Wednesday, July 13, 2011

And Now, A Word from the No-Planers



Yep, this guy has proven that if a computer flight simulator doesn't generate the same shadows as real photos of 9-11 Flight 175, the real photos must have been faked. There are no words.

Labels: ,

194 Comments:

At 13 July, 2011 12:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

I think it's time to start deleting ALL posts written by Brian "Captain Crackpot" Good and his sock puppet "Pat Cowardly."

Clearly, Captain Crackpot and his sock puppet, "Pat Cowardly," are trying desperately to hijack every thread you post.

The compulsive lying and insane, vicious rhetoric has gone on long enough.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. Captain Crackpot (aka, "Pat Cowardly") is deliberately trashing your blog.

BAN!

 
At 13 July, 2011 12:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

In a computer simulation you can have the effect of shadows turned off. In the real world there's no possible way to turn off the shadows, unless your name's James Cameron or Steven Spielberg and happen to work in Hollywood making movies.

 
At 13 July, 2011 14:26, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Clearly, Captain Crackpot and his sock puppet, "Pat Cowardly," are trying desperately to hijack every thread you post.

Rather than putting the burden on James & Pat, could we try just limiting how much we respond to stupid shit? I'll stop having inane conversations if you do. Rebutting a half-baked argument for the record is one thing; trying to teach a retarded kid C++ is something else.

Respectfully submitted, etc.

 
At 13 July, 2011 14:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT (or anyone else who cares to see what a compulsive liar we're dealing with), follow this link to the bottom of the blog post. Notice that no matter how many times I prove that Captain Crackpot is a liar that he continues to insist that he said just the opposite of what the quotes I reference say.

This brand of compulsive lying is ridiculous, and it needs to stop.

ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.

 
At 13 July, 2011 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...Yep, this guy has proven that if a computer flight simulator doesn't generate the same shadows as real photos of 9-11 Flight 175, the real photos must have been faked. There are no words."

Yep! Has anyone ever met a troofer who wasn't an insane, compulsive liar? The average troofer is such a shameless liar that--as Pat points out--"there are no words."

The bald-faced lies are breathtaking. They have such contempt for the intelligence of their audience that no lie--no matter how obvious the deliberate deception--is beneath them.

BAN!

 
At 13 July, 2011 16:25, Blogger sabba said...

I agree with GuitarBill, the level of lies and wrong statements and then when confronted, his manipulation of the truth, is getting way to ridiculous. I am still waiting for his calls to Carol, To c-Span, To WR, to Wosley, flogger zarmanoff and the list keeps growing.....
erase most of the postings of this idiot.

 
At 13 July, 2011 16:32, Blogger paul w said...

Just ignore the guy

 
At 13 July, 2011 16:33, Blogger paul w said...

There are no words

How about, "shut the fuck up, you moron"?

 
At 13 July, 2011 16:34, Blogger Ian said...

Rather than putting the burden on James & Pat, could we try just limiting how much we respond to stupid shit?

I'm with RGT on this one. GuitarBill, you take him WAY too seriously. Arguing with him is a waste of time on par with trying to teach integral calculus to a guinea pig. That's why I don't do much more than taunt him and remind him that he's a nobody.

I mean, it's not like truthers are anything but a tiny crackpot fringe. I'd be more concerned with people who are creationists.

 
At 13 July, 2011 17:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Brian is mentally ill. It is obvious from his posts. He genuinely cannot decypher information honestly as witnessed by many of his links that prove the opposite of whatever he is trying to say.

I have noticed that Brian also goes dark from the net around 9:00pm on weeknights and earlier on weekends, this indicates that he has no home internet access. He's either posting from a library, or a group home.

I suspect that he doesn't have a job, and is on disability or receives assistance. Someone with his mental issues is unemployable.

Like Ian, I like to push his buttons to see where he will melt down. Willie Rodrigeuz is a weak point. Science is another one (his analogy to a freight train to explain why the Towers shouldn't have collapsed is a classic). When he does melt down it goes in phaes. He begins with name calling, questioning qualifications,criticizing spelling/grammar,and then usually calls people "girls" (which is also an indication of his age, as well as his mental problem as it relates to women). The next phase is often highlighted by his "higher purpose" rants (widows, justice, saving America). The final phase is awsome because Brian then quotes poetry, or famous activists.

Beyond that I can ignore him

 
At 13 July, 2011 17:47, Blogger Ransom said...

"Peanutbrain911" reminds me of "Spooked911." Remember him, the guy who modeled the Twin Towers out of chicken wire and concrete pavers to "prove" that fire couldn't have caused the buildings to collapse?

He's a no-planer too. Way back then, he tried to "prove" that videos of Flight 175 were faked because he was unable to accurately reproduce them in MS Flight Simulator.

Someone ought to tell these simpletons that the virtual pinhole camera in a piece of computer software is nothing like an actual camera manufactured by Sony or JVC, with actual lenses and adjustable zoom, aperture, focus, and so forth.

 
At 13 July, 2011 17:48, Blogger Ian said...

Willie Rodrigeuz is a weak point.

I'm still trying to figure out if Brian has a homosexual infatuation with Rodriguez, or if he's angry at Rodriguez for being friendly with Carol Brouillet because he considers Brouillet his rightful property. Either way, he's a lunatic.

 
At 13 July, 2011 18:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 July, 2011 21:23, Blogger Steve said...

Thank you, I watched that video. Can I have that time back, please? I feel more stupider now.

There was a caller on Coast to Coast last night who went on about some Tesla device in the towers. He also brought up some '80s documentary that supposedly discussed how the right wind could have brought the towers down, and that the towers fell in the exact way the documentary said they would. You guys heard that one before?

 
At 14 July, 2011 02:15, Blogger Pat said...

Steve, no, that's a new one.

GB, how many times do I have to say it? I cannot ban anyone; Blogger comments does not have that feature, unlike Haloscan. The next serious level of restriction is to only allow members of the blog to comment, which means James and I.

I can delete comments, but what's the point? As others have said just ignore the OT comments of Cosmos and Brian.

 
At 14 July, 2011 06:25, Blogger Arcterus said...

I mean, it's not like Brian ever says anything new. It's the same schpeal over and over again. I would say just ignore him unless he brings up a new point, even if it's completely stupid (as it almost certainly would be), just for the sake of being something new to debunk.

 
At 14 July, 2011 07:29, Blogger sabba said...

I agree with Ian, WAQ, Rgt and others. At least , let's delete his ramblings just for fun. We have seen his dumb-span over and over. We have seen his repetitious posts over and over as well. His obsessions are well established. What else can we do? We got William Rodriguez to challenge him and be hosted by us, a first for Screwloosechange. He ran away with a million of excuses. I offered to debate him. He ran away also.
He made claims about C-Span, I called C-Span and got an answer he did not agree with and then he failed to call them to prove me wrong. He made claims about Glenn Zarmannoff in NJ. I called GZ and his answer were completely different to Brian's opinion. He failed to call him also. He made claims of Carol Brouillett but failed to call her also.
He made claims about the widows but they do not know him at all and will not care about his theories. He has been kicked out from every major 9/11 group but calls himself "the janitor taking out the garbage", is obvious the garbage was him and they did the right thing "cleaning" themselves out of Brian Good's idiocy and his stupid baggage.

He tries to be an internet macho, but in real life he is scary cat unwilling to defend his convictions.
His posting here is a good read: snug.bug has left a new comment on the post "How Do I Critique a Book Based on the Title?":

Carol is very confused about two things.

#1, she believes that I called her husband and said things that I never said. Maybe somebody did (somebody like you, for instance), but it wasn't me.

#2, she believes that my disgust with the liar and bigot Kevin Barrett and with the swindling con artist William Rodriguez were based on jealousy. Why she thinks I should be jealous of a couple of fat, saggy, manboobs-on-legs who go around lying for a living I can't understand.

She gives Willie the benefit of the doubt because she thinks he's a hero, and she gives Kevin the benefit of the doubt because she thinks he's smart, and she's wrong on both counts.

 
At 14 July, 2011 07:34, Blogger J Rebori said...

He is incapable of admitting even the most minor error, and later tries to claim he won the debate despite the facts.

I've reached the point of presenting his errors, supplying whatever is needed to prove my point, and then simply telling him, "The evidence is right there, let the interested readers decide which of us is telling the truth." Engaging him much past that point has no practical value and only slight entertainment value for me.

Saves me money on Tums.

 
At 14 July, 2011 08:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, please advise: when did C-Span do a 9/11 Truth program after Willie's brag-fest in 8/07? They did several 9/11 programs before that. If they did one after, I sure don't know about it.

