Box Boy: 9-11 Was an Inside Job
No surprise, Gage lets the mask slip a bit:
We were also honored to speak to many times that many live streaming on the internet and who knows how that message will reverberate throughout the Nation of Islam and into the Black community where we’re hoping to receive more support than we’ve received in the White community. The support I’m referring to is breaking through into the public’s consciousness so that people can understand if the World Trade Center Towers were indeed destroyed with controlled demolition, then this is obviously some sort of an inside job and people here really get that.(Bolding added for emphasis)
Gage has usually been coy about admitting that he's a conspiracy theorist, preferring to leave open the question of who was behind the attacks. This is the first I can recall him using the term "inside job". Of course, on Chinese TV, he did state that Muslims didn't have anything to do with 9-11, so it's not like he's fooling anybody but his donors.
Labels: Nation of Islam, Richard Gage
posted by Pat @ 8:32 AM
122 comments
122 Comments:
Gage writes: "throughout the Nation of Islam and into the Black community where we’re hoping to receive more support than we’ve received in the White community. The support I’m referring to is breaking through into the public’s consciousness"
Oh yeah? How does he arrive at this conclusion?
The NoI event was on february 25th.
During a 4 weeks period before that, 01/17-02/14, the AE911-"Petition" had 0.29 new signatures from A&E per day, and 49 from Other Supporters per day.
During 3 weeks since, 02/28-03/20, the numbers were down to 0.19 (-34%) and 39 (-20%), respectively.
So far from bringing more support to AE911T, we can observe that support has significantly decreased since Gage and Ryan reached out to this sect!
And why do you have a statistical blackout period for the two weeks from 2/14 to 2/28?
And Pat, is there something about the conditional "if" that you don't understand?
snug.bug said: "And why do you have a statistical blackout period for the two weeks from 2/14 to 2/28?"
I have a table with the number of signatures on 25 different days since may 2007. I have started to record these numbers with varying frequency last october, before that I found some numbers here an there. I can compute growth rates for any interval between any two of these dates, that would be 300 possible intervals. I left out 298 of these.
I specifically left out "2/14 to 2/28" because that interval is in part before and in part after the NoI event and it wouldn't be clear if a surge or a trough in that interval would have come before, after or during that event. Unfortunataly, I don't have any data for february 25th.
Wow! Have you ever considered a career with NIST?
And Pat, is there something about the conditional "if" that you don't understand?
So Richard Gage doesn't believe it was a controlled demolition that brought the towers down?
Brian, if you believe it was a controlled demolition (which you do), then you must also believe it was an inside job (which you also do). You can squeal all you want, but it won't change the fact.
Also, you're a failed janitor who sniffs glue and believes in invisible widows.
Wow! Have you ever considered a career with NIST?
Yup, that's the kind of squealing I expect from a liar and lunatic like you.
"The support I’m referring to is breaking through into the public’s consciousness so that people can understand if the World Trade Center Towers were indeed destroyed with controlled demolition, then this is obviously some sort of an inside job and people here really get that."
Pretty clear to me.
Yes, Brian, are you seriously suggesting that Gage is leaving open the possibility that the WTC collapses were not controlled demolition?
Wow! Have you ever considered a career with NIST?
Wow. Such a cheap shot should at least have an articulable criticism to go along with it. Do you have one?
Wow. Such a cheap shot should at least have an articulable criticism to go along with it. Do you have one?
C'mon, you know Brian gets like this when he's really upset. Obviously, he can't deal with Richard Gage becoming more and more obviously a fraud and charlatan. After all, Brian's been mindlessly repeating whatever Gage says for years.
LMAO!!! Its so apparent when someone talks over Brian's head. Mental drooling has never been so obvious.
I've got a bad feeling that when Gage doesn't get the type of response he craves, I think he's going to call them a bunch of names and hopefully both ethnic parties will kick his ass.
He deserves a good ass kicking.
"He deserves a good ass kicking."
-alwayswrong
Translation: Dear God, I wish I could find an argument...ANY argument, to refute what he says. Too bad I can't (sniff). Well, I can always act like a tough guy and talk about ass-kicking. yeah. Like Pat did with DRG years ago. Pat's real tough like that too.
I wish I could find an argument...ANY argument, to refute what he says.
Gage is pretty much self-refuting. His assertions tend to be internally inconsistent.
Oystein, you wrote on JREF that RJ Lee '...reported 6% by mass iron-rich microspheres and note in passing that these are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses'.
Since this is completely false, and you can't point to any place in the report that says this, can you please tell us if this was an intentional lie, or simply a careless mistake? Will you retract it, now that you've been corrected? Did you retract it on the JREF?
I see Cowardly is back after falling flat on his face about Millette & Jenkins.
So what are you lying about today buddy?
So what are you lying about today buddy?
It appears that after five days of scrutiny, he's criticizing Oystein for what amounts to a grammar issue.
As a side issue, how many symptoms of Asperger syndrome can you spot in Cowardly's behavior? I count lack of empathy, one-sided conversation, abnormal fixation on specific topics, repetitive questioning, and odd syntax choices combined with otherwise competent language development. Plus one can tell without meeting him that he's socially inept.
What do you want to bet that he blames his condition on vaccines?
