about Willie's actions on 9-11?

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, Willie went into a burning building when the fire was 90 floors away. The only thing that makes his action heroic is if you believe his claims that there were bombs going off--and there's no reason to believe it. As soon as he understood that there was actual danger to himself, he started to leave--and lied about his reason for leaving, claiming a 22-story collapse that never happened.

If you want 9/11 heroes, look at Chief Ray Downey, who died when WTC1 collapsed even though after watching WTC2 come down he believed that explosives had been involved.

Look at Frank DeMartini and Pablo Ortiz (ever hear of him?) of the Port Authority, who climbed up to the impact-damaged floors and opened doors so people could escape and who died when the building came down.

Willie lies and steals his glory from the dead. There's no reason to believe anything he says. When I hear about his heroism from someone other than himself (or one of his sycophants) I'll give him some credit.

I feel sorry for the guy. For the rest of his life he's going to have to go around being Willie Rodriguez--the guy who claimed he saved hundreds he didn't save, who claimed he raised $122 million he didn't raise, who claimed he rescued people he didn't rescue, who created a climate around him of blind group-thinking hero worship and did his damndest to suppress the truth.

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, best of luck in NYC. Either it's going to be a huge growth experience for you or a disaster. You've got a lot to learn.

Brian, I'm a management professional with a graduate degree. I've got nothing to learn from a failed janitor and liar who spends all day babbling about invisible widows and calling people "girls" on the internet, unless I want to get a degree in psychiatry.

Also, I've been living here for many years, I just hadn't worked downtown until now. You make up your facts.

Wow, 50 minutes of new video and everybody just wants to talk about me.

Well, you're the one who slanders a hero like Rodriguez because he wouldn't marry you. We're just pointing out how pathetic it is that a failed janitor and liar and sex stalker who was thrown out of the truth movement expects us to take him seriously on the topic of Rodriguez.

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:18, Blogger Ian said...

The only thing that makes his action heroic is if you believe his claims that there were bombs going off--and there's no reason to believe it.

I'll remember this the next time Brian babbles about explosions that were heard or squibs or what Ray Downey said.

Poor Brian, his obsession with Rodriguez means he can't even keep his own story straight.

If you want 9/11 heroes, look at Chief Ray Downey, who died when WTC1 collapsed even though after watching WTC2 come down he believed that explosives had been involved.


Wow, didn't have to wait that long for the Ray Downey quote.

Look at Frank DeMartini and Pablo Ortiz (ever hear of him?) of the Port Authority, who climbed up to the impact-damaged floors and opened doors so people could escape and who died when the building came down.


Brian, you realize it's possible that there are multiple heroes from that day, right? Rodriguez and Downey and DeMartini and Ortiz can both all heroes. And you can still be a failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement.

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:19, Blogger Ian said...

Willie lies and steals his glory from the dead. There's no reason to believe anything he says. When I hear about his heroism from someone other than himself (or one of his sycophants) I'll give him some credit.

Nobody cares what you think of Rodriguez. He's a hero. You're a deranged glue-sniffing liar.

I feel sorry for the guy. For the rest of his life he's going to have to go around being Willie Rodriguez--the guy who claimed he saved hundreds he didn't save, who claimed he raised $122 million he didn't raise, who claimed he rescued people he didn't rescue, who created a climate around him of blind group-thinking hero worship and did his damndest to suppress the truth.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 02 April, 2011 11:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dumbness, thy name is Ian.

 
At 02 April, 2011 12:13, Blogger Ian said...

Dumbness, thy name is Ian.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 02 April, 2011 12:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

You certainly do. Like a pig.

 
At 02 April, 2011 13:11, Blogger Ian said...

You certainly do. Like a pig.

Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!

 
At 02 April, 2011 13:59, Blogger Ian said...

Getting back to more important things...

This:

The only thing that makes his action heroic is if you believe his claims that there were bombs going off--and there's no reason to believe it.

And this:

If you want 9/11 heroes, look at Chief Ray Downey, who died when WTC1 collapsed even though after watching WTC2 come down he believed that explosives had been involved.

Are in the same post. Brian, can you settle this for us: do you believe bombs were planted in the WTC or not?

Or to rephrase: is your unhinged obsession with 9/11 truth myths more important than your unhinged obsession with Willie Rodriguez, or vice versa?

 
At 02 April, 2011 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know if bombs were planted in the buildings or not. I believe Ray Downey's opinion is credible because he was one of the country's foremost experts on building collapses. Willie Rodriguez's opinion is not credible because he is a liar. Like you, Ian.

 
At 02 April, 2011 16:40, Blogger sabba said...

I believe Ray Downey's opinion is credible because he was one of the country's foremost experts on building collapses. Willie Rodriguez's opinion is not credible because he is a liar. Like you, Ian.

I believe Carol Broulliet opinion about you. Brian Good's Opinion is not credible because he is a liar and a stalker, like you Punsuxtawneybarney.
Have you called C-Span yet? Bitch!

 
At 02 April, 2011 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh lookee! Say hello to our little friend! You got some 'spainin' to do!

Why would I want to call C-Span? You call C-Span, find out if they've done a 9/11 truth program since 8/7/07 or was Willie's lying brag-fest the last truth program they did.

Carol Brouillet's complaints are about what she believed was my attitude. She was wrong about my attitude. What kind of hero hides behind a woman's skirts? The phony, lying kind.

 
At 02 April, 2011 19:43, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Just so I can update my score card...

Brian constantly claims that he wants justice for the 9/11 widows and survivors, and then turns around calling Rodriguez a fraud.

When called on this, Brian unleashes the assumption that there is some kind of standard for heroism by stating:

"Willie went into a burning building when the fire was 90 floors away. The only thing that makes his action heroic is if you believe his claims that there were bombs going off--and there's no reason to believe it."

So in spite of the fact that he didn't haul ass, choosing instead to stay and lead NYFD personel up the stairs as the only guy around with a master key. Getting 15 people out of the tower and trying to help more. In spite of the fact that the floors above 90 came down, Rodriguez is somehow less of a hero or does not meet the heroic-minimum.

