Thursday, February 16, 2012

Gage, Barrett and Farrakhan: Together At Last

It's the trifecta of nuttery!  Gage is going to appear at the Nation of Islam's annual convention to tell them that Muslims didn't do 9-11:

The plenary session, hosted by Southwestern Regional Representative of the Nation of Islam Robert Muhammad, will separate fact from fiction answering tough questions such as: “Was 9/11 an inside job?” and “Does America have a history of false flag operations?”
Information will be presented by members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth as they deliver historical narratives, and technical knowledge to those at Saviours’ Day and watching throughout the world via internet.
Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth told The Final Call he is looking forward to presenting the fact regarding 9/11 to those gathered.
“We’re excited to bring this information to a group of people who have already been primed for it by in this case the Minister,” said Mr. Gage. “He’s taken some very courageous stands for 9/11 truth and so we’re honored to come and speak to what I understand may be up to three thousand people at one time, which is about five times larger than any group of people we’ve ever spoken to. So we’re delighted that the information will get out all at once to that many people and live streaming as well to many times that many people.”
 BTW, check out the latest craze for Farrakhan, who has dabbled in numerology in the past:
Last year, Minister Farrakhan announced to the world that he found something in the technology of auditing developed by Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Many members of the Nation of Islam embarked on the journey to study beneficial aspects of Scientology with hundreds becoming Certified Hubbard Dianetics Auditors.
Sounds like Gage will find a ready audience for his swill, and perhaps some more sustaining members to keep the money flowing into Box Boy's bank account.

And yes, I suspect there will be the requisite Jew-bashing:
Dr. Leonard Jeffries is a panelist for the Feb. 24 Plenary Sesson "Business is Warfare: The Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews."
 The book's subtitle is "How Jews Gained Control of the Black American Economy".  Note that it is Volume II; Volume I claims that Jews were behind the slave trade.

Henry Louis Gates Jr, head of the department of Afro-American studies at Harvard University, called the book "the Bible of new anti-Semitism" and added that "the book massively misinterprets the historical record, largely through a process of cunningly selective quotations of often reputable sources"
 I am reliably informed that Barrett will be featured in the 9-11 Denial section.

Labels: , , , ,

112 Comments:

At 16 February, 2012 09:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I am reliably informed..."

The lies just don't stop, do they Pat? Find that 'reliable' source about the cutting torches yet?

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Find that 'reliable' source about the cutting torches yet?

Why can't you find it yourself? Is your google broken?

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:18, Blogger Ian said...

Well, Scientologists are nothing if not suckers for schemes that drain their bank accounts. Gage is right to try to hit up anything that promotes Scientology.

 
At 16 February, 2012 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, please explain your irrefutable theory for how microspheres from cutting torches got to Brooklyn Bridge by 10:40 a.m. on 9/11. Did modified attack baboons plant them there to confuse and embarrass the Truth movement?

 
At 16 February, 2012 11:41, Blogger Pat said...

Note that Brian does not deny that Gage is appearing with Barrett.

 
At 16 February, 2012 12:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat wrote, "...Note that Brian does not deny that Gage is appearing with Barrett."

And that's why he'll continue his desperate efforts to hijack the thread with off-topic whining and squealing.

And you'll let him get away with it rather than do the right thing and ban him.

 
At 16 February, 2012 12:21, Blogger Ian said...

Of course Gage is appearing with Barrett. Barrett is highly-respected in the truth movement. What, do you expect Gage to appear with Brian? Brian is a failed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement.

 
At 16 February, 2012 12:50, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Lest we forget Pat's "Science":

"The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation." -Pat Curley

Since Pat has refused to retract this long-debunked nonsense, we can only assume that he intentionally lies about the facts of 9/11. I guess he likes shitting on the graves of dead people for some reason.

Care to tell us why, Pat?

Didn't think so, coward.

 
At 16 February, 2012 12:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Since Pat has refused to retract this long-debunked nonsense,

Source?

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:16, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Cowardly is all talk. All he does is comes here to harass and stalk James and Pat.

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:17, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:17, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:18, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:18, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Cowardly is all talk. All he does is comes here to harass and stalk James and Pat.

I've run some Bayesian tests on Cowardly's posts and I'm 99% certain he's actually a she. The word usage and syntax is consistently that of a female.

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:20, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Ok, who changed the thing for the words?

Damn, it's confusing!

 
At 16 February, 2012 13:35, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

hmmm... Nothing from Pat. I guess if he's not lying, he's got nothing to say.

 
At 16 February, 2012 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

I notice RGT won't support his irrefutable theory about torch microspheres winding up at Brooklyn Bridge ten minutes after WTC1 collapsed.

Pat, I don't know if Barrett is appearing at Farrakhan's shindig or not. I wouldn't think the Nation of Islam would allow him to appear. If they do, it must be because they never heard of him.

 
At 16 February, 2012 15:54, Blogger Ian said...

I notice RGT won't support his irrefutable theory about torch microspheres winding up at Brooklyn Bridge ten minutes after WTC1 collapsed.

Placed there by invisible elevator repairmen.

Pat, I don't know if Barrett is appearing at Farrakhan's shindig or not. I wouldn't think the Nation of Islam would allow him to appear. If they do, it must be because they never heard of him.

The NOI is a crackpot racist, antisemitic cult. Of course they'd make common cause with another crackpot antisemite.

You're a moron even by the standards of unemployed janitors, Brian.

 
At 16 February, 2012 17:20, Blogger Steve said...

Off topic, but has SLC covered anything about Kurt Haskell? I see he's mentioned in an ABC.com article today concerning the "Underwear Bomber". It seems Haskell was one of the passengers on the flight who was allowed to make a statement in court at the "UB's" sentencing hearing. Anyway, an excerpt from the article: "Kurt Haskell, a Michigan lawyer...who has long promoted a conspiracy theory that asserts the U.S. government was complicit in the attack, repeated his assertion. 'I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. agent to stage a false terrorist attack.'"