I always figured Brian was the one with Aspergers, given his obsession with the minute details of certain topics, his Spock-like inability to understand humor, sarcasm, or irony, and his advanced language development.
Pat Cowardly just strikes me as an angry loser.
Quoth RGT: "As a side issue, how many symptoms of Asperger syndrome can you spot in Cowardly's behavior?"
We'd be remiss not to mention delusional beliefs.
See what I mean? His post:
Translation: Dear God, I wish I could find an argument...ANY argument, to refute what he says. Too bad I can't (sniff). Well, I can always act like a tough guy and talk about ass-kicking. yeah. Like Pat did with DRG years ago. Pat's real tough like that too.
is just another variation on "Is that the best you can do? You've debunked nothing! Just like fat Pat Curley! Ha! What a bunch of losers!"
Here:
Since this is completely false, and you can't point to any place in the report that says this, can you please tell us if this was an intentional lie, or simply a careless mistake?
he demands a source from Oystein while providing no source himself.
And I guarantee that he'll never answer Oystein's question:
What is kaolinite, and where would you typically find it?
All in all another major step towards a new investigation. Not.
I always figured Brian was the one with Aspergers, given his obsession with the minute details of certain topics, his Spock-like inability to understand humor, sarcasm, or irony, and his advanced language development.
They both fit the profile, don't they? Excessive literalism is another trait I forgot to mention. Take the phrases "I saw melting of girders" or "the microspheres could have come from cutting torches", for example.
We'd be remiss not to mention delusional beliefs.
Whoa, thanks for that. I wasn't aware of that correlation. It makes sense though. Delusions of grandeur (well, of adequacy) definitely fit.
'...reported 6% by mass iron-rich microspheres and note in passing that these are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses'.
Oystein-- was this a careless mistake on your part, or a deliberate lie? Why won't you answer this simple question? Have you retracted this nonsense yet? Do you have the courage to do so here? If not, why should anyone listen to you at all?
Or, take the phrase "...reported 6% by mass iron-rich microspheres and note in passing that these are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses". A mentally healthy grownup wouldn't even find this passage relevant, let alone important.
"wouldn't even find this passage relevant" -Testicles for brains.
What passage are you talking about, RGT? The one that doesn't exist? Quote it verbatim, and provide a page number for us, champ!
You too, Oystein! Join Pat and RGT as the personifications of debunking failure.
And hurry up.
What passage are you talking about, RGT?
The one you quoted. God, you're an idiot.
I guess we'll have to wait for Oystein to point it out for you then, since you tried & failed again.
Oystein?
I guess we'll have to wait for Oystein to point it out for you then, since you tried & failed again.
Don't get your hopes up. Oystein is about three intellectual notches above you; he may find it difficult to explain down at your level.
Let's talk about you instead. Are you ScootleRoyale? Ever been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder? Open up a little bit.
This site really needs Brian Good's delusional ramblings. I wonder where he's been of late?
The zit-faced virgin is boring.
ASD wouldn't explain the incessant lying.
Oystein flees faster than Pat lurching to a buffet. RGT mumbles and drools, and NOT ONE OF YOU had debunked anything in this thread.
AGAIN.
OYSTEIN, PLEASE CITE EXACTLY where the RJ Lee report 'note in passing that [the spheres] are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses'.
WITHOUT A RETRACTION, YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THIS.
Why would someone repeat the same bullshit Mark Roberts tried (and was called on) years ago?
Pathetic.
Oystein flees faster than Pat lurching to a buffet. RGT mumbles and drools, and NOT ONE OF YOU had debunked anything in this thread.
"Is that the best you can do? You've debunked nothing! Just like fat Pat Curley! Ha! What a bunch of losers!"
I guess John couldn't help himself, so he huffed, puffed, and produced...nothing of substance, of course.
Why can't you defend any of your disproven beliefs, John?
OYSTEIN, PLEASE CITE EXACTLY where the RJ Lee report 'note in passing that [the spheres] are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses'.
Oystein is referring to Section 2.3.5, p. 16. There are no material differences between the verbatim text and Oystein's paraphrase. You're just flaming over word choices.
Why will you not answer my simple questions, Cowardly? Are you ScootleRoyale? Have you ever been diagnosed with an autism spectrum disorder? Why are you so afraid of me?
"There are no material differences between the verbatim text and Oystein's paraphrase."
This is a lie, and you know it. At least Oystein and Pat flee like cowards and shut their fat mouths. You have no such sense, and don't mind being exposed as a liar in public. Congratulations, liar: what you say is worthless. Let the adults talk.
Oystein? Any day now...
This is a lie, and you know it.
Materiality is subjective. The differences in question here are the kind of thing a child might find important. A nitpicky child with an abnormal interest in iron microspheres.
I guess John couldn't help himself, so he huffed, puffed, and produced...nothing of substance, of course.
First of all, this is YET ANOTHER variation on "Is that the best you can do? You've debunked nothing! Just like fat Pat Curley! Ha! What a bunch of losers!"
Why can't you defend any of your disproven beliefs, John?
I choose not to debate you for many reasons.