Willie's supporters and sock-puppets frequently dodge questions by using the magical distraction technique you're using now. They won't answer, but instead shift the issue to "why won't you call C-Span?" or "Why won't you come to Debateapalooza?"

All you need to do is identify any C-Span 9/11 program that came after Willie.

I claimed the widows have 271 unanswered questions. Whether I know them or not is immaterial. Not one of them has ever told me that Willie was a good guy. Certainly none of them ever backed up his claims that he saved hundreds of lives and raised $122 million in donations.

If the swindling con artist Willie Rodriguez ever dares to come to the Bay Area he will find out how much of a fraidy cat I am, just as Barrett did when he came to town last year. Willie hasn't dared to set foot here in four years.

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:29, Blogger roo said...

I think MGF's analysis of Brian is dead on. His latest post is right around the opening of most CA libraries.

I will no longer engage him and hope he gets help. I hope others ignore him as well...although I hope it doesn't cause him to think he's dead and invisible a la Cartman in South Park.

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

hAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:40, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:41, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:41, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 09:41, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

I can delete comments, but what's the point?

 
At 14 July, 2011 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 July, 2011 11:06, Blogger sabba said...

If the swindling con artist Willie Rodriguez ever dares to come to the Bay Area he will find out how much of a fraidy cat I am, just as Barrett did when he came to town last year. Willie hasn't dared to set foot here in four years.

Proves my point again. The Fraidy Cat was afraid to face Willie in the Bay Area when he offered to debate him in his own ground. Now he wants to look like a real "macho", we all know what he is made off by now.
If he is so much of a man of his word, why doesn't he faces willie in HIS own ground??!! Go to NYC Brian and put up , we know Rodriguez will be there and the media coverage will be a great angle for you to exploit. ( it will never happen! BET ON IT!).

 
At 14 July, 2011 12:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I claimed the widows have 271 unanswered questions.

There is a link online some where that their questions have been answered. If anyone can find it please post it here so Brian can finally STFU about the widows. He's being very disrespectful by using the widows as his own personal human shield, fuckin' coward.

 
At 14 July, 2011 12:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, for some anonymous internet liar to claim that the widows' questions are unintelligent or unworthy of response is not an answer. They want answers from an official, authoritative investigation and they didn't get them. I'm not hiding behind anyone.

Sabba, the debate offer from Willie was a phony one set up to fail. He has put no effort at all into arranging an acceptable neutral venue such as visibility911 or 911blogger.

Truly there is nothing to debate. He has admitted that the 15 people he "single-handedly rescued" were just his co-workers in the ABM office. He showed them to the street when they already knew their way to the street. Death statistics show that his tale that his Key of Hope saved hundreds is a lie. And now I've shown that Willie stole his hero tale from Pablo Ortiz, who actually did open doors and saved dozens of lives before he died.

There is no defense to these facts. There's nothing to debate.

 
At 14 July, 2011 13:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"...And the core columns (often referred to as the "Spire") remained standing for only a few seconds, then toppled over. Depending on which way they toppled they could easily have hit either building or even both; the Spire was at least 50-60 stories high." -Pat Obesity, 'explaining' how the spire could hit 2 buildings, despite not being observed to hit any on its way down.

Remember when you said this bullshit, Pat? did you EVER plan to substantiate it, or are you content to just make shit up? What a fat ignorant bitch you are. Does anyone else want to try and defend this stupid-ass nonsense?

 
At 14 July, 2011 13:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's the proof that Captain Crackpot is "punxsutawneybarney":

William Rodriguez: the Wrong Man.

And notice the specious "logic" we've all come to expect from Captain Crackpot.

"...There were 179 floors below the impact zone in the towers. 15,000 office workers were on those floors. Willie opened doors on 39 floors. So how many people died because Willie never opened their doors? NONE." -- "punxsutawneybarney" (aka, Captain Crackpot)

Which proves absolutely nothing. After all, given the number of people trying to escape from the tower, opening more doors would allow more people to escape in less time and relieve crowding in the exits that were open and nearing capacity. So yes, opening the doors DID save lives.

William Rodriguez is a hero. And Captain Crackpot is a petty, jealous little man, who would gladly throw another member of his "truth movement" under the bus in a futile attempt to call attention to himself--attention that he desperately craves.

Pathetic.

 
At 14 July, 2011 13:52, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

WAQo, for some anonymous internet liar to claim that the widows' questions are unintelligent or unworthy of response is not an answer. They want answers from an official, authoritative investigation and they didn't get them. I'm not hiding behind anyone.

You cite the questions of "the widows" every time you're cornered, Brian. Several multi-million dollar investigations, lasting months to years, were conducted. Demanding some sort of new investigation because an overwhelming minority aren't satisfied with the conclusions of the ones conducted--and you can find a few people kvetching about any major investigation--is self-centered, no matter who those people are.

 
At 14 July, 2011 14:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you seem determined to demonstrate your irrationality and ignorance and your propensity to invent "facts".

Fire doors are not locked from the inside, only from the outside. None of the evacuees needed Willie to open doors. They could open them themselves. Willie can't even credibly argue that he saved some of the firemen time by opening doors so they could check the floors. They could probably break them open with their Halligans as fact as he could open them with his key.

The fact that Willie has his allegedly life-saving key today proves it was useless. If it was needed to save lives, PAPD would have taken it away from him when they sent him downstairs.

Willie's story makes no sense, and the reason it makes no sense is because he had to change some things when he stole it.

I'm not throwing any members of the "truth movement" under the bus.
I'm exposing a con artist who has done enormous damage to the credibility of the truth movement, cost us a good relationship with C-Span, and has caused truthers all over the world to unwittingly alienate journalists, lawyers, judges, firefighters, police, and architects when they tried to interest them in his obviously bogus story.

It's really amusing the way Willie makes you guys demonstrate your reactionary nature. If I weren't here, you'd be making fun of Willie and anybody who's dumb enough to fall for his bullshit. The JREFers have been wise to him all along, noting "Willie's story just keeps getting better and better!" But you guys aren't smart enough to see an obvious con, and since I despise him then you figure he must be a good guy.

He's a swindler. I'm not afraid to say so because I've proved it and he knows what he is.

 
At 14 July, 2011 14:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, the 9/11 Commission was created over the objections of the Bush Administration after the widows successfully lobbied for it. One of their champions in this effort was Senator John McCain. They submitted 300 questions to the Commission and were told that these would serve as a roadmap for the investigation. When the 9/11 Commission report was issued, they found that 27 questions had been answered, 73 had received evasive or incomplete responses, and 200 had been ignored. That is not acceptable.

 
At 14 July, 2011 14:18, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

No, the commission was created over the protests of Bush himself, not the administration. "The widows" had little to do with its formation, if anything.

So, you're going to try out your "iron primer paint" and "aluminum glitter" thermite recipe soon? Make a video, put it up on YouTube? Because that would win you a Nobel if it worked, I think.

 
At 14 July, 2011 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Fire doors are not locked from the inside, only from the outside. None of the evacuees needed Willie to open doors."

Squeal squeal squeal.

Who said anything about "fire doors", Mr. Straw man Argument?

The towers had many doors that only building maintenance and construction personnel had access to, and by opening those doors HE PROVIDED ALTERNATE ESCAPE ROUTES FOR EVERYONE WHO REMAINED IN THE TOWERS.

William Rodriguez is a hero. And he almost lost his life in the process of saving those who were still trapped in the towers. William Rodriguez didn't run for his life, he stayed behind and risked his life so that others might survive. William Rodriguez has more guts in the quick of his index fingernails than you have in your entire body.

 
At 14 July, 2011 14:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot whines, "...If I weren't here, you'd be making fun of Willie and anybody who's dumb enough to fall for his bullshit."

When have I ever made fun of William Rodriguez? Allow me to give you a conservative estimate: Never.

 
At 14 July, 2011 14:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, for some anonymous internet liar to claim that the widows' questions are unintelligent or unworthy of response is not an answer. They want answers from an official, authoritative investigation and they didn't get them. I'm not hiding behind anyone.

Well then thank God my name isn't Brian Good who hides behind the 9/11 Widows like they owe me something. Their questions have been answered for many years. You're a day late and a dollar short Brian.

 
At 14 July, 2011 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jonn, I don't have facilities for incendiary experiments. Jonathan Cole does, though, and he's shown that thermate can make both vertical and horizontal cuts on vertical surfaces.

UtterFail, Willie's story is that he was opening fire doors. He doesn't say anything about alternate escape routes. You invent your facts.