Why?

Rodriguez is one of hundreds of people who went above and beyond the call to help out. Rodriguez could have simply walked away and nobody would have said a thing.

He didn't, and that meets the basic definition of "hero" in any book not written in Brian Good's crazy town.

 
At 02 April, 2011 21:30, Blogger Pat said...

Greg, what gets me is how typical he is for a Troofer. Disprove one point and he never acknowledges that, he always just moves on to the next one. He's like a parody of a used-car salesman; it's not about honesty or integrity, it's about making the sale.

 
At 03 April, 2011 08:05, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's Bitch-Brian Good(Snug bug) says:
Why would I want to call C-Span? You call C-Span, find out if they've done a 9/11 truth program since 8/7/07 or was Willie's lying brag-fest the last truth program they did.

So you have not called C-Span yet? After constant pleads of everybody to validate your claims here? Then, stop claiming things as facts without validating evidence instead of perceived assumptions, bitch.

Next thing were we left it. You claimed in the past that W-ROD did not appeared anywhere( thanks to you)since 2009. And you have been told you lied about that as well. He has appeared in many countries and not talking about your bullshit theories (good for him!). Are you still claiming that? or do you agreed also that you lied on that as well? Bitch.

 
At 03 April, 2011 08:11, Blogger sabba said...

Carol Brouillet's complaints are about what she believed was my attitude. She was wrong about my attitude. What kind of hero hides behind a woman's skirts? The phony, lying kind.

Oh the irony...re -read: what she believed was my attitude.

Have you gotten a statement from Carol after you explained this to her? an E-mail? a post? How about a post from Carol's husband? that will be more interesting. I guess STALKERS can't get supportive, corroborating statementes AFTER they clarified themselves to their VICTIMS.
Have you called C-SPan yet Brian?

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, do you really believe that FDNY personnel needed Willie to show them how to climb stairs? His tale of the life-saving key is given the lie by the fact that he has it today. If his key was any use at all in saving lives, FDNY would never have allowed him to take it with him when PAPD ordered him to leave the building.

The 15 people did not need Willie to show them to the street. They were ABM employees, and knew their own way to the street.

Heroes don't travel around the world lying about their exploits while begging for money.

Pat, I acknowledge when I am wrong and change my opinion in response to new information. I found Guitar Bill's information about iron microspheres in fly ash very interesting. Of course he has not a shred of evidence that fly ash was actually used in the WTC concrete, but it was interesting.

Since you guys are so often looking for any gotcha you can get whether they are material to the issues or not, there is no reason to dwell on such distractions.

Sabba, I am not aware of any C-Span 9/11 Truth program done after Willie lied to a church full of gullible marks 8/7/07. If you know of one, please name it.

The last appearance of which I was aware was his Jersey City appearance at the library, I believe early in 2010. It looks like only 40 people turned out even though Sunjata was there, and it looks like Willie was so wacko that even the wearechangenj guys (they're nutjobs) who did the video saw the need to cut parts out of it.

It looks like he had a TV interview on GuideUS TV since then. I'm aware of nothing else. I don't think he's been on stage at any 9/11 truth conferences since Sander's disinfo-fest in 9/09.

I've seen Carol maybe ten times in the last six months. She appears to be in poor health. I believe that her long denial, and late recognition, that she had been used by a couple of lying sociopaths has been very stressful for her. So I don't talk to her about these things.

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:39, Blogger Ian said...

I don't know if bombs were planted in the buildings or not.

I do. There were no bombs. You can stop babbling about this, petgoat.

I believe Ray Downey's opinion is credible because he was one of the country's foremost experts on building collapses. Willie Rodriguez's opinion is not credible because he is a liar.

So in other words, there were bombs in the building when it suits your agenda and there weren't bombs in the building when that suits your agenda.

I'm glad we've cleared that up.

Also, I've never lied, petgoat.

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:40, Blogger Ian said...

Carol Brouillet's complaints are about what she believed was my attitude. She was wrong about my attitude.

Stop lying, petgoat. We all know you are an obsessed lunatic who stalked Carol until she had you thrown out of the truth movement.

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:41, Blogger Ian said...

Pat, I acknowledge when I am wrong and change my opinion in response to new information.

Stop lying, petgoat.

I've seen Carol maybe ten times in the last six months. She appears to be in poor health. I believe that her long denial, and late recognition, that she had been used by a couple of lying sociopaths has been very stressful for her. So I don't talk to her about these things.

Seek professional help, petgoat.

 
At 03 April, 2011 09:59, Blogger David said...

"I believe Ray Downey's opinion is credible because he was one of the country's foremost experts on building collapses."

Brian - foremost expert on building collapses? You're joking - right? based on what you idiots spew about building not collapsing from fires hard to see how a FDNY member could be one of the country's foremost experts. After researching his career he was many things - NONE of them an expert on building collapses.

 
At 03 April, 2011 10:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, to suppose that I should give equal weight to Willie's tales and Ray Downey's observations simply because they both involve bombs is as silly as to suppose that I should be equally interested in an '88 Mercedes at $1800 and a '76 Aries at $10,000 simply because they're both cars.

9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer referred to Downey as a "very, very respected expert on building collapse." [1] Fire Chief Mike Antonucci, who was a best friend of Downey's, said he "was probably the most knowledgeable person on building collapses there was. That was his [hobby], to study building collapses--what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe." [2]

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing11/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-05-18.htm

http://www.dailybulletin.com/upland/ci_4299685

Part of the reason you guys are so confused about 9/11 is because you believe a lot of stuff that isn't true.

 
At 03 April, 2011 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, buildings collapse from fires all the time. That's why Chief Ray Downey made it his business to become one of the premier experts in the subject. There wasn't a lot of competition in the matter because other than from fires and earthquake and such obvious causes, buildings rarely collapse so there's no reason for professional engineers to become expert in the subject.

