Monday, September 19, 2011

FBI Releases New Pentagon Photos

The FBI released more photographs from their 9/11 investigation at the Pentagon, including those plane parts the Truthers insist don't exist. This won't stop the demented from denying reality though. Paging David Ray Griffin.






























Labels:

89 Comments:

At 19 September, 2011 23:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

"The truthers" don't insist that those plane parts don't exist. A few lunatics of the Ranke/Marquis/Balsamo ilk insist that they don't exist. Where would you get the idea that clowns like those are truthers?

 
At 20 September, 2011 01:04, Blogger nes718 said...

Gee wilikers! That sure is a lot of plane there, ha!

In other news debunking the debunkers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02QrY-jcdk

 
At 20 September, 2011 01:26, Blogger paul w said...

including those plane parts the Truthers insist don't exist

Why does the FBI refuse to answer experts who say the 'parts' are not from the plane the 9-11 Commission hit the pentagon? Why are there no obvious burn marks or heat damage from a crash that supposed to have 'vapourised' the rest of the aircraft? Why is there no mico-shredding of the aluminium, as expected from such an impact? How come the 9-11 Commission never answer why the lack of mico-shredding ignores PHYSICS? Why has it taken TEN YEARS for the photos to be released?

Blah, blah, blah...

 
At 20 September, 2011 06:14, Blogger Foxxya said...

Hi, the blog undicisettembre.info do it again!

They found a french documentary with interviews of alqaeda's terrorist. They speak of:
1) KSM - Moussaoui
2) OBL 11 sept. plan preparation
3) hijack training
4) alqaeda camp
5) disinformation of ObL to sidetrack international agent
6) chemical weapon
7) Interview to Benotman for the terrorist meeting of ObL (i think years 2000)
8) unknow video of ObL unknow.

http://undicisettembre.blogspot.com/2011/09/l11-settembre-raccontato-da-al-qaeda.html

See you

 
At 20 September, 2011 06:35, Blogger Arcterus said...

FAKED!

 
At 20 September, 2011 06:44, Blogger Jon Gold said...

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showpost.php?p=97487&postcount=1

 
At 20 September, 2011 06:55, Blogger James B. said...

"Years From Now Dr. David Ray Griffin will be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Dr. Martin Luther King, and Ghandi(sic)."

-Jon Gold-

 
At 20 September, 2011 06:58, Blogger Jon Gold said...

See how honest you are James? :) I don't follow DRG anymore. Quote mine much? ;)

 
At 20 September, 2011 07:02, Blogger James B. said...

It is not quote mining. It is exactly what you said. He was just as dishonest then as he is now. What changed?

 
At 20 September, 2011 09:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Truthers would have gullible people without and education believe:

1: They planted the parts
2: Those are fake parts
3: They don't exist

But yet there's some remarkable photos showing us American Airline plane parts. But there's no pictures of Flt. 77 flying over nor pictures of missile debris. Something in Twooferville is terribly wrong.

 
At 20 September, 2011 10:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...'The truthers' don't insist that those plane parts don't exist."

Sniffing glue again, goat fucker?

I linked the following photo in a reply to John W. Wright (aka, LeftWright) of 911flogger, and he replied that the wreckage was faked. John Wright, moreover, is a close associate of Richard Gage. (And, by the way, John Wright banned your insane ass from 911flogger. Apparently Johnny-boy he has no use for an insane, lying closet homosexual sex stalker who wears women's underwear).

So much for your malarkey.

"...A few lunatics of the Ranke/Marquis/Balsamo ilk insist that they don't exist. Where would you get the idea that clowns like those are truthers?"

So how's tertiary syphilis treating you, goat fucker?

 
At 20 September, 2011 13:31, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Where would you get the idea that clowns like those are truthers?

Truthers have split into tribes and changed their labels, but they're still Truthers. The similarities between Craig Ranke and Jon Gold outweigh the differences.

 
At 20 September, 2011 13:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

The only similarity between John Gold and Craig Ranke is that you dislike both of them.

 
At 20 September, 2011 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again. The common thread that runs between John Gold, Craig Ranke and Brian "Fraudulent Fruit" Good is insanity.