So here we have a truth-tard who is almost killed by this terrorist, standing there as said terrorist claims full responsibility for the failed attack, and the idiot still thinks it was a false-flag attack! He's a prime example of how truthers are beyond hope.

 
At 16 February, 2012 17:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I notice RGT won't support his irrefutable theory about torch microspheres winding up at Brooklyn Bridge ten minutes after WTC1 collapsed.

There's no need for me to do so until somebody offers a plausible alternative.

 
At 16 February, 2012 17:33, Blogger Steve said...

RE: My previous post- never mind. After doing a search of the archives, I see he's the same idiot behind the "well dressed man helped the Underwear bomber get past security" BS.

Seeing as he's a lawyer, why isn't he bringing some kind of legal action against the government (perhaps he could form a class-action with April Gallop)?

 
At 16 February, 2012 18:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve, almost every "foiled terrorist plot" that's happened since 9/11 has been the work of government agents recruiting simple-minded or naive young men and then arresting them. What is so implausible about the Underwear Bomber being the same situation?

RGT, so it doesn't bother you that your irrefutable theory depends on magic to accomplish the impossible--to carry torch microspheres 1000 yards away before they've even been produced?

 
At 16 February, 2012 19:19, Blogger Ian said...

Steve, almost every "foiled terrorist plot" that's happened since 9/11 has been the work of government agents recruiting simple-minded or naive young men and then arresting them. What is so implausible about the Underwear Bomber being the same situation?

I love evidence-free assertions made by paranoid lunatic failed janitors who sniff glue in their parents' basement while wearing women's underwear.

Please, tell us more about the US government being responsible for Richard Reid's failed attempt to blow up an airliner. Also, is the US government responsible for successful attacks, like the ones in London and Madrid and at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mubai?

RGT, so it doesn't bother you that your irrefutable theory depends on magic to accomplish the impossible--to carry torch microspheres 1000 yards away before they've even been produced?

What objections do you have to magic, Brian? I mean, you believe in magic thermite and magic silent explosives.

 
At 16 February, 2012 19:23, Blogger Ian said...

Also, I'm guessing your "widows" are magic too, since they seem to communicate telepathically with you. I mean, why on earth do you think they have questions when nobody else does?

 
At 16 February, 2012 20:27, Blogger Steve said...

Ian said...

Please, tell us more about the US government being responsible for Richard Reid's failed attempt to blow up an airliner. Also, is the US government responsible for successful attacks, like the ones in London and Madrid and at the Taj Mahal Hotel in Mubai?


As a general rule, I've found that any attack that demonstrates a genuine Muslim terrorist threat to the U.S., can only be perceived by truthers like snug.bug as an inside job, lest they have to consider the possibility that 9/11 was a genuine Al-Queda operation.

BTW, an interesting comment by the diaper-bomber today, where he stated that his panty bomb was a "blessed weapon to save the lives of innocent Muslims". I guess, according to Haskell (and snug.bug), his mistake was having the bomb "blessed" by the NWO secret agent who gave it to him.

Also amazing is the fact that not one of snug.bug's supposed "simple minded" patsies have ever even suggested that they were set up by U.S. Agents. Instead they just offer a simple "Allahu akbar", and promise future attacks on the West. They must be simple-minded indeed, to never even suspect that we've been framing/entrapping them this whole time. Of course from the truther mindset, what else would you expect from some stupid goat-herders living in a cave?

 
At 16 February, 2012 21:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a liar. The widows had 300 questions and they only got 27 answers. That means 273 questions pending.

Steve, you don't know what you're talking about. Here's about the JFK airport plot: "Defense attorneys argued the case was created by government intervention."
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/13/kareem-ibrahim-man-convicted-in-jfk-airport-plot-faces-sentencing/

Here's about the Sears Tower bombing plot: "'The case was written, produced and directed by the FBI,' defense attorney Albert Levin said in his closing arguments."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1694430,00.html?imw=Y

 
At 16 February, 2012 21:46, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're a liar. The widows had 300 questions and they only got 27 answers. That means 273 questions pending.

False.

Steve, you don't know what you're talking about. Here's about the JFK airport plot: "Defense attorneys argued the case was created by government intervention."
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/01/13/kareem-ibrahim-man-convicted-in-jfk-airport-plot-faces-sentencing/


Defense attorneys, huh? I guess we all know OJ Simpson was innocent, because his attorneys said so. Also, free Bernie Madoff! His defense attorneys say he didn't do it!

 
At 16 February, 2012 21:48, Blogger Ian said...

This thread is quickly turning into one for the Brian Good Hall of Fame. It's up there with the one where he babbled about how an F-15 should have rammed AA 11 and then called Willie Rodriguez a "strutting, lying, bragging hunk of latin manhood".

Or the time he kept calling us "girls" because we disputed his assertion that Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty before admitting he knew nothing about the circumstances of the attack on the Liberty.

 
At 16 February, 2012 22:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're just trying to change the subject to your fantasies.

Besides the JFK plot and the Sears Tower plot there's the the Fort Dix 5, and the Newburgh 4.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots

Then there's the Portland bomb plot, the Dallas bomb plot, the Washington Metro bomb plot, the Pentagon model-plane bomb plot.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/

 
At 16 February, 2012 22:20, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he's just babbling incoherently now because he knows he's been pwn3d and his "widows" have no questions.

 
At 16 February, 2012 22:22, Blogger Steve said...

Interesting that in one of the examples you provided, the cries of "FBI setup!" is only the desperate assertion of a defense attorney trying to save his client.

In the other example the FBI appeared to only by trying to preemptively disrupt a potential terrorist act before they could get to the "execution phase". It seems like it's no different than the countless cases in the past/present of law enforcement posing as a "hitman" to thwart a legitimate murder attempt. At worst it's a case of overzealous L.E. agencies trying to prevent a crime, and not as you so ridiculously propose, a case of them trying to induce a terrorist attack.