Whatever Willie may have been on 9/11, he threw it all away when he settled for life as a swindler who stole his glory--and his story--from the dead.

I didn't say you made fun of him. I said you're not smart enough to see he's an obvious con.

WAQo, the 9/11 widows only got 27 answers to their 300 questions. Like UtterFool, you make up your facts.

 
At 14 July, 2011 15:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Willie's story is that he was opening fire doors. He doesn't say anything about alternate escape routes. You invent your facts."

Squeal squeal squeal.

CNN anchor Aaron Brown recounts what really happened on that fateful day.

"...And I came back running into the building. And the only person that I found there was Officer David Lim. And the first thing that he told me was, Willie (ph), do you have the key. Meaning if I had the master key to the building, which I have and I still have. It's over here. This is the key that opened all the doors on the staircase. It's called a T2 (ph) key. And he said let's go...We got to remember that the World Trade Center was a Class A building which had three doors that did not open and one that did open. And we have to go floor by floor and opening all the doors." -- Aaron Brown, CNN Anchor, Interview With David Lim, Aired September 11, 2002 - 12:58 ET

So, who invents facts, Captain Crackpot? And whose story is uncorroborated? I guess Davd Lim and Arron Brown are chopped liver. Right, Captain Crackpot?

FAIL.

 
At 14 July, 2011 15:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, not only do you not know the reactants from the products, you don't know Aaron Brown from Willie Rodriguez.

Do you eat poop, and shit Mcnuggets?

 
At 14 July, 2011 15:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, I've forgotten more about chemistry than you'll ever know--and your continued non-responses to my questions and the facts I provide proves that you're not only an idiot, you're a liar who ignores all evidence that proves you're wrong.

And yes, I know the difference between Aaron Brown and Willie Rodriguez. FACT: Aaron Brown and David Lim corroborate Willie's story. So your claim that his story is uncorroborated is just so much bullshit. And your claim that the doors were accessible to the occupants is also false, as Brown and Lim's testimony proves beyond a doubt.

You make up your "facts."

Have you always been a used toilet water connoisseur?

 
At 14 July, 2011 15:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, asshole.

"...And the first thing that he told me was, Willie (ph), do you have the key." -- -- Aaron Brown, CNN Anchor, Interview With David Lim, Aired September 11, 2002 - 12:58 ET

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:08, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, for some anonymous internet liar to claim that the widows' questions are unintelligent or unworthy of response is not an answer. They want answers from an official, authoritative investigation and they didn't get them. I'm not hiding behind anyone.

The widows have no questions, Brian.

Jonn, the 9/11 Commission was created over the objections of the Bush Administration after the widows successfully lobbied for it. One of their champions in this effort was Senator John McCain. They submitted 300 questions to the Commission and were told that these would serve as a roadmap for the investigation. When the 9/11 Commission report was issued, they found that 27 questions had been answered, 73 had received evasive or incomplete responses, and 200 had been ignored. That is not acceptable.

False.

WAQo, the 9/11 widows only got 27 answers to their 300 questions. Like UtterFool, you make up your facts.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the only way you could forget what an elemental analysis is if you never knew in the first place.

Aaron Brown CAN'T corroborate Willie's story. Aaron Brown wasn't there. You don't know the difference between reporting a story and corroborating it. You also don't know the difference between Willie's claim that Mr. Lim said something and Lim saying something.

It's no wonder that you're so confused about 9/11. Are you 8 years old?

Willie's story is totally uncorroborated. There is not one person in the world who says Willie went up the stairs opening doors and letting people out. Not one.

I wouldn't call myself a connoisseur. I just get Chanel #5 when an occasion suggests it.

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:10, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway Brian, now that we've completely pwn3d you on your invisible widows and their imaginary questions, let's get down to a real unanswered question:

when you came up with your "meatball on a fork" model, were you high on model airplane glue or rubber cement?

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:22, Blogger Ian said...

He also brought up some '80s documentary that supposedly discussed how the right wind could have brought the towers down, and that the towers fell in the exact way the documentary said they would. You guys heard that one before?

He's probably mixing it up with the Citigroup Center in midtown Manhattan which indeed had a design flaw (since corrected) that could have led to it toppling in high winds. You can read more about it at the wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citigroup_Center

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:23, Blogger Ian said...

Furthermore, does anyone recall any severe wind on 9/11? No, it was one of those perfect days: warm, clear, no humidity (kind of like today in New York, actually).

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, asshole. Officer Lim asked Willie for the key, as I pointed out above. And Aaron Brown acknowledged Willie's heroics when he asked--and I quote:

"..Mr. Rodriguez (ph), did you ever think to yourself, what the heck am I doing running up these stairs when anyone in their right mind would be running down?" -- CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL, Interview With David Lim

Notice that Officer Lim doesn't protest Brown's acknowledgment of Willie's heroics.

Is it any wonder that you consume used toilet water?

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Willie's story is totally uncorroborated. There is not one person in the world who says Willie went up the stairs opening doors and letting people out."

False.

Who's Officer Lim? Chopped liver?

You really need to lay off the used toilet water, goat fucker. And you should consider wearing men's underwear, because it's obvious that the women's underwear you sport are cutting of the flow of blood to your LSD addled brain.

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brown to Officer Lim: "...On the subject of your friends, one of them is with you, a relatively new friend I know, William Rodriguez (ph). If Mr. Rodriguez (ph) is actually close enough, we've got a mike on him, just tell the story of how -- William, tell the story of how the two of you met.."

Willie replies, "...And we went up, he opened the door on the lobby. We went on the basement, number one. And there when we opened the door, the fire department was there waiting in front of the 50 car elevator, which was already gone, because the airplane, when he came through the building, broke all the cables and practically destroyed the elevator because the elevator went down seven flights of floors. And, he said to the -- to the firemen, follow me, we know the best way to go up and we have the access key. So we started going up the stairs and opening all the doors."

So tell us, goat fucker, why didn't Officer Lim protest Willie's story if, as you claim, he's a "liar?" After all, Officer Lim was standing next to Willie when he was interviewed by Aaron Brown.

You make up your "facts."

FAIL.

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you don't recognize the difference between Willie claiming that Lim asked for the key and Lim asking for the key? Are you 8 years old?

Aaron Brown asking Willie a question about his story is not corroborating his story. Are you 8 years old?

Lim not protesting is not corroborating Willie's story. Are you 8 years old?

When did David Lim say that Willie went up the stairs? Are you 8 years old?

Read Lim's account to the 9/11 Commission. He doesn't mention Willie even once. If even half of Willie's story were true, don't you think Lim would corroborate it?

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have shifted the goal posts. You said Lim corroborated Willie's story. He does not. I don't know why Lim didn't protest. I can invent reasons all day.

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And by the way, goat fucker, the quote contained in my post at 14 July, 2011 15:28 is a direct quote from Willie. Why didn't Officer Lim protest Willie's statement if, as you claim, he's a liar? After all, Officer Lim was standing next to Willie while Brown interviewed them.

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...When did David Lim say that Willie went up the stairs? Are you 8 years old?"

Squeal squeal squeal.

Lim was standing next to Willie while Brown interviewed them. Why didn't Lim say something like "that's not true, Willie"?

"...And I came back running into the building. And the only person that I found there was Officer David Lim. And the first thing that he told me was, Willie (ph), do you have the key. Meaning if I had the master key to the building, which I have and I still have. It's over here. This is the key that opened all the doors on the staircase. It's called a T2 (ph) key. And he said let's go...We got to remember that the World Trade Center was a Class A building which had three doors that did not open and one that did open. And we have to go floor by floor and opening all the doors." -- William Rodriguez

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/11/se.48.html

Thus, they both went up the stairs. And notice that Lim agrees with Willie. Otherwise he would have something like, "...that's not true, Willie."

You make up your "facts." And you have the unmitigated gall to call a hero a "swindler." You're lower than a snake's belly, and nuttier than a sack of squirrel shit.

 
At 14 July, 2011 16:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Hurry, goat fucker, delete your comment and get your lies straight.

Pathetic.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have shifted the goal posts. You said Lim corroborated Willie's story. He does not. I don't know why Lim didn't protest. I can invent reasons all day.

I can just invert your argument and say "Why didn't Lim just say three little words: 'That's right, Willie'? Why does he stand there silent, looking uncomfortable?"

Failure to deny is not corroboration.

You seem unable to recognize that one can be a hero and a swindler both. Willie's self-serving claims of heroism, since they come from no one but himself, and since he lies and lies and lies and lies, are very doubtful.