Modern steel-frame highrises don't collapse from fires, as dozens of examples show. Smaller buildings, brick buildings, wooden buildings--they collapse from fires.

 
At 03 April, 2011 11:49, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, to suppose that I should give equal weight to Willie's tales and Ray Downey's observations simply because they both involve bombs is as silly as to suppose that I should be equally interested in an '88 Mercedes at $1800 and a '76 Aries at $10,000 simply because they're both cars.

So you're still going to pretend there were bombs when it suits your babbling delusions, and you're still going to dismiss the idea when it suits your unhinged sex obsession with Rodriguez.

Glad we cleared that up.

Also, you're the one who dismisses the idea of bombs, not Rodriguez. Learn to read your own posts, petgoat.

Part of the reason you guys are so confused about 9/11 is because you believe a lot of stuff that isn't true.

It's hilarious to be called "confused" by a guy who actually believes the "widows" have questions.

 
At 03 April, 2011 11:51, Blogger Ian said...

There wasn't a lot of competition in the matter because other than from fires and earthquake and such obvious causes, buildings rarely collapse so there's no reason for professional engineers to become expert in the subject.

It's amusing to read the babblings of a failed janitor who thinks he knows anything about building collapses.

Modern steel-frame highrises don't collapse from fires, as dozens of examples show.

See what I mean?

 
At 03 April, 2011 11:52, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, enough of that, Brian. Let's talk about something else.

Are you a Giants fan, Brian? Maybe you like the Oakland A's instead and would like to talk about that?

 
At 03 April, 2011 12:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I give consideration to good evidence such as Mr. Downey's and little credence to poor evidence such as that from Willie R. For you to try to claim there's something wrong with that is irrational and dumb.

The widows have 273 out of 300 questions ourstanding, Ian. your persistent lying on this issue is puerile and vile.

Anybody who bothers to look into the issue can see that steel frame highrise buildings do not collapse from fire, while smaller buildings do.

 
At 03 April, 2011 12:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, how come Willie ran away from the discussion at Firetown and refuses to answer questions?

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/04/lets-roll-forums-william-rodriguez-last-man-out-discovered-a-fraud/

 
At 03 April, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As predicted. I go to Pittsburgh, PA on business for a week, and when I return, what do I find?

The blog is coated with Brian's wall-to-wall gay squeal spam.

 
At 03 April, 2011 13:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Pat, I acknowledge when I am wrong and change my opinion in response to new information. I found Guitar Bill's information about iron microspheres in fly ash very interesting. Of course he has not a shred of evidence that fly ash was actually used in the WTC concrete, but it was interesting."

That's right, sex predator, continue to ignore the USGS data I presented that proves fly ash was employed as aggregate in the WTC's lightweight concrete.

Do you honestly believe that ignoring the conclusive data I've presented repeatedly, while you pretend that you were never debunked, adds the force of credibility to your lies, sex predator?

And remember, sex predator, your worthless, unprofessional and unqualified opinion isn't evidence.

Now squeal for us, Aunt Fancy.

 
At 03 April, 2011 16:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Anybody who bothers to look into the issue can see that steel frame highrise buildings do not collapse from fire, while smaller buildings do."

Anybody who has a brain would point out two reasons why you're wrong:

1. WTC1 &2, and WTC 7 were unique designs, so there are no other buldings to compare them to.

2. Each tower was hit by a 767, which did catostrophic damage to each not counting the fire.

maybe some day you'll realize that talking out of your ass is not the same thing as intelligent debate.

 
At 03 April, 2011 17:06, Blogger Ian said...

I give consideration to good evidence such as Mr. Downey's and little credence to poor evidence such as that from Willie R. For you to try to claim there's something wrong with that is irrational and dumb.

Yes, Brian, you've told us already that you believe there were bombs in the towers and that there weren't bombs in the towers at the same time. We know.

The widows have 273 out of 300 questions ourstanding, Ian. your persistent lying on this issue is puerile and vile.

My, such squealing!

Anybody who bothers to look into the issue can see that steel frame highrise buildings do not collapse from fire, while smaller buildings do.

Nobody cares about the conclusions drawn by a failed janitor and liar like yourself.

 
At 03 April, 2011 18:26, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's Bitch Brian Good says:
The last appearance of which I was aware was his Jersey City appearance at the library, I believe early in 2010...
First lie, you said it was 2009.

It looks like only 40 people turned out even though Sunjata was there, and it looks like Willie was so wacko that even the wearechangenj guys (they're nutjobs) who did the video saw the need to cut parts out of it.

Another aberration of your ego again. I told you on a post 3 months ago that I was going to call the people from WAC NJ and ask about this. I did, I spoke to Glenn Zarmanoff and he told me this (feel totally free to call him and corroborate- we know you will not anyway! C- Span is still waiting for your call).
1. WROD was not part of the event.
2. He was not announced on flyers or anything else.
3. He showed up to support Daniel Sunjata. A surprise to everybody, but was on a rush to get out since he had a speaking gig in the city that day.
4. WAC NJ think you are an asshole and not part of any moevement.

It looks like he had a TV interview on GuideUS TV since then. I'm aware of nothing else.
We know you know that since you are posting now on Phil Jayhan's site with another name. Again.

We see some progress now , when you say, you are not aware, instead of claiming it as a fact or claiming credit for it.

I don't think he's been on stage at any 9/11 truth conferences since Sander's disinfo-fest in 9/09.

Who cares what you think. It is your lies we laugh at.

Here is your older post in case you forgot about it bitch.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/01/jones-back-from-dead.html#c1875348475967491715

And yes he has continued travelling without spewing CT BS around the World,(Bravo for him!) much to your envy, jealously and obsession.

 
At 03 April, 2011 18:36, Blogger sabba said...

WIllie's bitch-Brian Good- snug.bug said...