In other words, both examples are a far cry from the likes of Richard Reid and the Panty-Bomber, who each only failed to execute their attack due to their own incompetence.

Out of curiosity, what is your view on the Bojinka Plot (was it conducted/aided by U.S. agents)? Was that also a "[failed] inside job"? And what terrorist attack against the U.S. (foiled or not) was not "the work of government agents" (since you said "almost every 'foiled terrorist plot' that's happened since 9/11 has been the work of government agents")?

 
At 16 February, 2012 23:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2012 23:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

So in your world, poorly-paid defense attorneys lie to get terrorists off the hook? What planet are you from?


Here's another one: the "Albany Missile" plot.

Harper's says: "The FBI allowed that their crimes were 'not real' and that the public had never actually been in jeopardy. The plot had been a sting operation wherein the FBI concocted the assassination plan and furnished the weapon. Though much of the evidence against the two men remained classified, it was unclear that either man even knew he was involved in a terrorist plot."







http://harpers.org/archive/2011/08/0083545

 
At 16 February, 2012 23:24, Blogger Ian said...

So, as usual, Brian has no evidence for any of his wild paranoid assertions, and he has no idea what defense lawyers do.

It's not surprising, given that he's a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and invisible widows.

 
At 16 February, 2012 23:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Harper's, the Guardian, and Salon. And Skidmark calls it "no evidence".

 
At 17 February, 2012 00:53, Blogger Steve said...

snug.bug said...

So in your world, poorly-paid defense attorneys lie to get terrorists off the hook? What planet are you from?


Can you possibly that freakin' retarded? The thought of defense lawyers "lying" (more accurately, just presenting whatever far-fetched theory they can that would possibly produce a reasonable doubt in the jury's mind- which btw is their job, to defend their client to the best of their ability) is that foreign to you?

No wonder you can't discern fact from fiction. I'm done with you, and frankly I don't know why I've waisted so much time on a troll such as yourself.

 
At 17 February, 2012 04:08, Blogger Billman said...

This thread is quickly turning into one for the Brian Good Hall of Fame. It's up there with the one where he babbled about how an F-15 should have rammed AA 11 and then called Willie Rodriguez a "strutting, lying, bragging hunk of latin manhood".

Well, uh, Brian is close on this one. It was actually F-16s, and it was flight 93.

Link

 
At 17 February, 2012 06:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, so it doesn't bother you that your irrefutable theory depends on magic to accomplish the impossible--

For such an outrageously false theory, it's giving you guys a pretty hard time. Not even our resident iron microsphere scholar can suggest an alternative.

 
At 17 February, 2012 06:32, Blogger Ian said...

Harper's, the Guardian, and Salon. And Skidmark calls it "no evidence".

Squeal squeal squeal!

I see evidence of defense lawyers doing their jobs. Only a deranged liar and lunatic like you sees something sinister in that.

 
At 17 February, 2012 09:46, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"There's no need for me to do so until somebody offers a plausible alternative."

more Curleyan pseudoskepticism. No wonder Pat and James admire you so much.

FYI: People who aren't stupid know better.

 
At 17 February, 2012 10:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve, your belief that it is defense attorneys' job to lie to protect terrorists is loony.

It used to be that RGT and GMS wouldn't lie. Ian has done a great job of corrupting you guys.

RGT, the obvious theory for how the microspheres got to the Brooklyn Bridge is that they floated there on the hot clouds of pulverized concrete. Since clean-up operations had not commenced at 9:40 a.m. on 9/11/01, the microspheres collected at that time at Brooklyn Bridge can not be from clean-up operations.

 
At 17 February, 2012 10:00, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

FYI: People who aren't stupid know better.

People who aren't stupid can source their claims. You evidently can't.

Why do you disappear about 6PM Eastern every night? It's almost like that's your bedtime.

 
At 17 February, 2012 10:08, Blogger Ian said...

Steve, your belief that it is defense attorneys' job to lie to protect terrorists is loony.

We'd better listen to him. He's the dean of Harvard Law School.

Oh wait, no, he's an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear.

It used to be that RGT and GMS wouldn't lie. Ian has done a great job of corrupting you guys.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian, it can't be fun to be the source of endless mockery.

RGT, the obvious theory for how the microspheres got to the Brooklyn Bridge is that they floated there on the hot clouds of pulverized concrete.

No, the obvious theory is that invisible elevator repairmen planted the microspheres on the bridge. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 17 February, 2012 10:10, Blogger Ian said...

Why do you disappear about 6PM Eastern every night? It's almost like that's your bedtime.

I think Brian operates during the hours of operation of the local public library.

It makes me sad to think that a bright 7th grader might want to write her report on the US Constitution on a computer at the library, but can't because an middle-aged unemployed janitor is posting spam about magic thermite elves and invisible widows all over the internet.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, I've known several lawyers. I've long been interested in the differences in epistemology among scientific, journalistic, and legal communities. In the latter there are differences in criminal and civil practice.

Lawyers can be disbarred for lying.
ABA rules provide that a lawyer "shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact."

A lawyer is permitted to push the envelope with reality if she suspects that the client's story may not be true, but assumes for the sake of argument that it is.

Thus both of Steve's claims (that defense attorneys lie to protect terrorists, and that patsies do not complain of being entrapped) are shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Almost all of you here are crippled by faulty world views--by myths you invent to explain to yourselves how the world works. I wish I could claim that your misconceptions were fascinating or amusing. Mostly they're just dull, and discouraging, and only mildly instructive.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:16, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, I've known several lawyers. I've long been interested in the differences in epistemology among scientific, journalistic, and legal communities. In the latter there are differences in criminal and civil practice.