But there is no question of the fact that he's a swindler. He lies for money. He's been doing it for years. And it's fools like you that permit him to get away with it.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:09, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good the Swine from Palo Alto says:I don't know why Lim didn't protest. I can invent reasons all day.
so a Decorated Hero and police officer on top of that is covering up the real story. Nice you shitting on the police officers also.
Maybe he made a deal with God that he will be nice to all of His creatures no matter what kind of scumbags they may be. I don't think he knows you personally to make that statement.

I don't know why Lim didn't protest. I can invent reasons all day. and that is exactly what you have been doing these last years...inventing reasons and trying to pass them as facts.

Officer Lim is now Lieutenant for the Port Authority Police, recognized for integrity and going beyond duty, after losing 37 fellow officers and Sirius, I do not think Lim or any other officer ANYWHERE will stand for bullshit or made up of facts that did not happen. In your case, it is expected already.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, I didn't shit on anybody. Mr. Lim did not mention Willie once in his statement to the 9/11 Commission. Why is that?

The facts remain: Willie's claims of 15 rescues and hundred saved are lies, he stole his hero story from a dead man, he lies for money, and there's no reason to believe anything he says.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...You have shifted the goal posts. You said Lim corroborated Willie's story. He does not. I don't know why Lim didn't protest. I can invent reasons all day."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Squeal squeal squeal.

Lim was standing right next to Willie when he said--and I quote: "...And the only person that I found there was Officer David Lim. And the first thing that he told me was, Willie (ph), do you have the key...And he said let's go...We got to remember that the World Trade Center was a Class A building which had three doors that did not open and one that did open. And we have to go floor by floor and opening all the doors." -- William Rodriguez

Lim corroborates Willie's story, you're just too petty, dishonest and insane to admit the truth. Lim could have said at any moment, "...that's not true, Willie." But he didn't say a word in protest.

You're a liar, and a petty little crackpot with all the integrity of a street-walking crack whore. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:16, Blogger sabba said...

David Lim calls willie the true hero of the World Trade Center. He even tries it in Spanish: "Mi Amigo EL Heroe" ( my friend the Hero)
Here:
go to timeline 2:47

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Mr. Lim did not mention Willie once in his statement to the 9/11 Commission. Why is that?

Squeal squeal squeal.

The answer is obvious to anyone with an IQ above the temperature of warm spit--which always excludes you, goat fucker.

Did it ever occur to you that Officer Lim allowed Willie to speak for himself? The fact remains that Officer Lim was standing next to Willie during Brown's interview. He could have spoken up at any time if Willie was lying. Officer Lim, however, never protested one word of Willie's story.

You're a liar--and you're too petty, dishonest, thin-skinned and insane to admit the truth.

Willie is not a "swindler." You are, goat fucker.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, look at yourself, claiming that silence is corroboration. One could just as (un)convincingly argue that silence is denial.

Silence is silence. It's not corroboration.

Sabba, how do you know Mr. Lim isn't joking? Why didn't Mr. Lim mention Willie in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission?

GutterBall, Silence is not corroboration. Willie's story is corroborated by nobody. He's a swindler. He lies for money, and he steals his glory from the dead.

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:39, Blogger sabba said...

Sabba, how do you know Mr. Lim isn't joking?See the whole interview and the emotional reactions they both had. Telemundo National News Network, owned by NBC. The Reporter lied, the Officer Lied and joked about the incident and WR lied also. Is all a big lie...

 
At 14 July, 2011 17:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, ignore the video Sabba just provided where Officer Lim says of Willie--and I quote: "...I literally had to kick him out. This guy [Rodriguez] wanted to stay with me all the time...This is the true hero of 9/11."

Reunion between Rodriguez and PA Lim with subtitles.

You're a liar--and you're too petty, dishonest, thin-skinned and insane to admit the truth, goat fucker.

Willie is not a "swindler." You are, goat fucker.

 
At 14 July, 2011 23:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, I have proven that Willie's claims are all a big lie. He lied about the 15 single-handed rescues, he lied about the hundreds saved, he lied about the $122 million, and he stole the story of a true hero who died on 9/11, Pablo Ortiz, and he tried to pretend it was his own.

UtterFail, I have proven that Willie's story is a lie. He's a swindler. I don't know how Willie got Mr. Lim to say what he did. It was an emotional time, and perhaps Mr. Lim was excessively generous. How come his testimony to the 9/11 Commission did not mention Willie Rodriguez's name even once?

There is no question, none, that William Rodriguez is a swindler and a fraud. At one time I gave him the benefit of the doubt, thinking that he might simply be unhinged. No more.

He stole the story of a true hero who died on 9/11, and tried to pretend it was his own.

 
At 15 July, 2011 01:54, Blogger Pat said...

Assertions aren't evidence, Brian. Why don't you post your proof of these claims so we can judge them?

 
At 15 July, 2011 08:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

I already did, but it got buried under lie-spam.

 
At 15 July, 2011 08:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So this idiot used the levels in Photoshop to change a appearance of shadows in a photo, as if that can replicate the actual reaction of shadows under defused light.

This sort of stuff can be sold to the idiot class that makes up the truthers. Anyone with more that two brain cells to rub together can see the stupidity of this video.

 
At 15 July, 2011 08:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah, whereas a superior guy like you knows everything there is to know about defusing, refusing, confusing, and perfusing light.

 
At 15 July, 2011 09:21, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Assertions aren't evidence, Brian. Why don't you post your proof of these claims so we can judge them?"
-Pat Cuntly

How dare you ask for proof, when you've failed to provide sources for your stupid lies? That's rich, fat boy. Go read your comic books, pussy.

 
At 15 July, 2011 10:35, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian to an "Inferior" like you everyone is your superior.

In fact ALL truthers are inferior humans, that is why they by the scam.

 
At 15 July, 2011 11:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, a superior being like you would never by a scam.

So you were never fooled by Willie Rodriguez for a minute, were you.

 
At 15 July, 2011 12:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the 9/11 widows only got 27 answers to their 300 questions. Like UtterFool, you make up your facts.

Squeal all you like Brian, the truth is their questions have been answered and you think they haven't, well you're wrong you stupid motherfucker.

 
At 15 July, 2011 12:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian bases his "widows have questions" off the Jeresy Girls, particularly these women:

Mindy Kleinberg, Kristen Breitweiser, Patty Casazza and Lori Van Auken

4 women who are the only ones that questioned everything and had all their questions answered a FULL 2 YEARS AFTER THE ATTACKS IN 2003.

 
At 15 July, 2011 12:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's a link about the 4 9/11 Widows:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/911widows.html

 
At 15 July, 2011 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

So where were the questions answered?

 
At 15 July, 2011 15:06, Blogger sabba said...

Hurry Brian, your latin Lover Rodriguez is going Live on CNN en Español in 5 minutes. He is going to talk about Murdoch. Not bad for somebody who is never going to be on the news according to you....

 
At 15 July, 2011 15:10, Blogger sabba said...

here you can see it live!
CNN Spanish Site


Hurry Brian! Hurry!

 
At 15 July, 2011 15:11, Blogger sabba said...

Here is the other official link: http://www.cnn.com/espanol/

 
At 15 July, 2011 15:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well one thing Willie certainly has expertise in is scumbags, since he is one.

 
At 15 July, 2011 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, goat fucker.

William Rodriguez is a hero.

You, on the other hand, are a scumbag. And so far, you've proven absolutely nothing--with the exception of your boundless dishonesty.

 
At 15 July, 2011 16:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain crackpot squeals, "...I don't know how Willie got Mr. Lim to say what he did."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yeah, right. The evil Willie made David Lim lie.

Beyond parody.

 
At 15 July, 2011 17:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 July, 2011 17:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, how come Mr. Lim's testimony to the 9/11 Commission does not mention "The true hero of the World Trade Center" even once?

Willie Fraudriguez stole his story from a true hero of 9/11, Pablo Ortiz, and tried to make it his own.

You're really making a fool of yourself going to bat for Willie. Have you never read Gravy's work at 911stories?

 
At 15 July, 2011 17:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

How would he get Mr. Lim to lie? Maybe the same way he gets everyone to lie for him--by telling him something that wasn't true. Nobody could believe that anybody could be such a total bloody jackturd as to lie about 9/11, so when Willie said stuff, people believed him.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"UtterFail, how come Mr. Lim's testimony to the 9/11 Commission does not mention "The true hero of the World Trade Center" even once?"