 
At 20 September, 2011 13:57, Blogger Foxxya said...

three mystic 9/11 monkeys: dont want see, dont want hear, speak always of nothing.

dont confuse it with Mizaru, Kikazaru and Iwazaru

 
At 20 September, 2011 14:38, Blogger Billman said...

"The truthers" don't insist that those plane parts don't exist. A few lunatics of the Ranke/Marquis/Balsamo ilk insist that they don't exist. Where would you get the idea that clowns like those are truthers?

Hmmm.. about 17 minutes into this truther film would like to disagree with you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM

 
At 20 September, 2011 14:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

The truthers left behind that Loose Change S.E. kid stuff years ago.

 
At 20 September, 2011 15:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, the "truthers" abandoned lunacy for utter lunacy.

 
At 20 September, 2011 15:11, Blogger Billman said...

Ok, but when you ask "Where would you get the idea that clowns like those are truthers?" a truther film where they say that exact idea MIGHT have something to do with it... especially when judging by recent comments (i.e. within the week) on that same youtube link I provided, there are STILL several hundred people who STILL call themselves truthers who STILL believe that.

But I guess you'd actually have to look at the link, and the comments, and then (gasp) admit you might be wrong for once.

 
At 20 September, 2011 16:51, Blogger Ian said...

"The truthers" don't insist that those plane parts don't exist. A few lunatics of the Ranke/Marquis/Balsamo ilk insist that they don't exist. Where would you get the idea that clowns like those are truthers?

I like how someone who has been banned from the truth movement for being a liar and lunatic sex stalker is now pretending he can define what a "truther" is.

Brian, your beliefs about thermite are just as batshit as the beliefs Ranke has about AA 77.

At least Ranke doesn't endlessly babble about "widows" with "questions".

 
At 20 September, 2011 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Billman, for you to cite a five-year old movie that was supplanted by a later version as if it represented current truther thought is dishonest.

 
At 20 September, 2011 18:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Ah...troofer...they just can't help themselves...

John Gold, Brian Goode, all we need is Cosmo, and I win tonights BINGO game at debunker HQ...

 
At 20 September, 2011 18:54, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, for you to cite a five-year old movie that was supplanted by a later version as if it represented current truther thought is dishonest.

So... all of those current truthers expressing their thoughts in the comments of the five-year old movie, are dishonest also?

 
At 20 September, 2011 19:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Probably they are just poorly informed.

Citing that 5-year-old movie when it was supplanted by another version 4 years ago is kind of like citing the 2002 FEMA WTC7 report as "what debunkers think" when the NIST report replaced it in 2008.

Sure there are some truthers who are poorly enough informed to believe all that thrice-debunked crap, but then there's a lot of debunkers who still think that diesel fuel tanks fed the WTC7 fires.

 
At 20 September, 2011 19:57, Blogger Ian said...

Sure there are some truthers who are poorly enough informed to believe all that thrice-debunked crap

Yup. For example, there's one guy who posts here endlessly about thermite as if there's any reason to believe thermite destroyed the towers. He also talks about how the towers collapsed at free-fall speed, how the concrete was pulverized, how there was molten steel in the pile, etc. etc. All of these items have been debunked too.

But I try to go easy on him. He's an unemployed janitor and sex-stalking lunatic who was banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the pages of Chinese gymnasts.

 
At 20 September, 2011 20:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr, Sunder said the towers collapsed at freefall. The NIST report says they came down "essentially in free fall".

David Chandler has measured the rate of collapse and finds that it's 2/3 the rate of free fall. Since the towers were constructed with a safety factor of 3 to 5, this means (by Newton's 3rd Law) that 90% of the structural resistance had to be removed.

I have never vandalized any wiki pages about Chinese gymnasts. You make stuff up.

 
At 20 September, 2011 22:17, Blogger paul w said...

Ian, Dr, Sunder said the towers collapsed at freefall. The NIST report says they came down "essentially in free fall".


Well, that's if for me.

I think the answer is pretty simple; just stop talking to him

I like the stuff Pat and James show here, but the comments have become a waste of time.

 
At 21 September, 2011 00:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Just stop acknowledging reality:

Dr. Sunder said the towers collapsed at freefall. The NIST report says they came down "essentially in free fall".