Sabba, how come Willie ran away from the discussion at Firetown and refuses to answer questions?

http://www.firetown.com/blog/2011/03/04/lets-roll-forums-william-rodriguez-last-man-out-discovered-a-fraud/


Thanks for posting that, It looks exactly like I thought. He came in , said his piece and left. NO need to validate stupidity constantly. No wonder he ignores you. But then again you show your faulty research again!!!!
Are you aware that Michael Damman, did not answer his questions either? are you aware that you did not answer the questions of others either?
Are you aware that Michael Damman was on a Radio Show 2 days ago? and WRod called in to confront him a moment after his communication with the radio show "strangely" was cut off by him? Are you aware the station tried many times to get him on the air even though his Skype account was on and did not respond? and finally, are you aware that William Rodriguez spent an hour and a half on the air waiting for that guy to show back on and answered all the questions thrown at him based on the accusations? of course you don't because of your faulty research and lack of google skills.

 
At 03 April, 2011 18:43, Blogger sabba said...

Brian , you should become "friend" of Damman on Facebook. I got his message he was going to expose lies etc. and sent it to his over 1,000 "friends" (me included). Now he looks like an asshole for missing a good oportunity. That goes to happen to people who uses Phil Jayhan's "research" or admire his work by saying: (Snug Bug says)Thanks for finally noticing Jayhan's work, Pat. I agree that he has some daft theories, but he makes some perceptive points,
Source here: http://www.blogger.com/profile/09412792156178127582

 
At 03 April, 2011 21:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Michael Hedges wrote a song about a trip to Pittsburgh. Bet you didn't.

I thought you were hiding out because you didn't want to face the fact that you haven't a clue as to why the idea that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is loony.

The USGS data in no way proves that the concrete used fly ash--and they don't say it does. So you are hypocritically citing a source that has conclusions different than yours.

MGF, if you would bother to study the issue you would find that the WTC buildings were not unique. Tube in tube structure has been done many times, and transfer trusses too. The reason there's nothing to compare it to is because fire does not bring down modern steel-framed highrises.

What makes you think the damage from the 767 was catastrophic? Oh right, 'cause the buildings fell down, so it must have been catastrophic. That's circular reasoning.

MGF, that you talking out your ass is not intelligent debate is no secret to me.

Sabba, Willie was on the video of the event. Looks like maybe he was horning in on Sunjata's gig, trying to get a bit of reflected glory? Isn't that what he does best?

Sabba, where do you get the idea that I would envy a guy who lies for a living?

Jayhan does make some perceptive points.
You certainly don't.

How do you know exactly how much time Willy spent trying to get on the air? Are you stalking the guy or something?

 
At 03 April, 2011 21:14, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's Bitch- BrianGood- snug Bug says:How do you know exactly how much time Willy spent trying to get on the air? Are you stalking the guy or something?

Let me repeat myself since you have no research skills bitch: Sabba says: "Brian , you should become "friend" of Damman on Facebook. I got his message he was going to expose lies etc. and sent it to his over 1,000 "friends" (me included).
yes I got it from Damman himself bitch. Unlike you who have google poping you anything with WR name on it so you can post your obsession. Bitch!

 
At 03 April, 2011 21:20, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's Bitch- BrianGood- snug Bug says:Sabba, Willie was on the video of the event. Looks like maybe he was horning in on Sunjata's gig, trying to get a bit of reflected glory? Isn't that what he does best?
Changing your tune now bitch? go ahead call Zarmanoff. You won't pussy. As far as I know Sunjata and WR are very good friends, WR gave him an award in some Latin Show and WR named his son Daniel as per his own words. Do not tell me now you are jeaulous of Sunajata??!!!! for being close to your willie? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

 
At 03 April, 2011 21:33, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's bitch Brian Goos- Snug Bug Says:Carol Brouillet's complaints are about what she believed was my attitude. She was wrong about my attitude.

isn't it "Believes" the correct word here?
I do not think she agrees with you on a past tense.

 
At 03 April, 2011 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba it looks like I was wrong. I thought Willie hadn't had a gig since early in 2010. Now, based on what you tell me, he didn't even have a gig then. So when was his last gig? Was it Paraguay? When was that? Fall of 2009?

Sabba, why would I be jealous of Sunjata?
You don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 04 April, 2011 06:14, Blogger David said...

"Modern steel-frame highrises don't collapse from fires, as dozens of examples show. Smaller buildings, brick buildings, wooden buildings--they collapse from fires."

So which ones was he an expert on? The ones that collapse or the ones that don't?

 
At 04 April, 2011 09:02, Blogger Greg said...

I thought you were hiding out because you didn't want to face the fact that you haven't a clue as to why the idea that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized is loony.

Are you ever going to answer your own question, Brain? Stop making this retarded comment and explain your position, retard!

 
At 04 April, 2011 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, I don't have to be an expert on building collapses to know the statistics.

I suppose if I told you that the F-22 is not being built but the f-35 is, and that Egypt has more than 200 F-16s then you'd challenge me on where I got my expertise in aeronautical engineering?

No, I'm not going to answer the question Greg. UtterFail hasn't squirmed enough.

 
At 04 April, 2011 09:43, Blogger David said...

Spin anyway you want Brian. I see you are an expert on that.

The man was NOT an expert on collapsing buildings. Maybe on collapsed buildings and digging survivors out of them.

I have read his book and other published materials and none of it remotely suggests an expertise in collapsing buildings.

Aren't you the guy who claims to be an expert on building construction because your office window faced a large office building being constructed?

Your aircraft analogy was beyond pathetic. I'll pass on even attempting to comment on it.

 
At 04 April, 2011 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 April, 2011 10:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

David, according to Chief Downey's friend Mike Antonucci, Downey was and expert on "building collapses--what affected the engineering of buildings, how they [would] weaken and how he could respond and stay safe."
http://www.dailybulletin.com/upland/ci_4299685

So Antonucci is a liar? Downey's book "The Rescue Company" is about a rescue company. You would not expect Chief Downey to pontificate on engineering issues in it. Also, it was published in 1992. Last time I checked, 9 years would be long enough to get a PhD in engineering.

It's easy to think you have all the answers about 9/11 when you make up your facts.