The 9/11 Commission also failed to address the missing urinal cakes, and why the Muzak system continued to operate even though the elevators had failed. My guess: Nobody asked because nobody cared. Even if there was an investigation into these two matters it would not change the bottom line of 9/11. **Still, they need to get the Muzak people together with the Black-Box people for data storage indestructability**

"How would he get Mr. Lim to lie? Maybe the same way he gets everyone to lie for him--by telling him something that wasn't true. Nobody could believe that anybody could be such a total bloody jackturd as to lie about 9/11, so when Willie said stuff, people believed him."

Except that people have lied about being in the WTC on 9/11. They have all been exposed...except for Willie. Why's that Brian? Why does a decorated Port Authority Police officer - who was actually in the building with Willie on 9/11 - somehow get fooled?

Answer: He's not being fooled. Willie Rodriguez was there and got people out.

I think Carol thought Willie was cute and you're jealous.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...You're really making a fool of yourself going to bat for Willie. Have you never read Gravy's work at 911stories?"

Mark Roberts' complaints have nothing whatsoever to do with the claims you made on YouTube under your sock puppet handle "punxsutawneybarney," which I documented at 14 July, 2011 13:36.

William Rodriguez: the Wrong Man.

Roberts acknowledges that "William Rodriguez was a janitor in the World Trade Center’s north tower. He risked his life on 9/11 to help people who could not help themselves...When I met him at Ground Zero in September, 2006, I shook his hand and thanked him for his selfless concern for others that day. He was very sincere and personable."

Roberts' complaints against William Rodriguez have nothing to do with his proven heroics, which Roberts repeatedly acknowledges. Robert's complaints center around the claims Willie made after he joined the "9/11 truth movement." Roberts' admits that William Rodriguez saved dozens of lives. He complains that Willie embellished his story, but that doesn't make William Rodriguez any less of a hero.

Furthermore, Mark Roberts wasn't at Ground Zero on 11 September 2001. David Lim was. And David Lim has repeatedly acknowledged William Rodriguez's heroics.

Reunion between Rodriguez and PA Lim with subtitles.

And your suggestion that I believe everything Mark Roberts' has written is untrue and insulting. Unlike you, goat fucker, I can think for myself, and I no more need Mark Roberts to come to my own conclusions than I need a whack job of your ilk.

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're misrepresenting your "source." You're a liar, and you're too petty, dishonest, thin-skinned and insane to admit the truth, goat fucker.

FAIL.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:26, Blogger Ian said...

So where were the questions answered?

Everywhere. That's why they don't have questions anymore.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's what you wrote, goat fucker:

"...There were 179 floors below the impact zone in the towers. 15,000 office workers were on those floors. Willie opened doors on 39 floors. So how many people died because Willie never opened their doors? NONE." -- "punxsutawneybarney" (aka, Captain Crackpot)

Here's what Mark Roberts wrote:

"...William Rodriguez was a janitor in the World Trade Center’s north tower. He risked his life on 9/11 to help people who could not help themselves...When I met him at Ground Zero in September, 2006, I shook his hand and thanked him for his selfless concern for others that day. He was very sincere and personable."

Thus, your claims and Mark Roberts' complaints couldn't be more in opposition. You claim that William Rodriguez saved not one soul at Ground Zero. Roberts, on the other hand, clearly acknowledges Willie's heroics.

You're despicable--a liar and a fraud.

FAIL.

 
At 15 July, 2011 22:23, Blogger sabba said...

...and again, Rodriguez heroics is recognized by CNN as far as yesterday at 6:15PM- I Hope you were able to see it for yourself. Now about that statement from you...
"willie will never have any media coverage"
Again pawned.

 
At 16 July, 2011 09:21, Blogger John said...

Pat or James - Why don't you make one of the people calling for bans a blog administrator? That way, they can delete at will.

 
At 16 July, 2011 10:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So where were the questions answered?

SQUEAL SQUEAL SQUEAL SQUEAL

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you disguise your inability to answer the question by pretending you don't get the point. Mr. Lim had the opportunity to say whatever he wanted in his statement, regardless of whether the 9/11 Commission was interested.

But since you bring it up, the issue of evacuation was surely a part of the 9/11 Commission's charge to provide a "a full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks", and if the 9/11 Commission was not interested in Willie's claims that hundreds of people were huddled behind locked fire exits waiting for a guy on a Mission from God with a magical Key of Hope to set them free, it was because they found no evidence to support his self-serving and lying claims.

Willie's lies have been exposed. When did David Lim make his statement? The spring of 2002?

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, Google News has nothing on Willie and CNN. The only "William Rodriguez" there currently is involved in the Caylee Anthony trial.

GutterBall, I guess you never got to the "conclusions" page where Mr. Roberts says that Willie is "the kind of person who repeatedly misrepresents what he has said and done," that his story is "inconsistent, incoherent, often demonstrably false, and ever-changing," and that his "recent actions are the opposite of heroic. They are cowardly and unethical."

That comports with my experience with Mr. Rodriguez as well. He hides behind lies and sock puppets, and somehow incites fools like you to defend his obviously fraudulent tales.

Mr. Roberts's conciliatory attitude when he started his paper can be explained by the fact that he was approaching Willie with extreme diplomacy to try to convince him to quit the truth movement.

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows still have the questions. Here's what they wrote to Sen. Leahy:

"At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced. Many individuals were not sworn in, critical witnesses were either not called to testify or were permitted to dictate the parameters of their own questioning, pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up. Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together. The National Security Agency, an intelligence agency that is responsible for the collection and analysis of foreign communications and foreign intelligence, was barely investigated at all.
With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission’s final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation [and] .... some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions....
Their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, .... the investigation and its recommendations were incomplete.... The 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, [and] completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined."

http://visibility911.com/jongold/?cat=91

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:51, Blogger sabba said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:57, Blogger sabba said...

Damn! I love to quote you!
the widows said:"...Whistleblower testimony was suppressed or avoided all together."
it conflicts with your statement...
and if the 9/11 Commission was not interested in Willie's claims that hundreds of people were huddled behind locked... Are you calling the Widows liars now?
Sabba, Google News has nothing on Willie and CNN.
therefore he was never on CNN at the exact time I provided you here, live! Correct?
Just because you cannot find it or is not posted on google makes it invalid? correct? Remember your lies that WR was not in South Africa? and then we showed you could not google? that is why Carol will never fuck you, you brainless, spineless piece of shit.

 
At 16 July, 2011 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sabba, you saying it doesn't make it so. No I'm not calling the widows liars. They're not liars. Willie wasn't a whistleblower, he was a publicity-seeking mountebank.

 
At 16 July, 2011 17:37, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the widows still have the questions.

False.

No I'm not calling the widows liars. They're not liars.

No, you're the liar in claiming that they have questions.

 
At 17 July, 2011 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, they have questions. They wrote to Sen, Leahy:

"At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced.... pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up.... The 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation [and] .... some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions....
Their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored.... The 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, [and] completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined."

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:46, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, they have questions. They wrote to Sen, Leahy:

"At the 9/11 Commission hearings, little actual evidence was ever produced.... pertinent questions were omitted and there was little follow-up.... The 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation [and] .... some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions....
Their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored.... The 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks, [and] completing that investigation should also be included on your list of matters to be examined."


There are no questions here, Brian.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're an idiot. There are questions.

"Little actual evidence was ever produced" is a question, asking for evidence.

"Pertinent questions were omitted" is a question.

"Recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions" is a question.

"Their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored" is a question.

"The 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks" is a question.

"Completing that investigation should also be included on your list" is a question.

 
At 17 July, 2011 19:29, Blogger J Rebori said...

You have a seriously faulty definition of the word "question".

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Upon which one of those statements do you want to bring your semantic tweezers to bear, JR?

Is not the assertion that "Little actual evidence was ever produced" a question, asking "where is the evidence?"

If evidence-free investigations are OK with you. maybe that's because you didn't lose anybody on 9/11.

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:49, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good Says: maybe that's because you didn't lose anybody on 9/11.
Neither did you asshole.

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know?

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:56, Blogger Ian said...

"Little actual evidence was ever produced" is a question, asking for evidence.

No, that's a declarative sentence. Maybe you need to go back to 2nd grade to learn what the different types of sentences are?

"Pertinent questions were omitted" is a question.

Declarative sentence. No wonder you're a failed janitor. You don't even know basic grammar.

"Recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions" is a question.

"Their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored" is a question.

"The 9/11 Commission’s worst offense was not fully investigating the September 11th attacks" is a question.

"Completing that investigation should also be included on your list" is a question.