Nobody cares what you're interested in since you're a deranged liar. Also, nobody cares if you knew people in elementary school who became lawyers since you're an unemployed janitor who babbles about magic thermite elves.

Lawyers can be disbarred for lying.
ABA rules provide that a lawyer "shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact."


Right, so why are you babbling about how defense lawyers are lying? Nobody but you are making this claim.

A lawyer is permitted to push the envelope with reality if she suspects that the client's story may not be true, but assumes for the sake of argument that it is.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Lawyers can be disbarred for lying.
ABA rules provide that a lawyer "shall not knowingly make a false statement of material fact."


The ABA doesn't disbar anybody. Only states get to disbar their own lawyers.

Intentionally violating your client's interests will get you disbarred faster than just about anything, except maybe misappropriating client funds.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...I've known several lawyers...[blah][blah][blah]"

More shameless lies from SLC's resident troll.

Yeah right, Duchess, lawyers routinely associate with college dropouts and failed janitors who wear women's underwear.

 
At 17 February, 2012 11:22, Blogger Ian said...

Thus both of Steve's claims (that defense attorneys lie to protect terrorists, and that patsies do not complain of being entrapped) are shown to be inconsistent with reality.

Steve made neither of these claims. You're just babbling because you're a pathetic unemployed lunatic who washes his hair with soap.

The fact that you're delusional enough to claim that this is what Steve explains why you're delusional enough to think the collapses of the WTC towers were "baffling".

Almost all of you here are crippled by faulty world views--by myths you invent to explain to yourselves how the world works.

Ah, the pathetic squealing of a delusional liar and failed janitor who was expelled from the truth movement. It's hilarious.

I wish I could claim that your misconceptions were fascinating or amusing. Mostly they're just dull, and discouraging, and only mildly instructive.

Please, keep squealing and crying, Brian. We all are amused by you and your deranged obsessions.

Also, you still haven't presented a shred of evidence that the "widows" have questions.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. Steve claimed that the defense attorneys for the patsies in the phony terrorist plots were lying to protect terrorists. I said they were not. It is obviously your attempt here to sow confusion to protect your lies.

RGT, nothing I said was mistaken. Like Ian you try to sow confusion to create the impression that I am wrong.

ButtGale, where did you get the idea that I was a dropout who wears women's underwear? Besides, Bill Gates is a dropout, and Steve Jobs was a dropout. Lawyers associated with them. Maybe if you had dropped out you wouldn't be such a loser.

You're a despicable liar, Ian, as anyone who checks the document can see. The widows had 300 questions, and they only got 27 answers.

http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Where did I get the idea that you're a college dropout?

Tell us about that F in Economics, Duchess. And when you're finished, explain why you don't understand simple concepts like ΔT.

If you're a college graduate, I'm Santa Claus, Elvis Presley and the Easter Bunny all rolled into one.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And tell us some more about your utterly botched "derivation" of acceleration.

If you finished your freshman year of junior college I'd be shocked. But you didn't, so it's not an issue.

Maybe if you spent more time studying as opposed to sniffing glue, trolling the internet and sexually assaulting anyone who can fog a mirror you'd have an education.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, where do you get the idea that I got an F in Economics? And what does that have to do with your claim that I'm a college dropout?
And where do you get the idea that I don't understand ΔT.

As to acceleration, I have no idea what you're talking about, and no reason to think you do either. You seem to be missing a few keys on your accordian.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, troll, when your back's against the wall, lie and deny what everyone knows is true.

You'll say anything--literally anything--to gain the rhetorical advantage, even when it flies in the face of dozens of your own statements on the record for the last three years.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

In other words, you can't answer the questions, you can't back up your claims, and you can't explain your logic. Thanks for making that clear.

 
At 17 February, 2012 12:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't have to prove anything. The blog archives prove I'm telling the truth.

You admitted to flunking out of Econ.

And when asked to explain the concept of ΔT you squealed and changed the subject. You REFUSED to answer the question no matter how many times you were asked to prove your alleged understanding of simple concepts. Your consistent reply was "I don't jump through your hoops"--which is nothing more than a cop out.

You're a charlatan and a liar.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

What blog archives prove your empty claims?

There is nothing to explain in ΔT. It just means change in temperature. It can be positive or negative, large or small.

The things you think are tests only show your ignorance, and you're simply posturing to try to cover up your ignorance, your irrationality, and your dishonesty.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, now you know the definition of ΔT. Of course, you conveniently omit the part where I had to explain the concept to you.

So why did you repeatedly refuse to answer the question?

The answer is as plain as the nose on your ferret face: You have no idea what you're talking about because you're a college dropout, pervert and a compulsive liar.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, I knew about ΔT from college chemistry in 1975. It's a trivial concept, and for you to brag about explaining it (and lie in doing so) only shows your simple-mindedness.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So why did you repeatedly refuse to answer the question, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?

The proof is in the pudding, and you refused to answer the question because you didn't know the answer.

I'm a computer scientist, goat fucker, and I love to discuss ANY subject related to my area of expertise.

So what's your excuse, Pinocchio?

The answer is simple: You have no idea what you're talking about because you're a charlatan, college dropout, pervert and a compulsive liar.

Now, squeal again, troll.

 
At 17 February, 2012 13:44, Blogger Ian said...

ButtGale, I knew about ΔT from college chemistry in 1975. It's a trivial concept, and for you to brag about explaining it (and lie in doing so) only shows your simple-mindedness.

It's hilarious to see brian lying about attending college by saying something that anyone who has had high school chemistry would know.

Brian, I think you did go to college. You just did way too much acid, damaged your brain, flunked out, and ended up unable to hold a job and constantly babbling about paranoid conspiracies. That's why you're a failed janitor who babbles about invisible widows with "questions" all say.

 
At 17 February, 2012 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never had high school chemistry. You show no indication that you ever had any checmistry at all. If you did you might understand the significance of the black smoke coming out of the twin towers.