 
At 21 September, 2011 00:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dr. Sunder said the towers collapsed at freefall. The NIST report says they came down "essentially in free fall".

If it's dishonest to hold the Loose Change guys to specific statements, isn't it also dishonest to hold Sunder and NIST and Barnett and Astaneh-Asl to specific statements?

 
At 21 September, 2011 01:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to grasp the meaning of the word essentially, goat fucker?

Given that you're a lying weasel, it's should come as no surprise that you'd overlook an obvious weasel word like essentially in service to your never-ending propaganda.

Once again--you lying weasel:

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed

 
At 21 September, 2011 03:09, Blogger Billman said...

I like the stuff Pat and James show here, but the comments have become a waste of time.

Yeah. Really, what is there left to say? Jon Gold will come in here, call people liars and storm off in a huff.. Cosmos will just flat out troll for his own Lulz.. and I guess Brian is kind of doing the same.

Rinse, repeat.

9/11 troof is dead anyway. I heard NOTHING from the troofers regarding the 10th anniversary.

Hell, even Dylan has given up on it.

Seriously, what is there left to even bother with?

 
At 21 September, 2011 09:06, Blogger Rob Breakenridge said...

Interesting (reality-based) new thoughts on tower collapses:

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/theory+Twin+Towers+collapse+study/5436052/story.html

 
At 21 September, 2011 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the Loose Change guys have corrected and amended their statements. Dr. Asteneh-Asl and Dr. Sunder never did. Therefore the statements stand.

Billman, the Architects and Engineers' recent video got 500,000 views in a month. That's not "dead".

 
At 21 September, 2011 12:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr, Sunder said the towers collapsed at freefall.

Sunder never said such a thing, he only talked about the Exterior Panels only.

You really want to prove that Sunder said about the buildings Brian? Show me a link where he says it, I don't want any Truther websites nor that stupid NOVA interview. Show me a link where he says that that buildings themselves fell in "free fall".

Bet you can't nor won't because I know you too well.

 
At 21 September, 2011 13:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Anybody who reads the transcript can see you're lying.

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

He says the measurements show that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 21 September, 2011 13:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, Pinocchio?

9/11 Debunked: World Trade Center - No Free-Fall Speed.

The only thing that's fallen at "free fall speed" is your IQ.

 
At 21 September, 2011 14:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And your alleged "credibility" isn't far behind.

 
At 21 September, 2011 14:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That is a fact.

 
At 21 September, 2011 14:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't care what Dr. Sunder allegedly said--you quote mining fool.

He was talking about the exterior panels, not the building itself.

Are you still trying to master a stopwatch--you lying cretin? I guess a stop watch is too high tech for a lying, sex stalking nut bar who wears women's underwear.

 
At 21 September, 2011 14:42, Blogger Foxxya said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_VATfDTnD4

unfree fall speed or free fail truther speed

^_^

 
At 21 September, 2011 16:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, anyone who bothers to look at the transcript can see you're a liar. Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

Why Pat and James B. continue to allow an idiot like you to hurt their credibility I don't know.

 
At 21 September, 2011 17:21, Blogger Billman said...

Billman, the Architects and Engineers' recent video got 500,000 views in a month. That's not "dead".

Well, 500,000 views is impressive. But then again, it's YouTube, and this guy gets like 5 million views per retarded video he makes...

 
At 21 September, 2011 17:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Why Pat and James B. continue to allow an idiot like you to hurt their credibility I don't know."

Quote mining again, asshole. Why no link to Dr. Sunder's quote?

You won't provide a link BECAUSE YOU'RE QUOTE MINING.

The article is titled "Debunking 9/11 Bomb Theories."

And the article says EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOU CLAIM.

Here's what Dr. Sundar really said--sans the your utterly dishonest quote mining:

SHAYM SUNDER: "...The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds. And the argument goes that this is essentially the rate at which free fall would happen. But the building is 70 percent just air in volume, and all of the columns are not solid steel—they are steel boxes in which the thickness of the steel varies from about a quarter inch at the top to about three-quarters of an inch or an inch and a half on the bottom. So they are not by any means solid structural components. But they are properly designed to carry the weight of the steel itself, the weight of the partitions, and the weight of the occupants and the furniture of the building. Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say, a 20-floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied. And it essentially came down in free fall."