No I don't claim to be an expert on building construction, and certainly not
on the basis of looking out the window. Since I am experienced in all aspects of residential construction and remodeling from foundations to roofing, since I have worked in tall buildings and seen their unfinished mechanical spaces, since I did watch a tall building being built from across the street I am more knowledgable on the subject than the average person--certainly more so than anyone here.

The aircraft analogy is direct. I don't need any engineering expertise to know the facts--that steel-frame high-rises do not collapse in fires, that there are several tube-in-tube design buildings other than the world trade center, and that transfer trusses are not unique to WTC7. Note that NIST concluded that the collapse of WTC7 had nothing to do with the transfer trusses--though of course there is always the chance that their investigation was politicized to avoid criticizing the engineering.

 
At 04 April, 2011 10:20, Blogger David said...

My boss once called me the greatest worker in the world when I agreed to work late one day.

Funny - I never did really believe him.

 
At 04 April, 2011 13:56, Blogger Ian said...

What makes you think the damage from the 767 was catastrophic? Oh right, 'cause the buildings fell down, so it must have been catastrophic. That's circular reasoning.

No fires in the towers and no damage from the airplane impact. It's hilarious to see the things Brian will make himself believe in order to keep his 9/11 truth delusions alive.

I suppose if I told you that the F-22 is not being built but the f-35 is, and that Egypt has more than 200 F-16s then you'd challenge me on where I got my expertise in aeronautical engineering?

Listing facts about military aircraft has nothing to do with aeronautical engineering, although I understand why you don't know this: failed janitors often don't know anything about the world around them.

It's easy to think you have all the answers about 9/11 when you make up your facts.

Brian, we have all the answers to 9/11. You don't think we do because you're a deranged lunatic and failed janitor. That's why you're so confused about 9/11.

Also, Brian, "looking" at buildings doesn't make one an expert on them. I could look at a nuclear reactor, but I don't think I'd then be qualified to fix the problems in Japan.

 
At 04 April, 2011 13:58, Blogger Ian said...

since I did watch a tall building being built from across the street I am more knowledgable on the subject than the average person--certainly more so than anyone here.

Funny, Brian, I work across the street from three tall buildings being built. I guess that makes me 3 times the expert you are and well qualified to tell you that you make up your facts.

I don't need any engineering expertise to know the facts--that steel-frame high-rises do not collapse in fires,

See what I mean?

 
At 04 April, 2011 15:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

OMG, Brian is just hilarious as usual. Crying like the big baby he is.

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!

 
At 04 April, 2011 15:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you have a one-bit mind. When I challenge the claim of "catastrophic" impact damage, you accuse me of claiming there was no damage and no fires.

Fortunately, you only fool extremely stupid people.

Right, "listing facts about military aircraft has nothing to do with aeronautical engineering." Wow! She got my point! Give her a gold star for the day! And listing facts about building collapses has nothing to do with structural engineering.

We don't have all the facts about 9/11. there are 114 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report, there are the widows' 273 unanswered questions, there is NIST's refusal to explain the collapses' speed, totality, symmetry, the pulverization of the concrete, and the molten iron.

I don't claim to be an expert and, unlike you I don't claim to have the answers. I want an official investigation that gives answers i can trust.

No, Ian, watching 3 buildings go up does not give you three times the expertise. For one thing, you apparently had the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in High School and were inadequately impressed by it. I had it in college and was impressed. I have building experience and expertise. You rely on the authority of your imagingings abot a report you've never read for your expertise.

 
At 04 April, 2011 16:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I don't claim to be an expert.....I want an official investigation that gives answers i can trust.

Now that's worth a Stundie!

 
At 04 April, 2011 16:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Oh Bwian, check this out:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7049580#post7049580

You have been Stundied!

 
At 04 April, 2011 17:21, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you have a one-bit mind. When I challenge the claim of "catastrophic" impact damage, you accuse me of claiming there was no damage and no fires.

Right, you believe there was no catastrophic damage and no fires. You make up your facts.

Right, "listing facts about military aircraft has nothing to do with aeronautical engineering." Wow! She got my point! Give her a gold star for the day! And listing facts about building collapses has nothing to do with structural engineering.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, you make up your "facts".

We don't have all the facts about 9/11. there are 114 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report, there are the widows' 273 unanswered questions, there is NIST's refusal to explain the collapses' speed, totality, symmetry, the pulverization of the concrete, and the molten iron.

See what I mean?

 
At 04 April, 2011 17:24, Blogger Ian said...

I don't claim to be an expert and, unlike you I don't claim to have the answers. I want an official investigation that gives answers i can trust.

Nobody cares what you can "trust" since you're a liar and failed janitor and sex stalker.

No, Ian, watching 3 buildings go up does not give you three times the expertise.

False.

For one thing, you apparently had the 1st Law of Thermodynamics in High School and were inadequately impressed by it.

No, I just understood it, which is why I'm a successful adult and not a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

Do mommy and daddy at least make your earn your keep around the house by washing the dishes or vacuuming the hall?

I have building experience and expertise.

False.

You rely on the authority of your imagingings abot a report you've never read for your expertise.

"imagingings abot". Wow, Brian, you know how to spell about as well as you know physics and engineering!

 
At 04 April, 2011 17:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, any idiot can nominate, and I see that at Randi, any idiot has.

 
At 04 April, 2011 18:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, if you would bother to study the issue you would find that the WTC buildings were not unique. Tube in tube structure has been done many times, and transfer trusses too. The reason there's nothing to compare it to is because fire does not bring down modern steel-framed highrises."

This is the beauty of your clown-like reasoning skills.

You correctly identify the twin towers as "tube in tube" design, then say that fire doesn't bring down steel-framed buildings. The Towers were not steel framed buildings, they were a steel cage structure with the floors "floated" on steel trusses.

As it turned out of all the tube-in-tube designed buildings that have been struck by 767s, 100% have collapsed.

Glad I can help.

"What makes you think the damage from the 767 was catastrophic?"

Umm...the giant fucking holes in each building and the damage to the core.

