Truthers March
As you can see, Occupy Building 7 was not quite as massive as Occupy Wall Street.
posted by Pat @ 7:33 PM
42 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Previous Posts
- Architects and Engineers for Paranoid Texans
- The Complete Idiot's Guide to Wasting a Decade?
- Ryan Mackey on Why 9-11 Truth Became So Popular
- We Are the 84 Percent!
- Occupy Envy?
- Book Review: The Believing Brain
- More Dramatic WTC-7 Footage
- Toronto Panel Reaches Its Consensus
- Gage's Latest Sleight of Hand
- Truther at Occupy Wall Street
View My Stats
Allies:
42 Comments:
Wow, a whole 25 people! That's almost 84% of the population of the US.
"How can you declare war on terror? It is a state of mind, not a physical entity!"
Such profundity!
"Building 7 was shown on television on 9/11/01 and then never again!"
I'm sure the NWO has already eliminated the TV producers that allowed Building 7 to be shown on TV that first time.
"Right into its own footprint"
Which is why they had to rebuild Fiterman Hall and why the Verizon Building had chunks of WTC 7 stuck in it.
"It looks so much like a classic controlled demolition."
Yes, and a column of smoke rising into a cloudy sky can look like a tornado.
I do say what the heck is going on. This guy should be in a mental hospital, not wandering the streets.
What do you know? The OWS gang is't as gullible as I thought.
"We just installed al Qaeda into Libya."
That's a new one. Anyone know where he got that tidbit of info, other than the rantings of Qaddafi himself?
Ian wrote, "...That's a new one. Anyone know where he got that tidbit of info, other than the rantings of Qaddafi himself?"
From the same place the troofers get everything: Their ass.
As predicted, the troofers (ie., The Ford Foundation) are trying to hijack OWS.
Is any sentient human being fooled by this malarkey?
And by "hijack OWS," I'm mean discredit OWS.
Why would the Ford Foundation want to discredit OWS?
For the same reason the Ford Foundation worked so hard to discredit the anti-war movement.
The Ford Foundation (FMC to be specific) is a major component of the military industrial complex. They profit to the tune of BILLIONS of dollars per year from war and the perpetuation of war.
Cui bono, chumps. Cui bono.
What? The Troofers are the Ford Foundation?
Don't play dumb, Pat.
You know as well as I do that Cosmos, Arabesque, Woolsey and Col. Jenny Sparks are connected to the Ford Foundation. Their connections to the Ford Foundation were exposed back in 2007 after the Kennebunkport Warning controversy went viral on the 'net.
Google it, Pat. It's a fascinating story.
Occupy Building 7: Where you can march with 25 people & act retarded.
Brought to you by: Richard Gage. Playing with cardboard boxes is "scientific".
Ian, they didn't "have to" rebuild Fiterman Hall. Obviously it was structurally sound because it stood for years before they took it down.
WAQo, science is a matter of intellectual rigor and not of the nature of one's materials. It's perfectly possible to do good science with cardboard boxes.
Ian, they didn't "have to" rebuild Fiterman Hall. Obviously it was structurally sound because it stood for years before they took it down.
So was Fiterman Hall struck by debris from the collapse of WTC 7 "into its own footprint"? Answer the question.
WAQo, science is a matter of intellectual rigor and not of the nature of one's materials. It's perfectly possible to do good science with cardboard boxes.
Yes. Of course, Richard Gage doesn't do good science. You only think he does because you're an ignorant liar and lunatic who wears women's underwear, stalked Carol Brouillet, believes in magic thermite elves, and babbles about rakes and meatballs and forks.
WAQo, science is a matter of intellectual rigor and not of the nature of one's materials. It's perfectly possible to do good science with cardboard boxes.
Actually comparing cardboard with steel isn't "scientific", it's fucking idiotic. Kind of like your science, it's idiotic cause you think like an idiot.
Here's science for ya Brian:
You put steel in a fire, what happens?
A: It heats up
B: It glows red hot
C: It doesn't melt or evaporate
D: It turns to ash
You put cardboard in a fire, what happens?
A: It heats up
B: It glows red hot
C: It doesn't melt or evaporate
D: It turns to ash
Science isn't one of your intellects, is it?
LMAO!!! There was more people at a party at my house on Saturday.
"Ian, they didn't "have to" rebuild Fiterman Hall. Obviously it was structurally sound because it stood for years before they took it down."
If it was "obviously" structurally sound they wouldn't have had to take it down, retard.
Ian, I didn't say Mr. Gage's demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was good science. I said it was possible to do good science with cardboard boxes. You live in such a heavily self-interpreted world that your perceptions of reality are loony.
You're moving the goal posts. From "required demolition" to "fell in its footprint". You stupidly said the former, I didn't say the latter.