What part of the word essentially don't you understand, asshole?

And what part of the words I've formatted in bold font, which you constantly AND DISHONESTLY OMIT, don't you understand.

YOU'RE A FUCKING LIAR, AND YOU SHOULD BE BANNED IMMEDIATELY FOR DEFACING THIS WEBSITE WITH BULLSHIT AND LIES.

 
At 21 September, 2011 18:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you may be able to fool yourself, but you can't fool anyone with half a brain.

Dr. Sunder said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." That's what I said he said, and that's what he said.

I know what "essentially" means. When I say that essentially you are full of shit, I am saying you are full of shit.

 
At 21 September, 2011 19:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, fudge-packer the fatuous, continue to lie when the evidence against you stares you straight your lying face.

I don't care what you were trying to say.

You took Dr. Sunder's explanation OUT OF CONTEXT, which is intellectually dishonest. In other words, you deliberately quote mined his explanation.

The context for Dr. Sunder's explanation was also given by the interviewer, who asked:

LARRY KLEIN: "One of the more popular conspiracy theories is based around the speed at which the buildings fell. A lot of people say they must have been imploded, that charges must have been set to make them come down so quickly. Why did the buildings fall so fast?"

Dr. Sunder's explanation was given in the context of DEBUNKING the never-ending lies of the 9/11 "truth" movement. His statement was never made in support of your cockamamie bullshit.

Furthermore, "11 seconds" is anything but "free fall." 9.2 seconds is "free fall." The north tower, however, collapsed in 22 seconds and the south tower collapsed in excess of 15 seconds. Thus, "free fall" never occurred. The only place "free fall" occurred is in that syphilitic lump of dog scat on your shoulders.

The reason Dr. Sundar used the term "free fall" is because he was responding to the false claims of the 9/11 "truth" movement, who constantly use the dishonest term "free fall speed."

You're such a dishonest scalawag that you DELIBERATELY neuter Dr. Sunder's explanation of context and then lie about the substance and obvious context of his argument.

"...Those are all things that these structures can withstand very well, but they are not designed to accommodate the failure of, let’s say, a 20-floor section in a dynamic impact on the structure below. If it’s moving down in a dynamic fashion, the magnitude of the energy unleashed is so large that no structure can withstand that kind of force that is applied." -- Dr. Sunder

You're a liar. And a bad liar at that.

 
At 22 September, 2011 06:38, Blogger Foxxya said...

I like the "butter fail" of 911-truthers and AEIOU for 911 truth ....

 
At 22 September, 2011 11:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

He says the measurements show that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

But yet you can't claim that Sunder said that it was the buildings because what you got isn't an official source. If it's not official then you ain't got shit.

Continue to be a dumbass Brian, make me cry from laughing.

 
At 22 September, 2011 11:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The OFFICIAL statement:

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.

The NON-OFFICIAL statement:

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

So what Brian provided was a non-official statement from a non-official source. Kind of like those paint chips Truthers suggest are "unreacted thermite", but it wasn't from an official source.

Brian, when are you going to stop lying out your ass?

 
At 22 September, 2011 11:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I clearly told Brain:

Show me a link where he says it, I don't want any Truther websites nor that stupid NOVA interview.

And what does he do? ?He sends me a link to that NOVA interview:

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

You see Brian, all you have is an interview from a non-official source. I've asked you to provide me a link that's not from a Truther website or the NOVA interview. You failed, again, to confirm it from an official source.

 
At 22 September, 2011 12:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RGT, the Loose Change guys have corrected and amended their statements. Dr. Asteneh-Asl and Dr. Sunder never did. Therefore the statements stand."


That's right, and their statements are that fire weakened the steel causing the buildings to collapse, and that the WTC towers were 70% air which accounts for the speed of collapse.

Thanks for endoring these views, your journey to mental health has taken another step forward...kidding, you're still a backwards fucktard-hippie-burnout.



"Billman, the Architects and Engineers' recent video got 500,000 views in a month. That's not "dead"."

All that means is that 500,000 people had a good laugh at a bunch of morons. Nothing more.