Thanks for proving my point, Brian. You listed nothing but declarative sentences. No questions, just like I said.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:58, Blogger Ian said...

Is not the assertion that "Little actual evidence was ever produced" a question, asking "where is the evidence?"

No, it's not. Thanks for proving my point, Brian.

If evidence-free investigations are OK with you. maybe that's because you didn't lose anybody on 9/11.

What evidence-free investigations are we talking about?

How do you know?

Brian, how could you lose anyone when you don't have a single friend or family member in the world who cares about you?

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

nwor

 
At 17 July, 2011 21:48, Blogger J Rebori said...

Is it you contention that "The sky is not aquamarine." is a question?

If you do not know the difference between a declarative statement asserting the belief of the speaker and an actual question I get a glimmer of why you understand so little of what you read.

 
At 17 July, 2011 21:52, Blogger J Rebori said...

"If evidence-free investigations are OK with you. maybe that's because you didn't lose anybody on 9/11."

I lost coworkers, I had two relatives who escaped the towers, and snother relative and I were caught up in some of those black clouds that barreled down Broadway.

I'm a NYer, born and bred. Those were my neighbors in those towers.

 
At 17 July, 2011 21:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, a declarative statement that "pertinent questions were omitted" would appear to be a declaration that questions remain unanswered.

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

If you lost co-workers, then shame on you all the more that you lawyer in defense of dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable official reports.

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:34, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good- you lost nobody on 9/11.
Brian Good, you do not speak for the victims, widows, Firefighters ( majority of them will laugh at your theories, the others...just don't care), Lawyers ( majority will not care but will defend you on a case of harrassment just for some of your money..you have none, of course to hire a lawyer).
Brian Good you damaged Richard Gage's organization with your obsession with other activists and could not fathom the idea of Richard Gage saying good things about them.
Brian Good, you ran away from a face to face debate on your own turf.
Brian Good, you ran away from facing me as well.
Brian Good, you are a recognized Stalker.
Brian Good, Janice should have aborted you.
Brian Good, you never called Carol to setup a radio debate.
Brian Good, you called CArol to harrass her and also called her husband to tell him lies about Carol.
Brian Good, you were kicked out from every major truther website and also you were banned from SF911Truth.
Brian Good, your daddy sucks at piano.

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Sabba, where do you get all this bullshit, and what makes you think anybody should care even if it were half-way true (which it's not)?

Has anyone ever seen Willie with his alleged wife and alleged child, or is all that just more lies?

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:50, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, a declarative statement that "pertinent questions were omitted" would appear to be a declaration that questions remain unanswered."

Without any questions mentioned, it is a statement about the belief of the speaker. It is not a question, as you yourself just admitted.

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:57, Blogger J Rebori said...

"If you lost co-workers, then shame on you all the more that you lawyer in defense of dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable official reports."

I will not desecrate the memory of friends by supporting your foolish, unscientific, illogical, unsubstantiated trash. They were men of logic and reason. They would, justifiably, haunt me the rest of my days should I allow you and your kind to hijack their deaths for your own obscene personal pleasure.

Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

The belief of the signatories that questions have not been answered, seems to represent a statement that questions are outstanding.

And you didn't address the issue that you seen very anxious to engage in lawyering in defense of dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable official reports.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:27, Blogger J Rebori said...

"The belief of the signatories that questions have not been answered, seems to represent a statement that questions are outstanding."

That does not magically transform the statement into a question. It remains a statement about the belief of the speaker, no more. Perhaps simple grade school English is just too fucking hard for you?

"And you didn't address the issue that you seen very anxious to engage in lawyering in defense of dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable official reports."

I did, but since you seem incapable of understanding rudimentary English communication, let me put in Brooklynese for you.

I'm not lawyering to defend any report. I'm standing out here making sure that fucking shit for brains like you get their skinny asses handed back to them when they try to get their cocksucking jollies by shitting on my friends’ memories.

You are fucking scum. You have no fucking case; you seek only to make your worthless assburning life more bearable. You are utterly and irredeemably beneath contempt.

Is that fucking clear enough, you piece of shit imbecile?

Come back when you can read a simple document and grasp its contents. Until you can tell a fucking question from a statement, or extract the difference between impeachment and conviction when it’s clearly pointed out to you, or maybe figure out that the simple fact debris was visibly falling below the line of collapse as the towers came down proves they did not come down under even close to GA, until you can grasp your whole misbegotten circus of a movement is a conspiracy of whore spawn idiots don’t bother trying to sell anyone anything.

Make what you want of it; those comments of yours trashed any interest I had in being civil to your cocksucking, mouth breathing, chickenshit coward ass.

In case you want to try to accuse me of ad hominem attacks, let me state for the record that that is exactly what I did. But only in response to your own personal attacks. If that offends you, too fucking bad.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

So once again JR prefers to litigate the minutiae of semantics in order to try to frustrate the wishes of the 9/11 widows for answers.

Obviously "debris was visibly falling below the line of collapse as the towers came down", but NIST said the building came down "essentially in free fall". That's why we can't believe NIST until they provide us with a believable explanation of how long the buildings took to collapse and why they fell so fast.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:35, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good Aka: Dick-breath says:
So once again JR prefers to litigate the minutiae of semantics in order to try to frustrate the wishes of the 9/11 widows for answers.
You are the Fucking moron who claimed they were questions. Asshole!

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

There are questions. The widows had 300 questions. They got 27 answers.

 
At 18 July, 2011 09:27, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"You are fucking scum. You have no fucking case; you seek only to make your worthless assburning life more bearable. You are utterly and irredeemably beneath contempt." J Reboring.

Funny, that sounds exactly like Pat's explanation for the gravitational acceleration during WTC7's 'collapse'. Funny that's all you people can resort to these days.

 
At 18 July, 2011 09:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

There are questions. The widows had 300 questions. They got 27 answers.

Lies and more lies from a liar!

 
At 18 July, 2011 09:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the 300 questions and the widows' ratings of the responses are at the justicefor911.org website. See Appendix 4. Only 27 of the questions were satisfactorily answered.

 
At 18 July, 2011 10:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the 300 questions and the widows' ratings of the responses are at the justicefor911.org website. See Appendix 4. Only 27 of the questions were satisfactorily answered.

Did you ever stop to think that the 27 questions answered were of relevance to 9/11? No you don't because the 273 questions were irrelvent.

Why don't you do yourself a favor Brian, leave the widows alone you God damn pervert.

 
At 18 July, 2011 10:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The only reason why Brian comes up about the 9/11 Widows is because he hates them. That should be the only explaination why he brings them up all the time.

 
At 18 July, 2011 10:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/10/11-september-widows-move-on-as-tenth-anniversary-nears

9/11 Widow Kristen Breitweiser:

She has developed a fascination with the Middle East and the Muslim world and recently took her child on a trip to Morocco. A trip to Turkey is planned this year and she wants to go to Egypt next year to witness the aftermath of the country's recent revolution. "There is nothing more inspiring than seeing a group of people rise up together against the powers that be when those powers are in the wrong," she said. "It was also non-violent, and after losing my husband in the way I did, by Middle Eastern terrorists, it was amazing to see change happening without violence."

She admits that it was terrorists. So Brain, any more lies you want to make about the Jersey Girls?

 
At 18 July, 2011 10:44, Blogger sabba said...

Amazing finding WAQ!!!!!
Thanks!!!

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I don't think you've even read the 300 quwstions. Here's the fourth one, to Bush: On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?

How is that irrelevant to 9/11?

When did I lie about the Jersey Widows?

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I don't think you've even read the 300 quwstions

27 of the 300 I read, and those 27 were of relevence to 9/11. The 273 other questions were irrelevent, kind of like your life is, irrelevent!

On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence

He was on Air Force 1 and still in command. He wasn't "absent", he was on the phone with everyone who contacted him while he was in the air.

How is that irrelevant to 9/11?

Because you ask stupid questions.

When did I lie about the Jersey Widows?

Every time you bring them up you coward. Stop quote-mining and lying about them you fucking ashole!

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:35, Blogger J Rebori said...

"So once again JR prefers to litigate the minutiae of semantics in order to try to frustrate the wishes of the 9/11 widows for answers.

Fuck you, cocksucker.

I made it very clear that I was proving that you know shit all about basic principles, from English grammer, to high school science, to fucking decency.

You are scum.

Your opinion of anything isn't worth crapping on till you learn the basics that normal people learn before they are 15.

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:39, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Funny, that sounds exactly like Pat's explanation for the gravitational acceleration during WTC7's 'collapse'. Funny that's all you people can resort to these days.