"Oh right, 'cause the buildings fell down, so it must have been catastrophic. That's circular reasoning."

No, it is an example of both a catastrophic impact, and catastrophic structural damage that lead to failure.

If anything you can be considered an expert on failure.

 
At 04 April, 2011 19:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, NIST did not criticize the design of the WTC buildings at all, and AFAIK they did not recommend any retrofit changes to existing tube-in-tube structures. So either they don't think the design was a problem, or they're keeping quiet about it. So if you think the design was faulty, you should be calling for new investigations too.

The towers were steel framed buildings, built for a hurricane, with robust, extrensively cross-braced cores and a Vierendell truss perimeter structure that made the exterior walls essentially 209-foot-deeo beams.

I defy you to cite an example of a non-demolition collapse where the building fell in symmetry, in totality, at near-freefall. Building collapses are local, asymmetrical, and partial.
The collapse expert Ray Downey and the demolition expert Dr. Van Romero both commented on the unnatural evenness of the collapse.

The floors weren't floated on anything. They were supported by steel trusses.

The holes in the external walls were not catastrophic. The buildings stood up just fine. The Vierendell trusses did their job of arching over the holes. According to a 1964 white paper on the design, all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind.

What evidence do you have, aside from the collapse, of catastrophic damage to the core? NIST's "realistic" estimate of core damage to WTC1 was 3 columns severed in the 47-column core. That, of course, didn't generate a collapse, so they upped their estimate.

Your belief that the damage was catastrophic because it led to failure is cirular reasoning.

 
At 05 April, 2011 04:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"there are the widows' 273 unanswered questions"

Nobody cares, boron.

 
At 05 April, 2011 06:14, Blogger Ian said...

I defy you to cite an example of a non-demolition collapse where the building fell in symmetry, in totality, at near-freefall.

Brian, the towers didn't fall in "symmetry" (whatever that means) or at near free-fall, but they did collapse totally, so at least you got one thing right.

Building collapses are local, asymmetrical, and partial.

Wow, nothing is more ironclad as proof that the evidence-free assertions of a failed janitor and known liar and lunatic. Hey, petgoat says it, it must be true!

The collapse expert Ray Downey and the demolition expert Dr. Van Romero both commented on the unnatural evenness of the collapse.

Nobody cares.

The holes in the external walls were not catastrophic.

More evidence-free assertions from a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic. I'm convinced!

Your belief that the damage was catastrophic because it led to failure is cirular reasoning.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 05 April, 2011 06:18, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have the "widows" gotten their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

 
At 05 April, 2011 08:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? None of you can muster arguments more powerful than

1. Nobody cares
2. You're a doodoo head.

You guys don't know what you're talking about. None of you knows the first thing about the construction of the twin towers, which is why none of you knows why UtterFail's claims of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is complete bunk.

 
At 05 April, 2011 09:07, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean? None of you can muster arguments more powerful than

1. Nobody cares
2. You're a doodoo head.


Brian, you're the one who believes 9/11 was an inside job. We're skeptical of your claims. Please provide some evidence for your beliefs if you want arguments against them. Otherwise, we're going to continue pointing and laughing at you.

You guys don't know what you're talking about. None of you knows the first thing about the construction of the twin towers, which is why none of you knows why UtterFail's claims of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete is complete bunk.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Wow, petgoat, you must be really upset!

 
At 05 April, 2011 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, since even if you read my posts (and you don't) you clearly are not qualified to say what I believe.

You are lashing out at some phantom truther in your head. Maybe you should show a little bit of maturity and courage, ascknowledge your inner truther and face facts:

1. There are widows
2. They still have 273 questions
3. Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

No, I'm not upset. I'm just irritated at the ignorance and irrationality y'all display on this board.

 
At 05 April, 2011 09:54, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, since even if you read my posts (and you don't) you clearly are not qualified to say what I believe.

False. You believe 9/11 was an inside job, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your life babbling about the same nonsensical talking points here for 2 years.

1. There are widows
2. They still have 273 questions
3. Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements show that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.


See what I mean?

No, I'm not upset. I'm just irritated at the ignorance and irrationality y'all display on this board.

False. You're upset because we don't take you seriously. We don't take you seriously because you're obviously seriously mentally ill, and you and your tiny crackpot fringe movement of truthers have accomplished absolutely nothing in almost a decade.

Now go tell us about 84% of Americans, Brian. And call us "girls".

 
At 05 April, 2011 10:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, any idiot can nominate, and I see that at Randi, any idiot has.

You calling yourself an idiot? I'm not surprised!

 
At 05 April, 2011 10:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You guys don't know what you're talking about. None of you knows the first thing about the construction of the twin towers....

For a janitor, like Willie Rodriguez, you don't know shit about buildings do you?

 
At 05 April, 2011 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

You believe 9/11 was an inside job, otherwise you wouldn't be wasting your life babbling about the same nonsensical talking points here for 2 years.

Ian, thanks for demonstrating your irrationality. You've got a whole Rube-Goldberg geartrain of circular reasoning coming around to reinforce itself at the beginning.

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, I don't believe it wasn't. I don't know, and I think we should know. The government has made no effort to prove its case, but instead relies on innuendo and snow jobs--kind of like you guys here.

The reason I keep "babbling" the same talking points is because it is necessary to do so to refute your babbling of the same lies, and because I want us to have believable reports so we can have some kind of faith that we have a functioning democracy and a conscientious media.

Your repeated claims that "nobody cares" just make matters work. You don't care about democracy, you don't care about truth, you don't care about justice, you don't care about accountability. People like you are destroying this once-great country.

I don't care if you take me seriously or not. If I had any respect for your opinions I'd go sobbing off into the woods like GuitarBill did. The reason for me to be king of this hill is to show y'all for what you are so you don't have the opportunity to deceive others about 9/11.

 
At 05 April, 2011 10:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, thanks for demonstrating your irrationality. You've got a whole Rube-Goldberg geartrain of circular reasoning coming around to reinforce itself at the beginning.