 
At 22 September, 2011 14:18, Blogger ConsDemo said...

According to this article, Ahmadinejad's address to UN didn't call for an investigation of 9/11 (although he says its "mysterious"). Looks like the twoofers dream of Iran underwriting their crap may have gone down the toilet.

 
At 22 September, 2011 16:03, Blogger Billman said...

All that means is that 500,000 people had a good laugh at a bunch of morons. Nothing more.

THIS. For crying out loud, Fred gets 5 million hits for his stupid shit...

 
At 22 September, 2011 16:05, Blogger Billman said...

Off topic.. but I just checked out the comments on Loose Change 2nd Edition on YouTube, where's it been forever, only to find, today for the first time, the video has been removed because of a copyright claim. A few years too late...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Yx9NRX37SM&lc=CTYUrQb9W_VkzBSE_aW22gVBycpuOBp9EJJj2QikCbE&feature=inbox

 
At 22 September, 2011 16:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the context doesn't matter. He said the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's a fact, and all your devils-and-angels magical thinking can't make that fact go away. Speaking of magical thinking, you're whole dynamic load malarku is magical too. The argument is that it fell because it fell.

WAQo, what's your point? You think NOVA fabricated the audio where Dr. Sunder says what he said?

Dr. Sunder was the lead investigator for NIST. You can't get much more official than that.

MGF, all buildings are 70% air. That fact does not exempt them from the laws of physics.

CD, President Ahmadinajad surely knows that for him to say anything about 9/11 in NYC would be damaging to the truth movement.

 
At 22 September, 2011 17:18, Blogger Ian said...

So there's the "occupy Wall Street" protest that's going on across from my office. I wandered over there after work and was chatting with a few people. One girl who I was talking with eventually gestured to the WTC site and asked if I believed what they say happened there. I told her I did. She mentioned "scholars for 9/11 truth". I told her I knew of them and that I thought they were frauds. I then gave the succinct explanation of why I don't buy 9/11 truth: if the Bush administration couldn't plant a few nerve gas canisters in the Iraqi desert, they certainly couldn't have pulled off 9/11. I then mentioned Bill Maher and Noam Chomsky as people who dismiss 9/11 truth.

Who knows if she got it, but she certainly wasn't blathering on about free-fall speed or thermite. Regardless, I'm glad she's on the east coast, so she'll never encounter Brian and have to live with his stalking.

 
At 22 September, 2011 17:31, Blogger John said...

MGF, all buildings are 70% air. That fact does not exempt them from the laws of physics.

CD, President Ahmadinajad surely knows that for him to say anything about 9/11 in NYC would be damaging to the truth movement.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chVPi-CZ34E

 
At 22 September, 2011 17:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you changed her mind with those arguments she didn't have much of a mind to begin with. More likely you just demonstrated yet again that debunking is no way to pick up chicks.

 
At 22 September, 2011 18:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if you changed her mind with those arguments she didn't have much of a mind to begin with. More likely you just demonstrated yet again that debunking is no way to pick up chicks.

My, such squealing!

Let's see, where to begin. A failed janitor and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves is babbling about other people "not having a mind". Also, a sex stalker who wears women's underwear and was banned from wikipedia for vandalizing pages about underage girls is giving advice on "picking up chicks".

Stuff like this is why you're so wildly entertaining, Brian.

 
At 22 September, 2011 18:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 September, 2011 18:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Fudge-packer the fatuous dissembles, "...the context doesn't matter."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Whatever you say, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."

So fudge-packer the fatuous, when did you become obsessed with malnourished Chinese girls who have no tits and boy butts?

 
At 22 September, 2011 18:50, Blogger Ian said...

I should add that for all the myriad left-wing causes that are represented by the group occupying the square, I did not see one 9/11 truth sign.

Brian, it's with my sincerest condolences that I inform you that you're the last truther left.

 
At 22 September, 2011 19:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the Loose Change guys have corrected and amended their statements. Dr. Asteneh-Asl and Dr. Sunder never did. Therefore the statements stand.

By that reasoning, Jon Gold still endorses DRG. He never corrected, amended, or retracted his Amazon review.