1. My beliefs don't need defending. They're the truth. Only delusional "truthers" believe otherwise.
2. You wouldn't believe anything I would post anyway, as you're one of the delusional truthers. Richard Gage could come out for the government story, and you still wouldn't believe it. (I should point out that NOWHERE in the RJ Lee report that you constantly cite do the words "thermite", "thermate", or "inside job" appear, so using it as proof of such is ridiculous. )
3. Nothing, I repeat NOTHING that goes on in the comment sections of this blog will affect anyone's opinion of what happened on 9/11. It just doesn't matter. It's just a pissing contest, and a pretty poor one at that.
4. Finally, as I keep saying, THERE WILL NEVER BE ANOTHER INVESTIGATION. The truth has prevailed. Any debate on it in the comments section of a blog is irrelevant. We've won, You've lost.
John, never is a very long time, and only the very stupid can believe for very long that their ignorant claims are "the truth". So I'm guessing you're about 8 years old.
Since the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7 have baffled the engineering community and NIST has failed to address the baffling things, new investigations are inevitable. As computers get inexorably faster, cheaper, better and as modeling software improves, the problems that NIST claimed were too complex to solve (IOW, their models failed to show the desired results) will become interesting subjects for Master's theses.
I'll look forward to Zelikow and Gross and Sunder becoming nouns such as Quisling, Bloomer, Shrapnel, Cardigan, Sandwich, Maverick, Boycott.
It should be so easy for John to defend his beliefs if they're the truth, and yet instead of simply pointing to 1 successful "debunking", he spends all of his time blustering and blubbering about the new investigation he's so afraid of. What could be more indicative that he's just an impotent shouter?
You wouldn't be so defensive if the truth were on your side, John-Boy.
"First of all, this is YET ANOTHER variation on "Is that the best you can do?"
Just speaking the truth about you and Pat, Johnny-boy. If you were able to prove otherwise, start typing something coherent. Ask uncle Pat for help after school.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up, or humiliate yourself again. Your choice, chump.
Son, you need to watch your language and answer RGT's questions. This is not how Mummy and I raised you.
It should be so easy for John to defend his beliefs if they're the truth
Apparently, you missed the part where I said you wouldn't believe me, no matter what I posted. Same for Brian.
NIST has failed to address the baffling things
Baffling to delusional truthers. Not to everyone else.
new investigations are inevitable
As is the new investigation to Abraham Lincoln's assassination.
So I'm guessing you're about 8 years old.
What could be more indicative that he's just an impotent shouter?
And now come the inevitable insults that end every pissing match on every comment section. Of every blog. Ever. We might as well be debating religion, or free markets. Or the liberal media. Or who's better, Katy Perry or Lady Gaga. It all ends the same.
Otherwise, shut the fuck up, or humiliate yourself again. Your choice, chump.
We had spaghetti at our house 3 times this week!
Yay, petgoat is back!
John, never is a very long time, and only the very stupid can believe for very long that their ignorant claims are "the truth". So I'm guessing you're about 8 years old.
And he starts off in a big way, babbling about his delusional belief that people will open a new investigation into 9/11 to see if magic thermite elves destroyed the towers.
Since the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC7 have baffled the engineering community and NIST has failed to address the baffling things, new investigations are inevitable.
Brian, the engineering community is not "baffled" by the collapse of the towers. You're baffled, but that's because you're a lunatic who lacks the basic intellectual skills to mop floors. That's why you're unemployed and live with your parents and call people "girls".
As computers get inexorably faster, cheaper, better and as modeling software improves, the problems that NIST claimed were too complex to solve (IOW, their models failed to show the desired results) will become interesting subjects for Master's theses.
And when they don't make any references to magic thermite elves, Brian will start squealing and crying about how the investigations are incomplete, dishonest, and unbelievable.
I'll look forward to Zelikow and Gross and Sunder becoming nouns such as Quisling, Bloomer, Shrapnel, Cardigan, Sandwich, Maverick, Boycott.
And we look forward to many more years of wild entertainment from your endless babbling about invisible widows.
John's punch drunk again. Way to defend your disproven beliefs, dude!
Who's next?
Quick Ian! Post something else! Hurry! Say something else about elves and widows! Use the word "squeal"! Cite that evidence! Fight for the truth!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chVPi-CZ34E
Quick Ian! Post something else! Hurry! Say something else about elves and widows! Use the word "squeal"! Cite that evidence! Fight for the truth!
There's plenty of evidence that Brian is a mentally ill unemployed janitor living on disability, just as there's plenty of evidence that you're a scrawny, zit-faced virgin with no job who (in all likelihood) has a Guy Fawkes mask in his possession.
I mean, normal people don't waste their time posting nonsense about conspiracy theories on a blog.
John, like most know-it-alls, you make stuff up. The collapses of the towers and WTC7 were baffling to most engineers. NOVA and the NYT tell us so. The fact that NIST wrote a 10,000 pages on the towers and then had to admit that they could not explain the total collapses shows that they remain baffled to this day. The fact that NIST can't explain the 2.4 seconds of freefall on WTC7 shows that they remain baffled there too.
Ian, I wouldn't call you "girl". You'd enjoy it too much.
The collapses of the towers and WTC7 were baffling to most engineers. NOVA and the NYT tell us so. The fact that NIST wrote a 10,000 pages on the towers and then had to admit that they could not explain the total collapses shows that they remain baffled to this day. The fact that NIST can't explain the 2.4 seconds of freefall on WTC7 shows that they remain baffled there too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chVPi-CZ34E
John, like most know-it-alls, you make stuff up.