Mutt and Jeff here seem to be unable to create an argument even with the two of them pretending to believe each other's lies.

 
At 17 February, 2012 14:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never had high school chemistry.

Well, that's obvious, given the laughable nonsense you post here on the subject.

You show no indication that you ever had any checmistry at all.

How would you know? You know nothing about chemistry, which is why you ended up a janitor (and a poor one at that).

If you did you might understand the significance of the black smoke coming out of the twin towers.

Combustion (in its dirty form) produces smoke. There was combustion going on at the WTC after the planes crashed into the towers. Learn to Google.

Mutt and Jeff here seem to be unable to create an argument even with the two of them pretending to believe each other's lies.

That's irrelevant. What matters is that you're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear.

 
At 17 February, 2012 14:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Duchess squeals, "...Mutt and Jeff here seem to be unable to create an argument even with the two of them pretending to believe each other's lies."

Yeah, I guess that explains why you refuse to answer my questions.

So why did you repeatedly refuse to answer the ΔT question, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?

The answer is as plain as the nose on your ferret face: You know nothing about physical science. Your knowledge of physical science is limited to pseudo-science, which you've managed to glean over the years from clowns like Richard Gage, Jim Hoffman and the like.

When challenged to THINK FOR YOURSELF, you consistently fall flat on your ferret face.

 
At 18 February, 2012 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the black smoke shows that the combustion in the WTC was oxygen starved which, as Dr. Thomas Eagar points out, can not support high-temperature fires. And yet NIST claims high-temperature fires weakened the steel. Your belief that because I never had high-school chemistry therefore I had no chemistry at all is irrational.

ButtGale, if I refused to answer the ΔT question (and I don't remember that I did) it was because it was a trivial and stupid question.

 
At 18 February, 2012 16:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You show no indication that you ever had any checmistry at all. If you did you might understand the significance of the black smoke coming out of the twin towers."

They elected a new Pope?

 
At 18 February, 2012 16:39, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Just to point out if on 9/10/2001 the FBI had arrested all 19 Al Qaeda hijackers the Brian Goodes of the world would be crying "set up!", "racial profiling", or some other nut-job theory about what really happened.

...which is the exact reason FBI middle management was over-cautious in their investigations (or lack thereof).

If nothing else this thread proves the attacks of 9/11 were Brian's fault, and he should be held accountable.

We expect you to turn yourself into the proper authorities.

 
At 18 February, 2012 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 February, 2012 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 February, 2012 18:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you're only demonstrating your talent in bullshitting yourself.

Many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers could have been arrested on visa violations. No set-up involved. The operation probably could have been terminated if intel agents disguised as homeless people had simply approached Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi and asked them for $10 saying, "Don't I know you from Marienstrasse? How's that flight school thing working out for you?"

 
At 18 February, 2012 18:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The operation probably could have been terminated if intel agents disguised as homeless people had simply approached Mohammed Atta and and asked them for $10 saying,

Wouldn't that require prior knowledge of the operation?

 
At 19 February, 2012 07:55, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the black smoke shows that the combustion in the WTC was oxygen starved which, as Dr. Thomas Eagar points out, can not support high-temperature fires. And yet NIST claims high-temperature fires weakened the steel.

See what I mean? You're a delusional liar who thinks the fires at the WTC were oxygen starved.

Your belief that because I never had high-school chemistry therefore I had no chemistry at all is irrational.

Brian, you flunked out of college, which is why you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. The fact that you think black smoke tells us the fires at the WTC were oxygen-starved just proves that you know nothing about chemistry.

ButtGale, if I refused to answer the ΔT question (and I don't remember that I did) it was because it was a trivial and stupid question.

See what I mean? You don't understand chemistry, which is why you're running away squealing and crying from GuitarBill.

 
At 19 February, 2012 07:57, Blogger Ian said...

Many of the alleged 9/11 hijackers could have been arrested on visa violations. No set-up involved. The operation probably could have been terminated if intel agents disguised as homeless people had simply approached Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi and asked them for $10 saying, "Don't I know you from Marienstrasse? How's that flight school thing working out for you?"

Hey Brian, if al Qaeda did it, why do you waste so much time babbling about magic spray-on thermite and invisible elevator repairmen and super-secret silent explosives?

 
At 19 February, 2012 09:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, since the Mossad warned of 19 terrorists inside the USA planning something big; since they named names, including 2 pilots and 2 known al Qaeda operatives who bought 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01; and since al Qaeda's "Project Bojinka" plan to fly hijacked airliners into landmark buildings and the Pentagon had been known since 1995; since 3 FBI offices had warned of attacks involving airplanes, and since one FBI office had warned of attacks in lower Manhattan; somebody knew something was up. The 9/11 Commission says "The system was blinking red." Somebody did know something was up.

Ian, Dr. Thomas Eagar says the WTC fires were oxygen starved. He wrote: "The WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke. Soot is generated by incompletely burned fuel; hence, the WTC fire was fuel rich." Is Dr. Eagar a liar?

The only one babbling is you. You insistence on morphing the facts to fit your beliefs about their context perhaps explains why Wall Street no longer requires your services. You're like the fourth-string analyst who insists that WaMu can't be making bad loans because the stock market is projected to rise.

 
At 19 February, 2012 10:00, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

petgoat writes:
"Is Dr. Eagar a liar?"

I don't know, you tell us.

"I haven't seen anything from Dr. Jones or anyone else (in the 9/11 truth movement) that can't be discredited."
-- Thomas Eagar

Is Dr. Eagar a liar?

"Eagar also said it is accepted science that the jet fuel burned hot enough in the twin towers to collapse them."
--Deseret Morning News

Is Dr. Eagar a liar?

"These people (in the 9/11 truth movement) use the 'reverse scientific method.' They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."
--Thomas Eagar

Is Dr. Eagar a liar?