 
At 22 September, 2011 19:19, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Snuggy, he called for an investigation last year to be hosted by Iran. He either 1) doesn't give a shit about the twoof movement, or 2) has concluded you guys are such morons that even he can't stomach you.

I'm betting the former since international leaders bring this crap up just to add to their long list of reasons to bash the US. The latter is possible but you clowns are so irrelevant, I can't believe he (or any other world leader) has really given you idiots that much thought.

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

Ian, it may be entertaining, but that doesn't make it true. Also, it's pretty much only entertaining to a very juvenile sort of mind.

Yeah, I'm the last truther. Me and 1600 architects and engineers.

RGT, Jon has made his criticisms of Dr. Griffin quite well known.

 
At 23 September, 2011 04:46, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it may be entertaining, but that doesn't make it true. Also, it's pretty much only entertaining to a very juvenile sort of mind.

I know that everything you post is not true. That's what makes it so entertaining. We have in you a middle-aged man with no job, no friends, no family, and nothing else to do but post dumbspam over the internet in a desperate bid to have total strangers who laugh take him seriously.

Yeah, I'm the last truther.

Yup.

Me and 1600 architects and engineers.

They don't exist any more than the widows questions exist.

RGT, Jon has made his criticisms of Dr. Griffin quite well known.

So Griffin is a liar and con artist....just like every other truther. Color me shocked.

 
At 23 September, 2011 10:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Jon has made his criticisms of Dr. Griffin quite well known.

Sunder and Astaneh-Asl need to issue some kind of formal retraction, but Jon Gold needs only change his mind? That's inconsistent and arbitrary.

 
At 23 September, 2011 13:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...That's inconsistent and arbitrary."

The goat fucker? "[I]nconsistent and arbitrary"????

Really? No kidding?

Do you mean, for example, when he demands full documentation to back your explanation or refutation, but no documentation is required when he posts 100% fact-free conspiracy twaddle? Or, for example, when he accuses his opponent of quote mining, while he provides no proof of bad faith on your part. And then, when the shoe's on the other foot, he turns around and quote mines an expert witness who's hostile to the 9/11 "truth" movement, while in the process deliberately rendering the quote context-free. Then when questioned about this "inconsistency" he claims--with a straight face and not a hint of embarrassment--that "context doesn't matter"? And, of course, who can forget when he expresses his hostility for the NIST Report by referring to it as "unscientific," "inconsistent" and "a cover up", and then, in the same breath, turns around and cites the NIST Report as incontrovertible evidence to support his unscientific, illogical, inconsistent and 100% fact-free conspiracy malarkey?

You mean that brand of "inconsistent and arbitrary"? `;^)

Obviously we should continue to tolerate such "inconsistent and arbitrary" commentary because it's so informative and contributes so much to SLC's dialog. What were we thinking back in May when we demanded that he be banned?

Maybe at some point in the future he can give us a lecture on the fine points of flashing your junk at old ladies in Golden Gate Park? Or the ins-and-outs (pun intended) of stalking married women? Or how to avoid prosecution for aggravated homosexual assault and still make it home for dinner by 7:00 PM? After all, that particular "lecture" would be almost as useful and informative as everything else he's written to the blog.

Hell, given his stellar reputation for [cough] "informative commentary," perhaps we should elect him blog administrator?

%^)

 
At 24 September, 2011 10:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, what's your point? You think NOVA fabricated the audio where Dr. Sunder says what he said?

That you're quote-mining and making up all kinds of excuses why you insist that the NOVA interview is "official" when it's really not.

Dr. Sunder was the lead investigator for NIST. You can't get much more official than that.

So what Sunder said in the NIST report about the Exterior Panels is the official statement which you tried to canniblize with the NOVA interview which isn't official?

 
At 25 September, 2011 08:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what reason can you possibly have to make up lies about someone you don't know except that your own life is so impoverished that you desperately need to feel superior to a figment of your imagination?

Kindly advise which ones of the 1600 architects and engineers and which of the widows' 273 questions do not exist. You lie.

GB, my posting is not fact-free. Unfortunately the quality of discourse in this forum has been trashed by posters such as yourself and Ian who think it's funny to spam the place with lies, so I no longer attempt to engage in serious discussion here.