Please, Brian. The correct phrase is "you make up your facts!"
The collapses of the towers and WTC7 were baffling to most engineers. NOVA and the NYT tell us so. The fact that NIST wrote a 10,000 pages on the towers and then had to admit that they could not explain the total collapses shows that they remain baffled to this day. The fact that NIST can't explain the 2.4 seconds of freefall on WTC7 shows that they remain baffled there too.
Speaking of making up facts, you actually think the engineering community is "baffled" by the collapses.
No, you're the only one who is baffled, which is understandable, given that you're a delusional liar who can't hold down a job mopping floors. It's just funny that you expect normal people to take you seriously when you're a 60-year-old man who spends all day posting dumbspam on the internet and calling people "girls".
Ian, I wouldn't call you "girl". You'd enjoy it too much.
Yup, that's our Brian. Running away because he's been humiliated so many times.
Hey Brian, do you think the widows will have their questions answered this weekend?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!
The Camel Jockey dissembles, "...OYSTEIN, PLEASE CITE EXACTLY where the RJ Lee report 'note in passing that [the spheres] are entirely expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses'...WITHOUT A RETRACTION, YOU ARE LYING ABOUT THIS."
What's this--you flea-bitten Al Qaeda apologist?
"...Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
"• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
"• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
"• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials."
RJ Lee Report, Page 16.
So who's lying, Camel Fucker?
By the way, how's disseminating Al Qaeda propaganda for the East London Mosque treating you, Ali?
Once again, you FAIL, Cowardly.
"• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
"• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials."
RJ Lee Report, Page 16.
Damn, it really IS right there, Fat Cowardly. So... WITHOUT A RETRACTION, you're kind of a douchebag.
"John, like most know-it-alls, you make stuff up. The collapses of the towers and WTC7 were baffling to most engineers. NOVA and the NYT tell us so"
Uh huh...except both NOVA and the NY Times go on to explain [in the articles you impulsively link to without reading first] the collapse as best they can.
The only people baffled are retards.
Like I said, "cowardly" is such an appropriate name, and ironic given the reason he posts under it. I have always been amazed by the willingness of truthers to put their lunacy on display for all to see.
UtterFail, RJ Lee did not say iron rich spheres were expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses. RJ Lee said they were expected in the WTC fires. In April 2002, at the time RJ Lee commenced its investigation, one of the WTC engineers (Leslie Robertson) told a Stanford audience that he had seen molten steel flowing at Ground Zero, and Matthys Levy told PBS that the WTC collapsed because the steel softened and melted. In that environment, everyone believed that there was something special about the WTC fires, and RJ Lee probably did too. It was only later that people came to recognize that jet fuel and office fires can not melt steel.
Billman, OYSTEIN's characterization of the RJ Lee report was not accurate, as I pointed out above.
MGF, so when NOVA and the NYT report that engineers are baffled, you think that fact doesn't matter because some reporters from NOVA and the NYT tried to explain it? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?
UtterFail, RJ Lee did not say iron rich spheres were expected in the ashes of building fires and collapses. RJ Lee said they were expected in the WTC fires.
That's nice, Brian.
In April 2002, at the time RJ Lee commenced its investigation, one of the WTC engineers (Leslie Robertson) told a Stanford audience that he had seen molten steel flowing at Ground Zero, and Matthys Levy told PBS that the WTC collapsed because the steel softened and melted.
That's nice, Brian.
In that environment, everyone believed that there was something special about the WTC fires, and RJ Lee probably did too. It was only later that people came to recognize that jet fuel and office fires can not melt steel.
Nobody thinks the steel melted, nor is there any evidence of melted steel, so you can stop posting this dumbspam any time you'd like.
Billman, OYSTEIN's characterization of the RJ Lee report was not accurate, as I pointed out above.
False.
MGF, so when NOVA and the NYT report that engineers are baffled, you think that fact doesn't matter because some reporters from NOVA and the NYT tried to explain it? Do you have any idea how stupid that is?
Brian, nobody is baffled by the collapses except you.
And it's understandable that you'd be baffled by the collapses. After all, you can't even hold down a job mopping floors, which is why you live with your parents. We wouldn't expect someone as dumb and insane as you to understand what happened on 9/11. That's why we're here to try to explain it to you. Also, the widows have no questions.
Ian, Leslie Robertson told Stanford he saw molten steel running. Matthys Levy told NOVA the core columns "began to soften and melt".
Scientific American, BBC, and NBC cited experts who said the steel melted. New Scientist, CNN, and Fox said the steel melted. Dr. Astaneh Asl said he saw melting of girders.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Oystein's characterization of JR Lee was not true, because he was claiming they said spheres were a feature of fires generally, while in fact the statement was limited to the WTC fires.
NIST continues to be baffled by the collapses. That's why they failed to address the actual collapse, they admitted they could not explain the total collapse, and they removed the claim from the WTC7 report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".
Your continued lies about the widows' questions are not only stupid, but mean-sprited.
Ian, Leslie Robertson told Stanford he saw molten steel running. Matthys Levy told NOVA the core columns "began to soften and melt".