WAQo, nobody compared cardboard with steel--except to the extent that they are both subject to the laws of physics.
MGF, buildings are taken down every day in this country that are structurally sound. If you would venture beyond Castroville you might know that.
"MGF, buildings are taken down every day in this country that are structurally sound. If you would venture beyond Castroville you might know that."
Fiterman Hall was rebuilt because of the damage from 9/11.
Period.
If you would venture from Gage's colon you might know that
Ian, I didn't say Mr. Gage's demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was good science. I said it was possible to do good science with cardboard boxes. You live in such a heavily self-interpreted world that your perceptions of reality are loony.
Thanks for proving my point. Gage is a fraud. Maybe you should stop mindlessly repeating everything he says about 9/11 if he's such a fraud?
You're moving the goal posts. From "required demolition" to "fell in its footprint". You stupidly said the former, I didn't say the latter.
Brian, the knucklehead in the video said "fell in its own footprint". As much as I enjoy mocking you for being a liar and failed janitor who was thrown out of the truth movement and sniffs glue while wearing panties and a bra, we were actually talking about the subject of the video. Maybe you should actually try to learn about 9/11 before posting your stoopidspam.
WAQo, nobody compared cardboard with steel--except to the extent that they are both subject to the laws of physics.
Gamma rays and Jell-O are both subject to the laws of physics too. I bet Richard Gage could demonstrate how gamma rays behave by throwing Jell-O at a wall!
MGF, buildings are taken down every day in this country that are structurally sound. If you would venture beyond Castroville you might know that.
My, such squealing!
So why did they take down Fiterman Hall if it was structurally sound, Brian?
MGF, you are only demonstrating your irrationality. That Fiterman Hall was rebuilt because of the damage from 9/11 does not mean that it "required demolition". That it stood for several years after 9/11 shows that it did not "require demolition".
Ian, I don't know why they took down Fiterman Hall--and neither do you, is the point. That it stood for several years after 9/11 shows that it did not "require demolition".
WAQo, nobody compared cardboard with steel--except to the extent that they are both subject to the laws of physics.
But you did apparently, check it out:
You said; It's perfectly possible to do good science with cardboard boxes.
Now come on Brian, I know you're not that too retarded.
From the New York Times, Feb 11, 2004:
Now, Antonio Pérez, the college's president, says he is intent on demolishing Fiterman Hall and replacing it.
"It has to come down," he said in an interview on Monday. "It has to be rebuilt, and it has to be rebuilt soon."
Though there had been talk of trying to salvage what remains of Fiterman Hall, Dr. Pérez said inspections showed that the weight of debris from 7 World Trade Center leaning against several stories of the building had irreparably compromised the structure, particularly at the points of connection between columns and beams.
So Brian's wrong again. What else is new.
Ian, I don't know why they took down Fiterman Hall--and neither do you, is the point. That it stood for several years after 9/11 shows that it did not "require demolition".
Actually, I do know why, Brian. You would too if you actually researched what happened on 9/11. You're obviously very ignorant of what took place that day, which is understandable give that you're a failed janitor.
How about the Deutsche Bank Building? Why did they take that one down too if it stood for years after 9/11?
Brian has repetative arguements, too many of them in fact. He clearly lies & contradicts himself every day.
Is there anything Brian can do to produce the physcial evidence needed to make his loony theories true?
Answer: Nope, he's just an internet troll who was banished from the Truth Movement and is sulking at the thought that they don't want him around because they consider him a threat to everyone.
WAQo, your belief that science can not be done with cardboard boxes is irrational and ignorant.
Mike-- Yes, whenever I want an objective evaluation of the structural condition of an old building, I always ask the official who wants a new building. He's bound to be completely objective on the subject.
WAQo, when I stick to the main points you accuse me of being repetitive. When I stray from the main points you accuse me of being contradictory.
WAQo, your belief that science can not be done with cardboard boxes is irrational and ignorant.
Poor Brian. He admitted that Gage is a fraud and is now trying to backtrack with dumbspam about cardboard boxes and "science".
Brian, do you believe that Jell-O can be used to simluate gamma rays? They both obey the laws of physics, after all.
Mike-- Yes, whenever I want an objective evaluation of the structural condition of an old building, I always ask the official who wants a new building. He's bound to be completely objective on the subject.
What makes you think that Perez wanted a new building? Did Kevin Barrett tell you that?
WAQo, when I stick to the main points you accuse me of being repetitive. When I stray from the main points you accuse me of being contradictory.
What "main points"? You've never made a point in your life. That's why you're a failed janitor instead of an engineer or physicist.
"Mike-- Yes, whenever I want an objective evaluation of the structural condition of an old building, I always ask the official who wants a new building. He's bound to be completely objective on the subject."
Good, otherwise you'd be stupid, paranoid, buttfucking piece of shit.