Brian, this dumbspam doesn't change the fact that you believe 9/11 was an inside job with fanatical religious certainty.

I don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, I don't believe it wasn't. I don't know, and I think we should know. The government has made no effort to prove its case, but instead relies on innuendo and snow jobs--kind of like you guys here.

See what I mean? You believe it with ironclad certainty. You believe it because you're mentally ill.

 
At 05 April, 2011 10:39, Blogger Ian said...

The reason I keep "babbling" the same talking points is because it is necessary to do so to refute your babbling of the same lies, and because I want us to have believable reports so we can have some kind of faith that we have a functioning democracy and a conscientious media.

We've had believable reports. You don't believe them because you're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic for whom no amount of evidence could convince you that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Your repeated claims that "nobody cares" just make matters work. You don't care about democracy, you don't care about truth, you don't care about justice, you don't care about accountability. People like you are destroying this once-great country.

My, such squealing!

I'll take this as frustrated admission that the "truth" movement has been an abysmal failure.

I don't care if you take me seriously or not.

False. If you didn't, you wouldn't be posting the same babbling squealspam over and over again here.

The reason for me to be king of this hill is to show y'all for what you are so you don't have the opportunity to deceive others about 9/11.

Hey Brian, the widows haven't had their questions answered! Boy, does it make me feel good knowing that they'll never have their questions answered. HA HA HA!

 
At 05 April, 2011 12:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? She's ignorant, irrational, and Ann-Coulter-ugly, reveling in the frustration of the 9/11 victims.

Ian, you're a disgrace.

 
At 05 April, 2011 13:19, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean? She's ignorant, irrational, and Ann-Coulter-ugly, reveling in the frustration of the 9/11 victims.

More of the same squealing and calling people "girls" from the failed janitor that we all know and love. Brian, you continue to be an endless source of laughs for everyone here. Never change.

Ian, you're a disgrace.

False. I'm a successful adult with a good job, good friends and family, and a happy life.

You, on the other hand, are a pathetic failed janitor with no friends, no family, no job, and no outlet for all your frustrations over the miserable failure that is your life except to babble and call people "girls" here.

And despite all that, the widows STILL don't have their questions answered. How does that make you feel, Brian? Do you feel good knowing how your efforts are a total FAILURE? How does it feel to be laughed at constantly for your efforts?

 
At 05 April, 2011 16:07, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, NIST did not criticize the design of the WTC buildings at all, and AFAIK they did not recommend any retrofit changes to existing tube-in-tube structures. So either they don't think the design was a problem, or they're keeping quiet about it. So if you think the design was faulty, you should be calling for new investigations too"

They didn't make recommendations about retrofits because the cause of the collapse was those 767 thingies.

That the towers and #7 collapsed doesn't indicate a design flaw of any kind. On the contrary the fact that each tower stood long enough to evacuate most of the people inside is a testiment to their design and construction.

"I defy you to cite an example of a non-demolition collapse where the building fell in symmetry, in totality, at near-freefall. Building collapses are local, asymmetrical, and partial."

I double defy you to show me where the WTC did any of that. Each tower tore istelf appart in multifoor sections, and each tower had core sections that remained after the collapse so there was nothing total about it.


"The floors weren't floated on anything. They were supported by steel trusses."

They were "floated" on steel trusses. This allowed them to use less concrete, making the structure lighter and easier to support by thebuilding's frame. It is also why the buildings fell so fast because there was less resistance than you'd find in a standard steel frame structure.

" According to a 1964 white paper on the design, all the columns on one side of a tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind."

Do a really need to explain the difference between the wind and a 767? As far as the white-paper goes it should be obvious that they over-stated the building's capabilities as evidenced by the whole getting hit by an airplane and collapsing thing.

"What evidence do you have, aside from the collapse, of catastrophic damage to the core? "

What other evidence do I need?

Not that it matters, you don't care. You can't care, you are mentally ill, 9/11 is just your vehicle to live in your fantasy world full time. That world where you are smarter than everybody else.

 
At 05 April, 2011 22:33, Blogger sabba said...

...and notice how he changed the thread once confronted about his lies about W-ROD.
Hey Brian, have you called C-Span yet?

Have you called Glenn Zarmannoff yet?

Have you call Shyam Sunder yet?

Have you called Carol Broulliet yet?

How about Carol's Husband?
Any stalking lately?

Are you still dressing like an idiot with Vendetta Costumes?

Have you been re-accepted by the San Francisco 9/11 Truth Group?

Have you been re-accepted by the other groups?

Have you been welcomed back to the Richard Gage organization?

Have you been able to get any serious investigation going anywhere?

Have you fixed your car?

Are you still estranged with your family?

Does your papa still plays the piano?

Is Fathers day the most confusing day of the year for you?

 
At 05 April, 2011 23:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, so when you say the floors "floated" you weren't alleging design defects. Thanks for clearing that up .

The videos show the dust clouds are almost perfectly symmetrical. At the end of the collapse sequence all that stood was four stories of perimeter columns on one side. That's total collapse.

Your comparison of wind to the 767 is all wet. The white paper said the perimeter columns on opne side could all be removed--and THEN the building could take a 100 mph wind. Meaning, that with what the 767 removed from the perimeter, the building should have been able to take a 150 mph wind.

Your inability to recognize the circular reasoning involved in supposing that if the building collapsed, there must have been damage to the core just makes me feel sorry for you.

No, I'm not smarter than everyone else. Just more honest and less lazy. It's not my fault that y'all are ignorant and irrational.

Sabba I have never lied about Willie R. He made a career out of traveling around lying about 9/11 until finally some of us figured out his story was impossible and had him shut down. Only idiots believe Willie.

 
At 06 April, 2011 10:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The videos show the dust clouds are almost perfectly symmetrical.

OMFG! That's just retarded. Dust clouds being "symmetrical"? LMAO!

No, I'm not smarter than everyone else. Just more honest and less lazy. It's not my fault that y'all are ignorant and irrational.