Scientific American, BBC, and NBC cited experts who said the steel melted. New Scientist, CNN, and Fox said the steel melted. Dr. Astaneh Asl said he saw melting of girders.
Squealing won't change the fact that there was no molten steel, nor did anyone claim to see molten steel.
You don't know what you're talking about.
What did I just say about squealing?
Oystein's characterization of JR Lee was not true, because he was claiming they said spheres were a feature of fires generally, while in fact the statement was limited to the WTC fires.
So in other words, the spheres are in no way evidence of thermite. Thanks for proving Oystein's point.
NIST continues to be baffled by the collapses. That's why they failed to address the actual collapse, they admitted they could not explain the total collapse, and they removed the claim from the WTC7 report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".
False. You're baffled, but that's because you're a delusional liar and failed janitor.
Your continued lies about the widows' questions are not only stupid, but mean-sprited.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Poor Brian, he can't name a single widow who has questions, so he'll just post spam instead.
Ian, I'm not squealing and you are lying. Leslie Robertson, Matthys Levy, Scientific American, BBC, NBC, NYT, New Scientist, CNN, Fox, and Dr. Astaneh Asl said there was melted steel.
Oystein's claim was that spheres were a feature of fires generally. This was not true. The fact that RJ Lee did not propose thermite as an explanation 3 years before Dr. Steven Jones did is irrelevant.
NIST continues to be baffled by, and has admitted they can not explain, the total collapses.
Ian, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and
Lorie Van Auken continue to have questions because 73% of their questions were never answered. And you continue to lie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oystein's characterization of JR Lee was not true, because he was claiming they said spheres were a feature of fires generally, while in fact the statement was limited to the WTC fires.
Since RJ Lee attributes the spheres to fire and collapse alone, and not to exotic causes like thermite, why is the distinction important?
Ian, I'm not squealing and you are lying. Leslie Robertson, Matthys Levy, Scientific American, BBC, NBC, NYT, New Scientist, CNN, Fox, and Dr. Astaneh Asl said there was melted steel.
False.
Oystein's claim was that spheres were a feature of fires generally. This was not true. The fact that RJ Lee did not propose thermite as an explanation 3 years before Dr. Steven Jones did is irrelevant.
There is no evidence of thermite, no matter how much you try to bury that fact under mountains of dumbspam.
NIST continues to be baffled by, and has admitted they can not explain, the total collapses.
False. You're baffled by the collapse because you're a liar and lunatic and failed janitor who sniffs glue and babbles about invisible widows.
Ian, Patty Casazza, Monica Gabrielle, Mindy Kleinberg, and
Lorie Van Auken continue to have questions because 73% of their questions were never answered. And you continue to lie.
See what I mean? More babbling about invisible widows.
RGT, the distinction is important because Oystein's claim that RJ Lee validated his opinion that microspheres were common to fires was reckless and untrue. Also, shifting the issue from whether fires commonly produce microspheres to the question of whether RJ Lee mentioned thermite is a case of extremely dishonest goalp-shifting. As I said, the RJ Lee investigation was several years before the thermite hypothesis ever came up.
Ian--Leslie Robertson, Matthys Levy, Scientific American, BBC, NBC, NYT, New Scientist, CNN, Fox, and Dr. Astaneh Asl said there was melted steel. Your claims to the contrary are a lie.
That your colleagues in this forum tolerate your ludicrous claims that the widows are invisible is an indictment of the integrity of every one of them.
RGT, the distinction is important because Oystein's claim that RJ Lee validated his opinion that microspheres were common to fires was reckless and untrue. Also, shifting the issue from whether fires commonly produce microspheres to the question of whether RJ Lee mentioned thermite is a case of extremely dishonest goalp-shifting. As I said, the RJ Lee investigation was several years before the thermite hypothesis ever came up.
So in other words, the spheres are not evidence of thermite. Thanks for proving our point.
Ian--Leslie Robertson, Matthys Levy, Scientific American, BBC, NBC, NYT, New Scientist, CNN, Fox, and Dr. Astaneh Asl said there was melted steel. Your claims to the contrary are a lie.
False.
That your colleagues in this forum tolerate your ludicrous claims that the widows are invisible is an indictment of the integrity of every one of them.
My, such squealing!
Brian, if Laurie Van Auken is not invisible, how come nobody has ever seen her?
Also, if she has questions, how come you cannot produce any of them?
Ian, if you took all the lies out of your posts, you wouldn't have any post at all.
Ian, I have many times produced the questions of the widows, and your claim that I cannot produce them is just another blatant lie.
justicefor911.org see appendix 4 for 300 questions from the widows and only 27 answers.
Also, shifting the issue from whether fires commonly produce microspheres to the question of whether RJ Lee mentioned thermite is a case of extremely dishonest goal-shifting.
How about goal-shifting from Richard Gage's beliefs to Oystein's phrase construction? Was that dishonest?
BTW snug -- snowcrash refuses to speak to me, but please ask him why he considers America such a police state when Holland has this, this, and this.
RGT, snowcrash doubtless considers America a police state because of all the police state legislation that has been enacted even with the support of supposedly liberal legislators.
You wouldn't be reaching for an ad hominem by any chance?
Ian, if you took all the lies out of your posts, you wouldn't have any post at all.