I can point to hundreds of buildings that are still standing after being abandoned for 30 or 40 years that are not in use because they are not structurally sound enough for public use.
When the cost of repair is as much - or more than demo/reconstruction the choice is easy...at least to non-mentally ill people.
"WAQo, your belief that science can not be done with cardboard boxes is irrational and ignorant. "
I have an idea. I'll drive up to Palo Alto with five our six refridgerator boxes. We'll stack them up, you get on top, and I'll soak them with jet fuel then light them ablaze.
Then we'll get some steel and we can utilize your extensive iron working/contruction skills to construct a 6-story tower. I hang out on the top floor and ride it down.
Just let me know when you want to do this effective demonstration of how a steel-tube structure reacts to fire.
We can put it on your mom's credit card like your probably do everything else.
WAQo, your belief that science can not be done with cardboard boxes is irrational and ignorant.
Whatever you say Dick Gage Jr. I can't help it that you have the brain the size of a pea.
Do me a favor little piggy, Squeal for me!
WAQo, when I stick to the main points you accuse me of being repetitive. When I stray from the main points you accuse me of being contradictory.
You are repetitive, every post you make is the same mindless chatter. You are contradictory, you believe that a house fire can bring down a house outside it's footprint, then you make the arguement that WTC7 fell "inside" it's own footprint.
Go practice your banjo, Jethro. You're not holding up your end in the duel.
I've never made a "arguemenet" in my life.
Go practice your banjo, Jethro. You're not holding up your end in the duel.
I've never made a "arguemenet" in my life.
Once again, Brian has been pwn3d and all he can do is squeal. No wonder the widows haven't had their questions answered!
Go practice your banjo, Jethro. You're not holding up your end in the duel.
Awe, did I make the poor wittle baby cwy?
I've never made a "arguemenet" in my life.
If that's the truth, then why are you here arguing with us on SLC?
This comment has been removed by the author.
WAQo, thanks for demonstrating the point. I'm "arguing", not "argueing".
Some of us have actually logged more than 100 hours in our lives reading--imagine that!--and thus we know stuff like that.
Giving you guys an "arguement" gives you a dignity you do not deserve. I'm going to have to quit wasting my time here.
Giving you guys an "arguement" gives you a dignity you do not deserve. I'm going to have to quit wasting my time here.
Brian, who do you think you're kidding? You have no job, no friends, no family, no interests except babbling about 9/11 "truth". You've been banned from every truther site out there, so this is the only place that you can post your dumbspam about invisible nanothermite and invisible elevator repairmen.
You will never stop posting here. Ever.
And I will keep pointing and laughing at you.
Ah, Thanksgiving.
Today, I am thankful for Brian Good. In addition to all the times I've laughed at his paranoid idiocy, I also realize how good I have it. I'm not an unemployed janitor who has no friends, no family, and has been expelled from a paranoid conspiracy cult for stalking people.
WAQo, thanks for demonstrating the point. I'm "arguing", not "argueing".
Then why do you come here on a daily basis to argue with evryone here? Answer the question you simpleton.
Some of us have actually logged more than 100 hours in our lives reading--imagine that!--and thus we know stuff like that.
How is this "we" you're talking about? If you're saying "we" as in "Truth Movement", sadly you aren't a part of them anymore. You're a has-been, an outcast, a recluse.
Giving you guys an "arguement" gives you a dignity you do not deserve. I'm going to have to quit wasting my time here.
You never made an arguement that was worth being noted, so why bother acting like a child, you're 50+ yrs. old, grow some scrote & STFU. Good, be gone oh dumb one!
see what I mean? These guys just sit around repeating lies to each other until they believe they're true.
see what I mean? These guys just sit around repeating lies to each other until they believe they're true.
Squeal squeal squeal!
So Brian, I thought you were going to stop posting here. What happened?
Once again you show your inability to read. I never said I was going to quit posting here. You live in a world of faulty assumptions and nutsy inferences.
Once again you show your inability to read. I never said I was going to quit posting here. You live in a world of faulty assumptions and nutsy inferences.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Well, since you keep posting here, I guess you could tell me whether or not the widows have had their questions answered yet. Have they?
Also, Brian, who are you talking to here?
These guys just sit around repeating lies to each other until they believe they're true.
Leaving aside the terrible grammar, there's just you here other than those of us who laugh at you. Who are you talking to? Willie Rodriguez? The invisible elevator repairmen? Craig Ranke? Magic thermite elves? Laurie Van Auken?
Also, Brian, you've never told us why you like to be called "Petgoat". Is it because "My Pet Goat" is your favorite book? Given the intellectual and emotional maturity you demonstrate here, I'm guessing that book is about at your reading level.
Also, since you're unemployed and live with your parents, I'm guessing you ask mommy to read that book to you before going to bed each night.
Post a Comment
<< Home