Good to know that you're not as smart as us Bwian. Your honesty requires physical evidence, you've provided none. You're the laziest MFer in here, can't even provide sources of your alleged "evidence" to prove them. No Bwian, it's you that is ignorant & irrational, that's why we all make fun of you.

 
At 06 April, 2011 16:11, Blogger Ian said...

The videos show the dust clouds are almost perfectly symmetrical.

After huffing a bunch of glue, our heroic failed janitor watched a bunch of youtube videos and decided that this, "symmetrical dust clouds", was the smoking gun.

Brian, did the smoldering carpets cause the symmetrical dust clouds?

At the end of the collapse sequence all that stood was four stories of perimeter columns on one side. That's total collapse.

Yes, Brian, the towers collapsed totally. What point are you trying to make? Are you going to whip out your "meatball on a fork" model again?

 
At 06 April, 2011 16:13, Blogger Ian said...

The white paper said the perimeter columns on opne side could all be removed--and THEN the building could take a 100 mph wind. Meaning, that with what the 767 removed from the perimeter, the building should have been able to take a 150 mph wind.

Did anyone notice a tornado striking lower Manhattan on 9/11? Otherwise, I'm not exactly sure why our glue-sniffing failed janitor is babbling about 150 MPH winds.

Your inability to recognize the circular reasoning involved in supposing that if the building collapsed, there must have been damage to the core just makes me feel sorry for you.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 06 April, 2011 16:16, Blogger Ian said...

No, I'm not smarter than everyone else. Just more honest and less lazy. It's not my fault that y'all are ignorant and irrational.

Yes. I mean, only the most rational, education of persons could have come up with smoldering carpets, symmetrical dust clouds, spray-on nanothermite, and "meatball on a fork".

And yet we "ignorant and irrational" are leading normal lives and stopping in occasionally to laugh at the babblings of a 59-year-old man who lives with his parents because he has no job and does nothing all day but call people "girls" on the internet.

Maybe you should see a psychiatrist, Brian? You clearly have no grasp of reality whatsoever. It explains why you're so confused about 9/11.

 
At 06 April, 2011 19:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, look at the collapse videos. The dust clouds are symmetrical. You are ignorant.

The official investigation's honesty required physical evidence. They don't have any because the authorities destroyed as much of the physical evidence as they could. They missed some--the 40-pound ingot of molten steel sampled by Dr. Jones, and the "evaporated" samples documented in FEMA Appendix C.

Ian, smoldering carpets, symmetrical dust clouds, spray-on nanothermite, and "meatball on a fork" are all perfectly plausible scenarios, and the symmetrical dust clouds are obvious to anyone who watched the collapse video.
Argument by pointing and giggling is a logical fallacy.

Your belief that I spend all day here is absurd. I stop in now and then to slap down the latest bullshit you bullshitters post.

 
At 07 April, 2011 08:03, Blogger sabba said...

willie's bitch- Brian Good-Snug Bug says: Your belief that I spend all day here is absurd. I stop in now and then to slap down the latest bullshit you bullshitters post.
We know that Brian, the other part of your time you spend it stalking others and posting around your silly comments.

Sabba I have never lied about Willie R.
LOL , right Brian. Have you called C-Span yet?
Are you still claiming he has not done anything since 2009-early 2010, just because you do not know how to search?

He made a career out of traveling around lying about 9/11 until finally some of us figured out his story was impossible and had him shut down.

Apparently he is doing better than your boy Richard Gage, getting more audiences combined than your boy there and get this, without talking about stupid CT! is that what the lying is all about bitch? oh the envy!

 
At 07 April, 2011 11:41, Blogger sabba said...

willie's bitch-Brian Good AKA- Snug Bug says: Your belief that I spend all day here is absurd. I stop in now and then to slap down the latest bullshit you bullshitters post.

Yes we know Brian, You spent the other half of the time stalking people and dressing like an idiot in Vendetta costumes.

 
At 07 April, 2011 15:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

And your evidence for this is .....?

 
At 07 April, 2011 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

They don't have any because the authorities destroyed as much of the physical evidence as they could.

Yes, we all know how failed janitors who live with their parents would be able to make these types of conclusions.

They missed some--the 40-pound ingot of molten steel sampled by Dr. Jones, and the "evaporated" samples documented in FEMA Appendix C.

Nobody cares about what Steven Jones sampled.

 
At 07 April, 2011 16:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, smoldering carpets, symmetrical dust clouds, spray-on nanothermite, and "meatball on a fork" are all perfectly plausible scenarios, and the symmetrical dust clouds are obvious to anyone who watched the collapse video.

Yup, and modified attack baboons, micro-nukes, death-ray beams from space, and holographic airplanes are also highly plausible. In fact, I think those are more likely, since esteemed truthers like Bill Deagle and Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood endorse them.

You, on the other hand, are a loser who was thrown out of the truth movement. Your opinion is irrelevant.

 
At 07 April, 2011 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

Your belief that I spend all day here is absurd. I stop in now and then to slap down the latest bullshit you bullshitters post.

To be fair, you don't spend all day here. You have several dozen other internet identities (petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, contrivance, truetruther, etc.) that you use to post your dumbspam all over the internet. You spend every waking hour babbling on the internet, not just here.

Also, you've got a strange definition of "slap down", Brian, since what always happens here is that you post something ridiculous, we all point and laugh at you, you get pissed off, start squealing, and call us "girls".

 
At 07 April, 2011 19:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

Ian, the conclusion that as much physical evidence as possible was destroyed is supported by evidence:

a) Fire Engineering Magazine protested its destruction
b) Dr. Astaneh Asl complained of its destruction to the House Science Committee and to the NYT
c) NIST has no core steel samples to support its claims that the fires weakened the steel.

 
At 08 April, 2011 15:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the conclusion that as much physical evidence as possible was destroyed is supported by evidence:

a) Fire Engineering Magazine protested its destruction
b) Dr. Astaneh Asl complained of its destruction to the House Science Committee and to the NYT
c) NIST has no core steel samples to support its claims that the fires weakened the steel.


Nobody cares.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home