 
At 19 February, 2012 10:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Eagar may have believed those things when he said them in 2006. If he says them again today and he fails to back them up, yes, he'll be a liar.

It is obviously not true that "It is accepted science that the jet fuel burned hot enough in the twin towers to collapse them." 1660 architects and engineers do not accept that. How many will go on record as accepting it?

Dr. Eagar's claim that he hasn't seen anything in the 9/11 truth movement that can't be discredited rests on what he has or has not seen. By remaining willfully ignorant he can maintain the technical truth of that statement. If he were honest he would either discredit the truth movement or withdraw the statement.

 
At 19 February, 2012 11:25, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

OK, so you think Eagar either is a liar or doesn't know the facts about the WTC. So your citing him as an authority on the WTC's smoke was just typical truther cherry-picking.

"1660 architects and engineers do not accept that."

Trutherism has far less support than other pseudosciences. Five years after its issue, the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" statement had garnered the signatures of 514 doctoral scientists, including 154 PhD biologists (lesser-degreed scientists are not eligible to sign).

Compare that with AE911's ~50 doctoral architects and engineers (by your count), fewer than 15 of which are structural, mechanical, or civil engineers.

It's no surprise that truther cult leaders are peddling their kookery at Nation of Islam conventions and not structural engineering conferences.

 
At 19 February, 2012 11:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mike, Dr. Eagar is certainly qualified to expound on the meaning of sooty smoke, and this is accepted science. If you agree with Ian that sooty smoke does not mean an oxygen-starved fire, perhaps you will cite some authority for that claim.

The tactic y'all use here of dividing the evidence into canonical and heretical texts is one that is in my experience is employed only in authoritarian and dogmatic cultures to enforce intellectual conformity. Cultures
such as the institutions with which you 514 signatories to "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" affiliate.

For you to compare institutionally-supported pseudoscience with 9/11 Truth is highly inaccurate. Independent truthers pursue their investigations in spite of institutional opposition, not in knuckling under to ideological conformity demanded of them.

 
At 19 February, 2012 14:48, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"Dr. Eagar is certainly qualified to expound on the meaning of sooty smoke"

Yeah, I understand. If Eagar says something you like, then he's a qualified authority. In the much more frequent case that he says something you don't like, then he's a liar and/or ignoramus. Same with Dr. Astaneh-Asl. Got it.

Petgoat, you're as bad as Chris Sarns ("Christopher7") over at JREF. For Chris, RJ Lee's pronouncements were incontestable Holy Writ until RJ Lee wrote this letter. Then Chris started accusing RJ Lee of "absurd, uninformed speculation."

"For you to compare institutionally-supported pseudoscience with 9/11 Truth is highly inaccurate."

The comparison was accurate. You're just upset that 9/11 denial gets far less professional support than evolution denial. Hence your awful attempt at special pleading ("creationism doesn't count, because...").

 
At 19 February, 2012 15:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

For Chris, RJ Lee's pronouncements were incontestable Holy Writ until RJ Lee wrote this letter.

Thank you for sharing that, I wasn't even aware of that response.

 
At 19 February, 2012 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, are you claiming that Dr. Eagar is not an authority on combustion in fires? Are you claiming he is wrong? If not, you have no point.

RJ Lee is capable of being right sometimes, and engaging in unsubstatiated speculation at others. So am I, so are you, so is Dr. Eagar. There is nothing wrong with citing Dr. Eagar as a handy authority on combustion for a totally non-controversial fact to slap down an ignoramus like Ian whose unsupported and erroneous opinions make this board into a joke.

Evolution denial gets support from "experts" because their jobs in the faith-based university community depend on supporting it--and few of them could actually get jobs outside of that network.

9/11 Truth gets support from experts despite the fact that they risk their careers in advancing it.

RGT, MR's belief that Christopher7 is Chris Sarns shows MR to be woefully misinformed.

 
At 19 February, 2012 16:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mr Wrote: you think Eagar either is a liar or doesn't know the facts about the WTC.

Fifteen words, two logical fallacies: straw man and false dichotomy.

Dr. Eagar could be a liar and not know the facts about the WTC. He could be not a liar and not know the facts about the WTC. He could be a liar and know the facts about the WTC. He could be not a liar and know the facts about the WTC.

 
At 19 February, 2012 16:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The operation probably could have been terminated if intel agents disguised as homeless people had simply approached Mohammed Atta and Marwan al Shehhi and asked them for $10 saying, "Don't I know you from Marienstrasse? How's that flight school thing working out for you?""

Intel agents?

It is against the law for Intel agents to operate actively within the borders of the US.

FBI agents can. Duh.

However FBI agents aren't tasked with visa violations, INS is.

Learn how the government works, dumbass.

 
At 19 February, 2012 17:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 February, 2012 17:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the FBI has intel agents too. There would be no problem with having our friends in the Mossad handle any dirty work our guys couldn't do.

Here's an example of a joint ICE/FBI raid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1vsMPSpPxI

You are full of facile and erroneous arguments that you apparently get from lying propaganda websites.

 
At 19 February, 2012 17:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"For you to compare institutionally-supported pseudoscience with 9/11 Truth is highly inaccurate. Independent truthers pursue their investigations in spite of institutional opposition, not in knuckling under to ideological conformity demanded of them."

...and by ideological conformity you mean that pesky scientific method. You know, documentation, experimentation also documented then repeated, submission of documentation to a qualified review source.

 
At 19 February, 2012 17:30, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, the FBI has intel agents too."

No shit, dumbass, their place in a raid is to stay in the van and identify suspects via radio.

"There would be no problem with having our friends in the Mossad handle any dirty work our guys couldn't do."

There would be a huge problem. Plus you're the guy whining about secret prisons and torture.

Have you switched your meds?

 
At 19 February, 2012 17:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RJ Lee is capable of being right sometimes, and engaging in unsubstatiated speculation at others."