It seems that way because you and the rest of the fucking "truthers" can't read plain fucking english except to try cherry picking, cocksucker.

That fact is one I've proven over and over again on your alter ego shit for brains Brian. Hurting him so badly about it, he had to lose all shame and attack my dead friends memories.

You can thank him for the fact I've got no interest in a civil discussion with you asswipes anymore.

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:55, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"It seems that way because you and the rest of the fucking "truthers" can't read plain fucking english except to try cherry picking, cocksucker." -Gee, Youreboring

Funny, that sounds just like Pat when he's hiding like a coward from simply explaining how a building provided zero resistance to its "fire-induced collapse" for 8 whole floors. Even Shyam Sunder said that was impossible, and yet you and Pat don't seem to believe him. Why is that? Just explain it, and stop being such a fake tough guy. Or are you just another fat gossiping coward with nothing better to do, like Patty?

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"fire-induced collapse" for 8 whole floors.

Don't suppose you know how they got iron out of the iron ore in the Middle Ages, do you?

Was it:

A: Fire
B: Explosives
C: Magic Fairy Dust
D: None of the Above

 
At 18 July, 2011 13:17, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Or are you just another fat gossiping coward with nothing better to do, like Patty?"

No, turdbrain. I'm the guy who repeatedly shown that your alter ego Brian can't figur out how to read a fucking basic sentence.

Proved it over and over and over again. Is that why you are here all of a sudden? Have to try to change the subject of the discussion so Brian can slip away and hide?

Is it only Brian who can't read a clear plain simple English statement or are all "truthers" as fucking stupid?

 
At 18 July, 2011 14:22, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Is it only Brian who can't read a clear plain simple English statement or are all "truthers" as fucking stupid?" -Gee You're a Doofus

Typical Dumbunkass, avoid the question, add lame ad hominems, and quake in fear. Are you sure you're not Pat?

 
At 18 July, 2011 16:39, Blogger Ian said...

If you lost co-workers, then shame on you all the more that you lawyer in defense of dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable official reports.

Maybe he doesn't consider the reports dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable, because, unlike you, he understands what happened on 9/11.

 
At 18 July, 2011 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

The belief of the signatories that questions have not been answered, seems to represent a statement that questions are outstanding.

False.

And you didn't address the issue that you seen very anxious to engage in lawyering in defense of dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable official reports.

Brian, nobody cares what you think of the reports. You're a failed janitor and liar who ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from genuine 9/11 hero Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 18 July, 2011 16:43, Blogger Ian said...

So once again JR prefers to litigate the minutiae of semantics in order to try to frustrate the wishes of the 9/11 widows for answers.

The widows have no questions, Brian. We've been over this. The fact that you think they have questions goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.

Obviously "debris was visibly falling below the line of collapse as the towers came down", but NIST said the building came down "essentially in free fall".

False.

That's why we can't believe NIST until they provide us with a believable explanation of how long the buildings took to collapse and why they fell so fast.

So a failed janitor makes things up out of thin air, and the fact that the NIST report didn't investigate what he made up out of thin air makes it "dishonest".

I'm glad that's cleared up.

There are questions. The widows had 300 questions. They got 27 answers.

False.

 
At 18 July, 2011 16:46, Blogger Ian said...

"Is it only Brian who can't read a clear plain simple English statement or are all "truthers" as fucking stupid?" -Gee You're a Doofus

Typical Dumbunkass, avoid the question, add lame ad hominems, and quake in fear. Are you sure you're not Pat?


Quiet. We're making fun of Brian Good here. It's not our fault you're too boring for our attention. Maybe instead of posting here, you should try to get laid?

 
At 18 July, 2011 18:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Typical Dumbunkass, avoid the question, add lame ad hominems, and quake in fear. Are you sure you're not Pat?"

Starting to look like all the truthers are shitforbrains.

The question you wanted answered is what people with a brain call a "fucking lame ass dodge", you asked it to hide from the ass pain yoru alter ego was getting because he doesn't even know what a fucking sentence is.

I'm not going to be distracted from pointing out that you and he are too fucking incompetent to grasp basic grammar. If that is too painful for you to bear, I really don't give a shit. Like I said last night, your ass sukcing alter ego threw out an intent on my part to be civil or gentle in showing your total lack of even a god damn iota of mental ability.

But don't worry, I won't make a point of asking how come you came out to protect Brian. I guess he doesn't fight his own battles, or is he?

 
At 19 July, 2011 07:24, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Like I said last night, your ass sukcing alter ego threw out an intent on my part to be civil or gentle in showing your total lack of even a god damn iota of mental ability." -Broken Record

what a fool. why don't you just answer the question? Brian has nothing to do with this. What are you afraid of, re:Boring? 8 floors, no resistance. Pat said it was all supported by 1 column. He sleeps comfortably that way. What's the fabricated lie that you tell yourself?

 
At 19 July, 2011 07:57, Blogger J Rebori said...

"what a fool. why don't you just answer the question? Brian has nothing to do with this. What are you afraid of, re:Boring? 8 floors, no resistance. Pat said it was all supported by 1 column. He sleeps comfortably that way. What's the fabricated lie that you tell yourself?"

No fabricated lie, the obvious truth that truthers are the scum of the earth with no intelligence and no humanity, as Brian has proven in this thread.

Brian has nothing to do with this, except of course that you popped up and he disappeared as soon as I showed that not only is he a fucking moron, but that he no human dignity or respect. He doesn't try to defend himself, instead you show up with some claim I never made and that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, insisting I prove it. Why the sudden appearance and strong desire to change the topic?

Fuck you, you are letting your mask slip a little too far, Brian.

 
At 19 July, 2011 09:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Fuck you, you are letting your mask slip a little too far, Brian." J Dorking

Yawn. Another whining post. No concept of free-fall, no idea about collapse dynamics, nothing to offer.

You're a coward like Pat, who only mocks the victims with his gossip. You probably live in a filthy tract home just like he does.

 
At 19 July, 2011 09:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No concept of free-fall, no idea about collapse dynamics, nothing to offer.

Free fall is without air and structural resistence. So what you're basically saying is that all 3 WTC buildings had no structural resistence and that there was no air resistence affecting the falling columns and beams?

LOL! Good luck trying to prove that the WTCs' were in a vaccum.

Collapse dynamics: What goes up, must come down.

That's right, you've got nothing to offer because you're a failed human expierment that shouldn't have been born.

 
At 19 July, 2011 09:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, NIST has acknowledged both the freefall and the lack of structural resistance. In fact section 6.14.4 of NCSTAR 1 says "the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass" and says the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 1 seconds. That's essentially freefall.

NIST has also acknowledged that WTC7 fell at free fall in the first 100 feet. And Dr. Sunder has acknowledged that freefall times occur only when there is no structure below the falling body.

 
At 19 July, 2011 10:45, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Yawn. Another whining post. No concept of free-fall, no idea about collapse dynamics, nothing to offer.

You're a coward like Pat, who only mocks the victims with his gossip. You probably live in a filthy tract home just like he does."


And again the fucking moron can only support his position by cutting out my answer. Here it is again, cocksucker.

Your question has nothing to do with my discussion, I never made any comment about it and I don't have to answer it because you are only attempting to chenge the subject from the fact I've proven that a typical moron truther doesn't even know what a fucking question is.

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, NIST has acknowledged both the freefall and the lack of structural resistance.

There wasn't any "lack of structural resistence" in the NIST report, you just put that in to disinfo the real report.

"the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass" and says the towers came down "essentially in free fall".

That's because the first few lower floors couldn't hold up the emense weight above. Brian, you lack focus and thought.

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 1 seconds.

Dr. Sunder was referring to the OUTTER COLUMNS and not the entire building. Huge difference you lying pedophile.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Re-read it again you retarded fool:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels...

Still not convinced you lying sack of shit? Re-read it again:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels...

It's funny how the EXTERIOR PANELS (columns) are the "entire building".

Stop lying you fucking asshole!

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Hey Brian, here's another statement from NIST that shows that you're wrong about the buildings falling "9 and 11 seconds":

From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse. Neither the duration of the seismic records nor video evidence (due to obstruction of view caused by debris clouds) are reliable indicators of the total time it took for each building to collapse completely.

Re-read it shithead:

known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation

Still not conviced you jackass? Re-read it again:

known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation

Stop lying!

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you lie and lie and lie.

I didn't lie about anything. Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... And it essentially came down in free fall."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you lie and lie and lie.

Sorry, but my name isn't Dr. Sunder and you're calling him a liar.