Poor Brian. He's just babbling incoherently now.
Ian, I have many times produced the questions of the widows, and your claim that I cannot produce them is just another blatant lie.
False. You've just spammed this blog with irrelevant information that in now way suggests that the widows have questions.
justicefor911.org see appendix 4 for 300 questions from the widows and only 27 answers.
See what I mean? justicefor911.org does not have any questions from any so-called widows.
Also, you have not offered a single piece of evidence that Laurie Van Auken can be seen. Thanks for proving my point that she is invisible.
RGT, snowcrash doubtless considers America a police state because of all the police state legislation that has been enacted even with the support of supposedly liberal legislators.
Good. Then I'd like to hear his remarks on Dutch laws which would never survive the First and Fourth Amendments, and which predate 9/11 by years. He's quite articulate in his calm moments.
RGT, since The Netherlands is not the sole global superpower and is not pursuing an agenda of robotic murder whenever and wherever it takes the notion, protection of civil liberties is less of an issue there than it is in the USA. You are clearly just looking for an ad hominem.
Ian, your apparent belief that your lies are funny is downright psychotic.
RGT, since The Netherlands is not the sole global superpower and is not pursuing an agenda of robotic murder whenever and wherever it takes the notion, protection of civil liberties is less of an issue there than it is in the USA. You are clearly just looking for an ad hominem.
Poor Brian, he is just babbling incoherently now about his paranoid delusions.
Ian, your apparent belief that your lies are funny is downright psychotic.
I don't lie, Brian.
Also, I'm not the funny one. You're the funny one. Your hysterical, desperate squealing about invisible widows and magic thermite elves is what makes this blog so entertaining. I mean, you've been babbling here for over 3 years and have not accomplished one thing to advance 9/11 truth.
Ian, you lie blatantly for anyone to see.
To return to the subject under discussion, Pat Cowardly was absolutely right that Oystein mischaracterized the findings of the RJ Lee report--and there's been a lot of obfuscatory and downright lying spam ever since to try to cover over that fact.
Ian, you lie blatantly for anyone to see.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I've humiliated him so many times by pointing out that he's a failed janitor and that the widows have no questions.
To return to the subject under discussion, Pat Cowardly was absolutely right that Oystein mischaracterized the findings of the RJ Lee report--and there's been a lot of obfuscatory and downright lying spam ever since to try to cover over that fact.
Actually, that's not what we're discussing. We're discussing how Richard Gage believes that 9/11 was an inside job. You've refused to address that, and have been spamming the board in an attempt to bury that discussion.
So Brian, do you believe 9/11 was an inside job? If not, why do you continue to support Ricard Gage?
Ian, it doesn't matter what I believe or who I support. What matters is the facts that I put forth, to which you can only respond with blatant lies.
Facts? You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you.
And you don't matter at all. After all, you're a science illiterate who doesn't understand basic high school-level physics, chemistry or mathematics.
Tell us more about ΔT--you fraud.
Ian, it doesn't matter what I believe or who I support.
This is true. After all, you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who spends all day spamming the internet. Nobody cares what you believe. We just enjoy mocking you.
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions, though. What do you think Laurie Van Auken will say when I tell her that you won't answer questions?
What matters is the facts that I put forth, to which you can only respond with blatant lies.
Since when is it considered "facts" that invisible widows have questions, or that magic thermite elves destroyed the WTC?
UtterFail, for you to pretend that there is something I haven't told you about ΔT is just more of your obfuscatory gerbil-shit.
Ian, nobody says invisible widows have questions. The 9/11 widows have 273 questions outstanding, as anyone can see at justicefor911.org.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...for you to pretend that there is something I haven't told you about ΔT is just more of your obfuscatory gerbil-shit."
Another pack of lies, goat fucker?
You didn't know anything about ΔT until I explained the concept to you. In fact, you repeatedly refused to answer my question and then ran squealing and crying when it was revealed that you're incompetent.
You're a liar, charlatan and a fraud with a hidden agenda. You're opinion, moreover, is as worthless as your ideas are meaningless.
Go peddle your twaddle at 911flogger--you lying creep.
Ian, nobody says invisible widows have questions.
False. You make that claim all the time.
The 9/11 widows have 273 questions outstanding, as anyone can see at justicefor911.org.
See what I mean?
"Ian, it doesn't matter what I believe or who I support."
This is true. It has always been true. Your mental illness makes you irrelevant. You cannot grasp basic facts. You cherry-pick quotes to shape your theories, and you lack fundamental logic skill.
"What matters is the facts that I put forth"
See, this is an example of your logic failure.You say it doesn't matter what you believe and what you support, yet you spam the things you believe and the things you support on this blog at every chance.
You lack the control of the words which come out your own mouth, which is evidence of your lack of control over your ability to think clearly.
This is why you are nothing more than a sad clown.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ButtGoo, you make up your facts. There's nothing to know about ΔT. It's a trivial concept that you seem to think is profound. I refused to answer your silly question just as I'd refuse to answer if you asked me to do long division.
I see you still haven't figured out why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized.
MGF, I put forth irrefutable facts.
You hide from them by irrationally trying to pretend they are opinions.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...you make up your facts. There's nothing to know about ΔT. It's a trivial concept that you seem to think is profound. I refused to answer your silly question just as I'd refuse to answer if you asked me to do long division."