Somewhere along the line you developed the sense that if a witness is hostile, then I can't use his testimony. I don't know where you got this goofy idea, which would outlaw cross-examination were it applied to the courtroom. Imagine if Perry Mason were not permitted to extract from his client's accusers the information that shows the client to be innocent!

Context didn't matter in the case where I said it didn't matter and you're attempt in that case to assert that it did was dishonest. The context was the Oakland freeway fires. That context had nothing to do with the fact that Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders at the WTC.

I don't cite the NIST report as incontrovertible evidence of anything, and your hyperbole discredits you. If you find the NIST report credible, then your waving away of admissions within it on specious grounds is dishonest.

WAQo, as lead investigator for the NIST investigation, Dr. Sunder represents NIST when he goes to the media. You guys are engaging in frantic efforts of lawyering to disqualify the evidence here.

Sunder didn't say anything in the FAQs. His statement to NOVA indicates that he hadn't even read the FAQs.

 
At 25 September, 2011 17:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what reason can you possibly have to make up lies about someone you don't know except that your own life is so impoverished that you desperately need to feel superior to a figment of your imagination?

I don't know George W. Bush but I know a lot of facts about him because he is a public figure, and I know a lot of facts about you because you're a public figure due to the gargantuan catalogue of dumbspam you've posted through the years.

Also, everything I've posted about you is a fact. Squealing about it doesn't change the facts, Brian. Sorry.

Kindly advise which ones of the 1600 architects and engineers and which of the widows' 273 questions do not exist.

All of them.

 
At 25 September, 2011 17:23, Blogger Ian said...

GB, my posting is not fact-free. Unfortunately the quality of discourse in this forum has been trashed by posters such as yourself and Ian who think it's funny to spam the place with lies, so I no longer attempt to engage in serious discussion here.

Brian, you've never attempted serious discussion. You've just lied about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Asanteh-Asl, and when called it,you just squealed and squealed and posted dumbspam.

 
At 25 September, 2011 17:26, Blogger Ian said...

That context had nothing to do with the fact that Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders at the WTC.

See what I mean? You post these lies, we all laugh at you and point out that you're a failed janitor who doesn't understand what he read, and then you get all pissed off, start squealing, and call us "girls".

WAQo, as lead investigator for the NIST investigation, Dr. Sunder represents NIST when he goes to the media.

And this doesn't change the fact that you endlessly post the same lies about him.

You guys are engaging in frantic efforts of lawyering to disqualify the evidence here.

What "evidence"? Are you bringing this to trial? If so, when? Also, what makes you think that any court is going to take seriously the deranged babbling of an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear?

 
At 25 September, 2011 17:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you just spew lies.

 
At 25 September, 2011 17:29, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you just spew lies.

Squeal squeal squeal!

So Brian, it's been over a decade now since the attacks. Are we ever going to get that new investigation you promised us?

 
At 25 September, 2011 18:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Unlike many in this forum, I do not claim to be able to predict the future. Your lies are certainly doing their part to delay the day when new investigations can be done.

Within ten years computer power will reach the level that every engineering school in the world will be able to run sophisticated models of the "collapses". Thus new investigations are inevitable. It's only a question of when, not if.

 
At 25 September, 2011 19:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker babbles, "...Within ten years computer power will reach the level that every engineering school in the world will be able to run sophisticated models of the 'collapses'."

They're already doing just that, goat fucker (e.g., Purdue). I guess you missed it while you were out showing your junk to little old ladies in Golden Gate Park.

And guess what, cretin? The simulations prove that you're full-of-shit.

 
At 25 September, 2011 19:55, Blogger Ian said...

Unlike many in this forum, I do not claim to be able to predict the future. Your lies are certainly doing their part to delay the day when new investigations can be done.

"When"? Brian, you just predicted the future there in stating that there will be new investigations. There never will be new investigations and there's nothing you can do about it because you're an unemployed janitor. HA HA HA HA!!!

Within ten years computer power will reach the level that every engineering school in the world will be able to run sophisticated models of the "collapses".

Yup, and then you'll reject the results when they don't account for modified attack baboons planting magic thermite throughout the towers.