I didn't lie about anything.

Then what do you call this?: "Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... And it essentially came down in free fall."

And to prove that it's you that's lying right here's the evidence to prove that Sunder wasn't taling about the entire buildings:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

Stop crying about your loss you fucking crybaby.

 
At 20 July, 2011 16:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... And it essentially came down in free fall."

The FAQs say something else. Your logic seems to be that if the FAQs say something else, than Dr. Sunder did not say what he said.

I hope you never sit on a criminal jury.

 
At 21 July, 2011 08:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA

NOVA isn't NIST and NOVA isn't a science lab, NIST is.

The FAQs say something else. Your logic seems to be that if the FAQs say something else, than Dr. Sunder did not say what he said.

The FAQs @ NIST are what Dr. Sunder came up with because he looked and studied the data. NOVA is just a media outlet. Your logic is so screwed up that I can see past you and look into your soul. BTW you have no soul!

I hope you never sit on a criminal jury.

Shut up Capt. Obvious and stop crying like a baby!

 
At 21 July, 2011 10:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say NOVA is NIST. Dr. Sunder is NIST. What Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA.

Where do you get the idea that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs? Does the fact that they say two different things give you a clue?

Study philosophy. Learn to think.

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I didn't say NOVA is NIST. Dr. Sunder is NIST. What Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA.

LOL I knew I'd catch you backpeddling like an idiot. Fucking predictable!

So what you're saying is that the NIST report, in which Dr. Sunder states that it was the EXTERIOR PANELS, is the only truth that the OUTTER COLUMNS fell from both Towers @ 9 and 11 seconds? Which means you've been lying the whole time about him??

Where do you get the idea that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs? Does the fact that they say two different things give you a clue?

Dr. Sunder is the head researcher at NIST, so yes he helped with the FAQs. It gives me a clue that you're fucking lying, isn't that obvious Captain Obvious.

Study philosophy. Learn to think.

Study history. Learn to STFU!

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, neither the NIST report nor Dr. Sunder state that the EXTERIOR PANELS, fell from both Towers @ 9 and 11 seconds.

Your inability to distinguish between the three statements (NIST section 6.14.4, the FAQ, and Dr. Sunder's NOVA interview) suggests that you've never actually read any of them and you're relying for your information on some lying debunking website.

How can you conclude that because Dr. Sunder is the head researcher at NIST, he helped with the FAQs? What is your evidence for this? A week after the FAQs were published he told NOVA something that was completely different from what the FAQ said. Doesn't that suggest that he did NOT work on the FAQs, and in fact didn't even read them?

Do your homework. Anybody can read NCSTAR 1 section 6.14.4 and the relevant FAQ and the relevant part of the NOVA transcripts in 20 minutes--so you should be able to do it in a couple of hours.

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, neither the NIST report nor Dr. Sunder state that the EXTERIOR PANELS, fell from both Towers @ 9 and 11 seconds.

Liar!

Here's the proof:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Your inability to....

Atleast I can read and not read between the lines like you do.

How can you conclude...

http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm

Dr. Sunder was appointed to the U.S. Senior Executive Service in 2005.

Do your homework.

Fuck you!

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Give it up Captain Obvious, you're losing every debate in almost every thread on here.

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you keep repeating the lie that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs. There's no evidence that he did. The fact that a week after they were published he made a statement totally contradicting them suggests that not only did he not write the FAQs, he didn't even read them.

Where do you get the misinformation that you keep repeating so aggressively?

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:05, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you keep repeating the lie that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs

Not a "lie," but the truth:

http://www.nist.gov/el/ssunder.cfm

Dr. Sunder was appointed to the U.S. Senior Executive Service in 2005

Where do you get the misinformation that you keep repeating so aggressively?

You got a link that says it's "misinformation" or are you going to slober all over your keyboard again because you don't have a clue where the link is to prove it? Admit it Brian, you lost to me and there's nothing on this planet that can help your feeble mind.

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since a week after the FAQs were published Dr. Sunder made a statement totally contradicting them, your belief that he wrote them is irrational.

The evidence is that he didn't even read them.

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Since a week after the FAQs were published Dr. Sunder made a statement totally contradicting them, your belief that he wrote them is irrational.

Then why don't you have a peer-reviewed paper disproving Dr. Sunder?

The evidence is that he didn't even read them.

Who, Dr. Sunder?

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds...."

If you don't believe it, where's your peer-reviewed paper disproving it? I don't have to prove anything. I just point out that the official reports are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable so we need new investigations that we can believe.

 
At 23 July, 2011 09:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder told NOVA...

Don't give a shit what he told NOVA, NOVA isn't NIST.

If you don't believe it, where's your peer-reviewed paper disproving it?

Hey retard, it's right here you blind bastard:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

I don't have to prove anything.

The only thing you've proven is that you're an idiot, a liar and cheapskate.

I just point out that the official reports are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable so we need new investigations that we can believe.

And you said that you don't have to prove anything, which makes what you're saying completely and utterly false. Ok, I read what yo're saying now.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody said NOVA is NIST. Sunder is NIST, and what Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA.

Your belief that a NIST FAQ sheet created by an anonymous bureaucrat represents a peer-reviewed paper that trumps the statements in the actual reports and the public statements by the lead investigator is a real hoot.

I can easily prove that the reports are incomplete. Dishonest and unbelievable are of course opinions but, given sufficient rope, I can hang them on those too.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Nobody said NOVA is NIST.

Nope, only you did!

Your belief that a NIST FAQ...

And you've got nothing but hearsay arguements to prove how silly you make yourself.

I can easily prove that the reports are incomplete.

You haven't proven anything to anyone so why stop now?

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said NOVA was NIST. You are simply playing dumb to sow confusion. Nobody can be so stupid that they can't spell "argument".

Sunder is NIST, and what Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA.

Your belief that a NIST FAQ sheet created by an anonymous bureaucrat represents a peer-reviewed paper that trumps the statements in the actual reports and the public statements by the lead investigator is a real hoot.

I can easily prove that the reports are incomplete. Dishonest and unbelievable are of course opinions but, given sufficient rope, I can hang them on those too.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I never said NOVA was NIST

Actually you did with this statement:

Nobody said NOVA is NIST. Sunder is NIST, and what Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA

The end where you say "NIST tells NOVA".

Sunder is NIST, and what Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA.

See, you did it again that he's refering to NOVA.

I can easily prove that the reports are incomplete.

Repeating the same thing over and over just proves that I've finally got you cornered.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you are making a fool of yourself.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you are making a fool of yourself.

Squealing because I got you cornered. The only fool is you Captian Obvious.

Learning without thought is labor lost; thought without learning is perilous. Confucius

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are simply making empty claims of victory to try to confuse grade-schoolers.

I never said NOVA was NIST. You are simply playing dumb to sow confusion. Nobody can be so stupid that they can't spell "argument".

Sunder is NIST, and what Sunder tells NOVA, NIST tells NOVA.

Your belief that a NIST FAQ sheet created by an anonymous bureaucrat represents a peer-reviewed paper that trumps the statements in the actual reports and the public statements by the lead investigator is a real hoot.

I can easily prove that the reports are incomplete. Dishonest and unbelievable are of course opinions but, given sufficient rope, I can hang them on those too.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You are simply making empty claims of victory to try to confuse grade-schoolers.

So you're saying that you failed in grade school because you don't understand anything?

LMAO @ Captain Obvious has had a mental meltdown. He's copying and pasting what he said. The stupid son of a bitch is cornered and can't get out of what he caused for himself. Pure comedy gold!

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

So instead of addressing the points you simply make empty claims of victory. Bushbot tactics.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:07, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So instead of addressing the points you simply make empty claims of victory. Bushbot tactics.

I never said anything about claiming victory, you're just implying that I said that and putting words in my mouth. See you do put words in other peoples mouths when tey never said such a thing. Thanks for proving that you do and that's being honest. LMAO @ "Bushbot" claim, what a fucking joke you are Captain Obvious.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your claim that I'm cornered is an empty claim of victory. You are trying to distract from the facts, first by claiming victory, and then creating a fight about whether you're claiming victory or not.

The facts are that Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds (freefall), and Dr. Astaneh told PBS he saw melted girders. You are trying to hide the truth.

 
At 25 July, 2011 12:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Your claim that I'm cornered is an empty claim of victory.

When and where did I said I claimed "victory" you asshole? HMMMM!

The facts are that Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds (freefall), and Dr. Astaneh told PBS he saw melted girders. You are trying to hide the truth.

Fuck you asshole! If anyone's hiding the truth it's you.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home