Then why did you repeatedly refuse to answer my question about ΔT? You refused to answer my question because you don't grasp the concept. In short, you're a science illiterate and a compulsive liar.
Will you ever stop lying, goat fucker?
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...I see you still haven't figured out why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized."
Still telling that lie, too, goat fucker?
Hell, you couldn't do the basic calculations in order to answer your own, question--you arrogant liar.
The World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 780,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).
As usual, you're full-of-Pat Cowardly.
Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crotchrot.
Go peddle your twaddle at 911flogger--you lying creep.
Brian still won't tell us if he supports Richard Gage and agrees with his assertion that 9/11 was an inside job.
Typical Brian: run away squealing and crying from any sort of challenge.
ButtGoo, you seem to believe you can win an argument by pretending you haven't read my post. I refused to answer your silly question just as I'd refuse to answer if you asked me to do long division.
Your cut and paste dataspam ("There are 2400 kg/cubic meter") impresses only the simple-minded.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...you seem to believe you can win an argument by pretending you haven't read my post."
Your post is a bald-faced lie.
And you refused to answer the question because you don't know the answer.
So tell us more about ΔT--you ignorant ass-clown.
Captain Crotchrot brays, "...Your cut and paste dataspam ("There are 2400 kg/cubic meter") impresses only the simple-minded."
The answer is correct, idiot. And all your whining about "why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete were pulverized" is nothing more than attempt to change the subject--a smokescreen. Hell, you can't peform a simple calculation and, in the process, answer your own question. No doubt, a four-function calculator is beyond your skill set.
In fact, your alleged "scientific reputation" is the real absurdity.
Now go peddle your twaddle at 911flogger--you fool.
Hmm, looks like GutterBall is getting to that icky time of the month.
No, that would be your MO, Captain Crotchrot. Try Midol.
You can always tell when Captain Crotchrot falls flat on his face. First he lies, then he squeals, and finally he calls us "girls."
Thus, we can add misogyny to the ever-growing list of your personality flaws.
Now go peddle your twaddle at 911flogger--you cretin.
MGF, I put forth irrefutable facts.
So how come these "irrefutable facts" haven't led to a new investigation, or indictments against those responsible? How come the only place where anyone pays you any attention is here, and that's because we like to point and laugh at you?
You hide from them by irrationally trying to pretend they are opinions.
Brian, it's not a fact or opinion that there was melted steel at the WTC, or that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed, or that iron-rich microspheres indicate thermite. They're all just lies, the lies of a delusional unemployed janitor and sex stalker.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
So how come these "irrefutable facts" haven't led to a new investigation, or indictments against those responsible?
Maybe if you would think about that question for a while instead using it as an excuse for complacency, then you'd understand why the issues are so important.
it's not a fact or opinion that there was melted steel at the WTC, or that the towers collapsed at free-fall speed, or that iron-rich microspheres indicate thermite.
Certainly those things are opinions, so you're demonstrating your irRatIanality right from the start. How do you know they are not facts? Molten steel was testified to by several PhDs, by on of the design engineers to the WTC, and many others. Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's freefall. And I've seen no true basis (but only Oystein's false one) for the claim that iron microspheres are common features of fires.
The only way you can defend your claims is to lie, and lie, and lie and lie like a Bushbot or a Barrett while trying to disguise your lies as humour.
So wait...is Sunder lying or telling the truth?
Maybe if you would think about that question for a while instead using it as an excuse for complacency, then you'd understand why the issues are so important.
I have thought about that question. The obvious answer is that you're a delusional liar, which is why nobody takes anything you say seriously. You babble about "irrefutable facts" and people more polite than me simply smile and nod, and then walk away. The only people who respond are those, like me, who enjoy mocking you.
Certainly those things are opinions, so you're demonstrating your irRatIanality right from the start. How do you know they are not facts? Molten steel was testified to by several PhDs, by on of the design engineers to the WTC, and many others. Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's freefall. And I've seen no true basis (but only Oystein's false one) for the claim that iron microspheres are common features of fires.
See what I mean? This delusional babbling gets ignored by polite people.
The only way you can defend your claims is to lie, and lie, and lie and lie like a Bushbot or a Barrett while trying to disguise your lies as humour.
Then there's this hysterical squealing that I get to enjoy. No matter how much you babble about molten steel or free-fall collapse, nobody will ever listen to you. We'll just keep mocking you for being unemployed and living with your parents.
.is Sunder lying or telling the truth?
I don't need to have an opinion. What do you think?
I don't need to have an opinion. What do you think?
Sunder isn't lying. You're lying by quote-mining Sunder. This has been obvious for a long time.
You're a pathetic, hysterical liar, which is another reason why nobody (except those of us who laugh at you) cares what you have to say.
Ian, you have done nothing but lie about the widows, about Dr. Sunder, about Dr. Astaneh, and about me.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" as anyone who googles .... Sunder NOVA bombs .... can see.
Ian, you have done nothing but lie about the widows, about Dr. Sunder, about Dr. Astaneh, and about me.
False. I've correctly pointed out that you're a hysterical, pathetic liar who quote mines everything.
Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" as anyone who googles .... Sunder NOVA bombs .... can see.
See what I mean?