 
At 26 September, 2011 12:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, as lead investigator for the NIST investigation, Dr. Sunder represents NIST when he goes to the media. You guys are engaging in frantic efforts of lawyering to disqualify the evidence here.

What evidence? All he said in the OFFICIAL statement in NIST was about the exterior panels. He mentions nothing about the buildings in his Official NIST statement.

Sunder didn't say anything in the FAQs. His statement to NOVA indicates that he hadn't even read the FAQs.

You just said: "lead investigator for the NIST investigation, Dr. Sunder represents NIST"

So if Sunder didn't come up with the answers to the NIST Faqs, then who did?

A: An imaginary anal fairy
B: Brian's mother
C: The Cat in the Hat
D: Dr. Sunder

or you can pick:

E: I'm Brian Good and Dr. Sunder was right about the exterior panels falling off both buildings at 9 and 11 seconds and I'm lying about the buildings coming down and quote mining Dr. Sunders statements.

Your pick Brian. But don't pick your nose!

 
At 26 September, 2011 12:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's intelligence tells me that he never finished high school. He probably dropped out of 7th or 8th grade. His own words sound like a kid who dropped out.

 
At 26 September, 2011 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, if Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs saying the panels fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, why then would he tell NOVA a week later that the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds?

Do you want to invent a bunch of joke answers for that too?

 
At 26 September, 2011 16:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, if Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs saying the panels fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, why then would he tell NOVA a week later that the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds?

Maybe he was too busy to think about what he said in the NIST report. He has a job that's hard to do, but you don't think like that because you're an idiot.

Do you want to invent a bunch of joke answers for that too?

Awe what's wrong Brian, you can't take a joke when you're the butt of every joke there is? You know damn well that the Truth Movement uses you in their jokes but you pretend that you're still with them when you're really not. So you're not really a part of anything are you?

 
At 26 September, 2011 16:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You see Brian, the only thing you have is your ego. We all know that egos go against the person. Your ego is that you think everyone is "wrong" and that you're "right".

You think that Dr. Sunder and other experts are "agreeing" with you, when in fact and reality they aren't. You continue to quote-mine their statements, you lie, you make up stories and you try to inflate your ego of more than what it currently is: NOTHING!!!

You are a failure beyond comparison.

 
At 26 September, 2011 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

No matter what the topic is, all they want to talk about is me. And then they wonder why I call them girlies.

 
At 26 September, 2011 17:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No matter what the topic is, all they want to talk about is me. And then they wonder why I call them girlies.

See, that's why I said it's about your ego. You think you're king, well you're not king of anything. You're just a lonely fucknut whose obsessed over one woman (Carol) who doesn't want anything to do with you. After you got rejected you thought of getting in between her and her husband and harassed her constantly.

And calling us "girlies" only makes you look like a homosexual. Which brings to our attention why you have perverted intentions about Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 26 September, 2011 18:12, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, if Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs saying the panels fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, why then would he tell NOVA a week later that the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds?

He misspoke. This much is obvious to normal people. To a liar and lunatic like you, it's evidence of something else. Of course, the evide3nce is that you're in terrible need of psychiatric treatment.

No matter what the topic is, all they want to talk about is me.

Right. There's nothing left to talk about with regard to 9/11, the truth movement is dead, and yet you keep babbling like a lunatic. What do you expect us to do?

And then they wonder why I call them girlies.

See what I mean?

 
At 26 September, 2011 18:14, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, we don't really wonder why you call us "girls". You're obviously FUBAR sexually, which is why you stalk Carol Brouillet and Willie Rodriguez and why you wear women's underwear.

I'm guessing you've never been laid.

 
At 26 September, 2011 18:20, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, let's talk about something besides you. Did you see the Bills-Patriots game yesterday? Pretty thrilling, huh?

Also, what do you think is the best album of 2011 so far? I gotta go with "Nine Types of Light" by TV on the Radio.

 
At 26 September, 2011 18:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

see what I mean?

 
At 26 September, 2011 18:51, Blogger Ian said...

see what I mean?

Brian, that doesn't answer my questions. Did you see the Bills-Patriots game? What's the best album of 2011?

What do you think Laurie Van Auken would say if she knew you weren't answering questions?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home