This is the root of your mental illness. RJ Lee can't be both.

 
At 19 February, 2012 18:25, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"There is nothing wrong with citing Dr. Eagar as a handy authority on combustion"

An argument from authority (which you use quite often) is a fallacy in itself. But the argument is absurd when you yourself dismiss that same authority whenever you feel like it. If you don't trust an authority, then don't ask us to accept their pronouncements at face value.

"MR, are you claiming that Dr. Eagar is not an authority on combustion in fires? Are you claiming he is wrong?"

Eagar says that the fires were "fuel-rich," and burned hot enough to collapse the towers. I'm not claiming he's wrong.


"Evolution denial gets support from "experts" because their jobs in the faith-based university community depend on supporting it"

You're just blabbering. How many of the Dissent from Darwinism signatories are from faith-based universities? I don't see many.

 
At 19 February, 2012 18:27, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"RGT, MR's belief that Christopher7 is Chris Sarns shows MR to be woefully misinformed."

Christopher7 refers to the page at http://truthphalanx.com/chris_sarns/ as his own. See this post and this post. Truthers say that he's Chris Sarns. Debunkers say he's Chris Sarns. However, I'm open to the possibility that he's not.

 
At 19 February, 2012 20:50, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Christopher7 is indeed Chris Sarns.

At Sarns' web page, under the heading "The Fictitious 10 Story Gouge in WTC 7," Sarns mentions his debates on JREF and links to his own posts.

The user name on those posts is Christopher7.

Are you ever right about anything, Brian?

 
At 19 February, 2012 20:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, no by by ideological conformity I do not mean the scientific method--and if you had bothered to read my post before reacting to what you wrongly assumed it said, you would know that. By ideological conformity I meant doctrinal superstitions promulgated by faith-based universities.

Your belief that RJ Lee can not sometimes be right and at other times engage in unsubstantiated speculation is irrational.

MR, unless Dr. Eagar is wrong about combustion, there is no fallacy about citing his authority. You have not shown him to be wrong about combustion, and I happen to know that his opiniong on these matters have been corroborated by qualified Fire Scientists.

 
At 20 February, 2012 11:00, Blogger John said...

Your belief that RJ Lee can not sometimes be right and at other times engage in unsubstantiated speculation is irrational.

So they were right about the microspheres, but then speculating about the microspheres?

 
At 20 February, 2012 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

How should I know? I was just analyzing MGF's illogic. I wasn't getting into the content.

 
At 20 February, 2012 12:21, Blogger John said...

How should I know? I was just analyzing MGF's illogic. I wasn't getting into the content.

That speaks volumes.

 
At 20 February, 2012 14:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your belief that logic depends on content speaks volumes about you.

The RJ Lee statement you cite is speculation. No empirical data supporting the claim that flakes of rust can form iron microspheres in office fires or in jet fuel fires are provided. Nor are any data provided showing that alumino-silicate spheres were created during the fires rather than present as an element of the concrete.

News flash, MR: a person can be an authority on one thing and engage in unsupported speculation on another.

You guys reason like children.

 
At 20 February, 2012 18:42, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, no by by ideological conformity I do not mean the scientific method--and if you had bothered to read my post before reacting to what you wrongly assumed it said, you would know that. By ideological conformity I meant doctrinal superstitions promulgated by faith-based universities."

Troofer are faith-based themselves. Their whole pursuit is based on faith of a deep conspiracy. If you have to clarify what you meant it is a sign of you inferior writing skills (which will be added to the miles-long list of your other failures).

"Your belief that RJ Lee can not sometimes be right and at other times engage in unsubstantiated speculation is irrational."

No, it's rooted in logic:

RJ Lee performed one of the few independent investigations in an area within the zone of influence of Ground Zero.

Unlike the government, RJ Lee employs the best scientific researchers to do the study at every level (field to lab to write-up).

The Deutsche Bank study cost $56 million.

While RJ Lee might not be credible when discussing the New York Yankees, or Cathy Lee Gifford they are a reliable source when discussing environmental elements of Ground Zero.

RJ Lee does not shy away from controversy. They also don't misspeak.

Just because they don't agree with your religious view of conspiracy doesn't make them wrong.

 
At 20 February, 2012 23:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, when and where did you become an expert on truthers? Or are your beliefs about truthers, like your beliefs about 9/11, just based on your fantasies?

When did RJ Lee express any disagreements with anybody's religious beliefs on conspiracy? YOu are very confused.

 
At 21 February, 2012 06:46, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"You have not shown him to be wrong about combustion"

When did I say Eagar was wrong about anything? Eagar says that the fires were fuel-rich, that they got hot enough to collapse the towers, and that truthers are a bunch of kooks who use the reverse scientific method. Sounds reasonable to me. He is qualified to opine on all of that stuff. Your cherry-picking of his (and others') quotes is the issue.

"News flash, MR: a person can be an authority on one thing and engage in unsupported speculation on another."

Yeah, we've been through that. "Authoritative statement" = a claim you like. "Unsupported speculation" = a claim you don't like.


"You guys reason like children."

You reason like what you are: a fanatical, politically motivated pseudoscientist who believes in hush-a-boom explosions that don't breach their containers but do propel multi-ton debris sections 600 ft at 60mph. You're a joke.

 
At 21 February, 2012 10:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, Dr. Eagar is qualified to opine on combustion. He is not qualified to comment on the heuristic methodology of the truth movement unless he has actually studied that methodology, and he gives us no reason to believe that he has.

After making rather bold statements in 2006, Dr. Eagar seems to be laying low. I've never seen him back up those statements in any way. If the truther arguments have no merit, why is he unwilling to debate them in public? You might try emailing him and ask him if he is willing to stand by those statements today, and if he would be willing to defend them in public to counterargument.

What "sounds reasonable" but has not been subjected to questioning and investigation is nothing more than ignorant assumptions.