Brian, when normal people see someone like you, a pathetic failed janitor, lying about everything related to 9/11, they're going to ignore you. That's why you've accomplished nothing as a truther other than becoming the butt of every joke at this blog (the only one that hasn't banned you for excessive dumbspam).
"Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" as anyone who googles .... Sunder NOVA bombs .... can see."
...and you leave out the part where he also explains WHY the buildings fell as fast as they did - they were 70% air, which limited the resistance as they fell.
You leave this part out for one of two reasons:
1. You lie.
2.Your mental illness makes you incapable of comprehension of basic facts.
I suspect it is #2, as your mental illness makes it impossible for you to hold a job.
Either way you're a joke.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF, I left out the fact that the building is full of air because it is irrelevant.
Air content does not exempt any object from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You'd better take freshman chemistry again, because obviously you weren't paying attention the first time. Atoms are mostly empty space too. Do you think that makes it easy to crush a diamond between your teeth?
MGF, he's actually leaving out how Sunder said that the first pieces of debris hit the ground in 9 and 11 seconds. Despite his "research" being nothing but watching youtube videos, Brian doesn't seem to notice how pieces of the buildings are falling faster than the buildings themselves.
It just goes to show how much of a pathetic, hysterical, desperate liar Brian is.
Hey Brian, have the "widows" had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
Air content does not exempt any object from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. You'd better take freshman chemistry again, because obviously you weren't paying attention the first time. Atoms are mostly empty space too. Do you think that makes it easy to crush a diamond between your teeth?
Brian, this dumbspam is an attempt to bury the irrefutable facts about you that make you squeal and cry. It won't work. Everyone knows you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents and was kicked out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.
Ian, you're lying about Dr. Sunder. He didn't say what you claim. He said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
You make stuff up and all you have is lies.
Ian, you're lying about Dr. Sunder. He didn't say what you claim. He said "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
It's funny how much you expect your hysterial, desperate lies to be taken seriously by the normal people on this blog. Maybe if you weren't a delusional failed janitor who lives with his parents, you'd see how silly this is.
You make stuff up and all you have is lies.
False. I have another day that has gone by in which the widows did not have their questions answered. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
Skidmark, all you have is lies and your sick contempt for the victims of 9/11.
Skidmark, all you have is lies and your sick contempt for the victims of 9/11.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Poor Brian. He's been humiliated again. He still has not presented any evidence that the widows have questions, I should note.
"MGF, I left out the fact that the building is full of air because it is irrelevant."
No, you leave it out because it undermines your fantasy.
"Air content does not exempt any object from the 1st Law of Thermodynamics."
Doesn't apply here anyway. Just simple gravity. Thanks for playing.
"You'd better take freshman chemistry again, because obviously you weren't paying attention the first time."
You've never seen the inside of a college chemistry class. So oink something else.
See your following dumbass example:
"Atoms are mostly empty space too. Do you think that makes it easy to crush a diamond between your teeth?"
There you go. Brian Goode doesn't know the difference between a diamond and the World Trade Center.
I won't even waste my time explaining molecular lattice.
MGF, by claiming that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to gravity events you are only demonstrating your ignorance.
Where do you get the idea that I never had chemistry? Did one of your friends at Franco's tell you that? And you believed him?
Captain Crotchrot dissembles, "...Where do you get the idea that I never had chemistry?"
Tell us more about ΔT, cretin.
That's proof positive that you've never passed a course in high school chemistry, let alone college-level chem.
Any more bald-faced lies for us, psychopath?
There's nothing to tell about ΔT, ButtGoo. The fact that you think it's mysterious only shows your ignorance.
Your epistemology sucks, and you're too dumb to know it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...The fact that you think it's mysterious only shows your ignorance."
Lying and pounding your straw men again, goat fucker?
I don't recall saying that ΔT is "mysterious." In fact, you didn't understand the concept until I explained it to you.
You're a fraud, liar and a charlatan with a mind of mush.
And stop abusing the word epistemology, cretin. If you don't understand the meaning of a word, or its proper use, don't use it.
In fact, the only person you've managed to fool is yourself, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Now go peddle your Al Qaeda propaganda at 911flogger.
MGF, by claiming that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to gravity events you are only demonstrating your ignorance.
See what I mean about your delusional babbling?
Where do you get the idea that I never had chemistry? Did one of your friends at Franco's tell you that? And you believed him?
Brian, you obviously never went to college (actually, you probably went to college but flunked out after damaging your brain with too much drugs). College grads tend not to hold jobs like janitor.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to present evidence that widows have questions. Your continued evasion of this only makes you look desperate and hysterical.
ButtGoo, your belief that I didn't know a simple concept like ΔT is simply a fantasy on your part--and a demonstration that you are unable to distinguish fantasies from reality. Hence your confusion about 9/11. Epistemology too is a simple concept. A five-year-old can get it.
Skidmark, are you telling me you believe that the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to gravity events? If so, upon what do you base this belief?
If college grads "tend not to hold jobs like janitor" and if I do not hold jobs like janitor, that would tend to suggest that I am a college grad, nicht wahr? Your own logic demolishes your claims.
I have many times presented the proof that the widows still have questions. justicefor911.org Appendix 4. You keep repeating the same lies.
Post a Comment
<< Home