An authoritative statement is one by an expert with accountability, such as the experts at AE911Truth. Unsupported speculation is a claim made, regardless of the authority of the claimant, for which evidence is not supplied. Despite MGF's incompetent beliefs to the contrary, it's possible for the same person to issue authoritative statements on one subject and unsupported speculation on another.
Your facile and unjustified beliefs about my cognitive approach are nothing more than ignorant assumptions.

Your belief that I am a political fanatic is only your own fantasy. You have no idea what my political affiliations are. Your insistence that all explosions must satisfy all critera is irrational and dishonest. Those who try to ascribe all phenomena to one cause are 1) those who believes God does everything and 2) dishonest debunkers trying through sophistry to cover up serious questions from serious people.

 
At 21 February, 2012 10:31, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

^^^Squeal, squeal, squeal.

"An authoritative statement is one by an expert with accountability, such as the experts at AE911Truth."

That one had me laughing so hard I was gasping for air.

"Your insistence that all explosions must satisfy all critera is irrational and dishonest."

Are you trying to say that some explosions were contained within Jiffy Pop box columns and others flung debris 600ft at 60mph? That the demolition was both noisy and ineffective? Please continue!

 
At 21 February, 2012 12:35, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

The widows had 300 questions and they only got 27 answers. That means 273 questions pending.

Widows answering their own questions. Where the fucks the logic in that Brian?

 
At 21 February, 2012 12:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you want an argument-by-ridicule to work, you usually have to be right. Or at least you have to be halfway clever.

 
At 21 February, 2012 13:09, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

If you want an argument-by-ridicule to work, you usually have to be right. Or at least you have to be halfway clever.

That still doesn't answer my question Brian, and you can dodge all you like since it's the truth.

I'll repeat it again so you can UNDERSTAND it:

Widows answering their own questions. Where the fucks the logic in that Brian?

 
At 21 February, 2012 17:28, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he's been pwn3d completely on the question of black smoke and his quote-mining of Dr. Eagar, so now he'll just try to bury it in dumbspam in which he uses lots of serious-sounding words like "logic" and "irrational".

It must be hard to be a failed janitor and liar who was kicked out of the truth movment.

 
At 21 February, 2012 17:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, when and where did you become an expert on truthers? Or are your beliefs about truthers, like your beliefs about 9/11, just based on your fantasies?"

I'm a former conspiracy loon. I know your playbook. I just my head out of my ass, the oxygen to my brain restored my grasp of logic.

The worst part about you and the troofers is you are THIRD RATE HACKS. You have jack-shit in the way of evidence. You have no credible witnesses from inside of the conspiracy.No David Atlee Phillips, no grainy photos of demo-teams, no mysterious deaths of controversial counter eye-witnesses.

Fuck, even the UFO crowd has more to hang their hat on than troofers ever will.

Troofers have been shoving RJ Lee in our faces for the last few years. NOW when RJ Lee calls bullshit on your iron micro sphere jack-ape theories you guys turn on them instantly.

You guys have nothing because you are nothing.

 
At 21 February, 2012 22:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I'm not surprised that you think you are a former conspiracy loon. But though you may to some degree be in recovery, you are clearly not a former loon.

Did you ever hear the expression "dry drunk"? That's someone who gives up alcohol but doesn't change their behavior otherwise. You are like a dry drunk. All that's different is that now you're raving about a conspiracy of conspiracists to spread conspiracy theories--and you project your loonyness on them.

We have oodles of evidence: videos, witness testimony, samples of formerly-molten steel, pictures. We have admissions from NIST that they did not fully explain the total collapse, that their computer models yielded non-convergent solutions after collapse initiation, that WTC7 fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds, and that their wtc7 analysis can not be considered to be "consistent with physical principles".

Where do you get the idea that RJ Lee called bullshit on the microspheres?

 
At 22 February, 2012 06:32, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, I'm not surprised that you think you are a former conspiracy loon. But though you may to some degree be in recovery, you are clearly not a former loon.

Right, he's not insane, which is why he woke up and left the conspiracy theories behind him. You, of course, are completely insane, so you'll be babbling about magic thermite elves forever.

We have oodles of evidence: videos, witness testimony, samples of formerly-molten steel, pictures. We have admissions from NIST that they did not fully explain the total collapse, that their computer models yielded non-convergent solutions after collapse initiation, that WTC7 fell at free-fall for 2.25 seconds, and that their wtc7 analysis can not be considered to be "consistent with physical principles".

See what I mean? There is no evidence of controlled demolition, and yet you continue to babble about it endlessly as if anyone cares about your delusions.

 
At 22 February, 2012 08:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian MGF claimed to be a former loon. I said he was not a former loon. Your reading of the matter is typical no-comprende Iananity.

I know how you tag-teamers work. One of you says something stupid, and when he's called on it, another one comes along and pretends to misunderstand the issue in order to waste bandwidth and spread confusion.

Your belief that the oodles of evidence I listed is not evidence is just pure, panic-stricken, hysterical, and stoopid denialism.

 
At 22 February, 2012 08:58, Blogger Ian said...

Ian MGF claimed to be a former loon. I said he was not a former loon. Your reading of the matter is typical no-comprende Iananity.

Right, MGF is not a loon, you are a loon. This is simple for normal people, but apparently not for failed janitors who wear women's underwear.

I know how you tag-teamers work. One of you says something stupid, and when he's called on it, another one comes along and pretends to misunderstand the issue in order to waste bandwidth and spread confusion.


Nobody is spreading confusion. We're pointing and laughing at you because you're an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and spends all day babbling about invisible widows and magic thermite elves.

Your belief that the oodles of evidence I listed is not evidence is just pure, panic-stricken, hysterical, and stoopid denialism.

Typical Brian. Point out that his delusions are not evidence of anything except his own mental illness, and he starts squealing and crying.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home