Wednesday, April 18, 2012

Troofers Inspire Terrorist

What a shock.  Not!

The admitted mastermind of a foiled plot to bomb New York City subways testified Tuesday that he wanted to fight jihad in Afghanistan after coming to believe that the U.S. government was behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
The men had decided that complaining about American intervention in Afghanistan wasn't enough, he said.
"We decided we were not doing our jobs," Zazi said. "We shouldn't just point fingers."
At that time, he said, "My view was that 9/11, who was behind it, was America itself."

Hat tip: ConsDemo in the comments.

124 Comments:

At 18 April, 2012 18:38, Blogger bpete1969 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 April, 2012 18:41, Blogger bpete1969 said...

Wait a minute...I thought according to kevin barrett it was da jooooish lightning that was behind it allowing silverstein to make bazillions off the insurance and getting rid of that pesky asbestos thingy...whoda thunk it?

 
At 18 April, 2012 18:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

For that matter, why does Medunjanin's attorney have a sinister Jewish name? Something here does not add up.

 
At 18 April, 2012 23:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Kevin Barrett says a lot of stupid things. In his interview with Russia Today he lied 4 times in the first 4 minutes.

 
At 19 April, 2012 06:28, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Where does it say he was inspired by people in the 9/11 Truth Movement? Or, did he think of that all on his own?

 
At 19 April, 2012 07:26, Blogger Ian said...

Kevin Barrett says a lot of stupid things. In his interview with Russia Today he lied 4 times in the first 4 minutes.

Nobody cares about Kevin Barrett. Well, you do, but that's because you're an obsessed lunatic. That's why you stood outside his house for hours on end leafleting against him. It's amazin how pathetic your life is that you waste time on such things. Why not catch a baseball game instead?

 
At 19 April, 2012 09:48, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Seriously... where is it said that he was inspired by people in the 9/11 Truth Movement? Or, did you just come up with that spin all on your own so as to make it seem like we inspire terrorism?

 
At 19 April, 2012 10:23, Blogger Ian said...

Seriously... where is it said that he was inspired by people in the 9/11 Truth Movement? Or, did you just come up with that spin all on your own so as to make it seem like we inspire terrorism?

I kinda have to agree with Jon here. Deranged conspiracy theories are pretty commonplace in the Islamic world, and I doubt a handful of knuckleheads in this country had much to do with the opinions of Muslims. After all, Muslims also widely believe that you, Jon Gold, drink blood.

 
At 19 April, 2012 10:53, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Funny... I know many Muslims, and they are just like most other people I know, and they don't tell me about how I drink my blood.

 
At 19 April, 2012 11:20, Blogger Ian said...

Funny... I know many Muslims, and they are just like most other people I know, and they don't tell me about how I drink my blood.

Really, Jon? This is the best you can do? Try Googling "Blood Libel" and see what that gets you.

I happen to know a number of Muslims as well. Most are successful businessmen or professionals who a) don't believe Jews drink blood, b) don't believe 9/11 was an inside job either. They're way too sane and well-adjusted to join idiotic conspiracy cults.

 
At 19 April, 2012 11:32, Blogger John said...

Googled Blood Libel and found an American Muslim that believes Jews drink blood and that 9/11 was an inside job.

http://www.memri.org/report/en/print4099.htm

President of the non profit "American Center for Islamic Research", no less.

 
At 19 April, 2012 11:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, how do you know what your Muslim acquaintances believe? As usual, you claim knowledge you can not possibly have.

 
At 19 April, 2012 12:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

On the other hand, Jon seems to believe that all debunkers are evil by nature.

 
At 19 April, 2012 12:45, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, how do you know what your Muslim acquaintances believe? As usual, you claim knowledge you can not possibly have.

Because I talk to them, Brian. See, normal people develop normal relationships with other normal people. It's very different from what you do, which is to stalk and harass everyone you meet. That's why everyone hates you and why you've been kicked out of every truther group you've been a part of.

 
At 19 April, 2012 13:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

You talk to them, and you think you know what they're thinking. Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 19 April, 2012 13:36, Blogger Ian said...

You talk to them, and you think you know what they're thinking. Thanks for proving my point.

Poor Brian. He's a liar and lunatic and sex stalker who has been expelled from every group he's ever been a part of. He has no friends, no family, and no job (and thus, no co-workers) and thus has no idea how to relate to people, so of course he can't understand how one could know what other people think.

You don't even have to be friends with someone to know what they think. For example, I know that you believe that the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition by the Bush administration because they wanted an excuse to go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq. I also know you failed out of San Jose State and are an unemployed janitor. I know that you're "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", and "contrivance". I know this because you've told us this.

 
At 19 April, 2012 14:08, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

On the other hand, Jon seems to believe that all debunkers are evil by nature. -Testicle

Jon has never encountered a debunker. He'd have to find someone that actually debunks things first. He's only dealt with pseudoskeptic liars like you and Pat thus far.

 
At 19 April, 2012 14:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

He'd have to find someone that actually debunks things first.

Stop trying to be funny. Go practice your language and communication skills.

 
At 19 April, 2012 15:09, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Incidentally, there is no such thing as a "pseudoskeptic". It's not even a real word. It's a term invented by conspiracy nuts to describe those whom they cannot convince.

 
At 19 April, 2012 17:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Jon has never encountered a debunker. He'd have to find someone that actually debunks things first. He's only dealt with pseudoskeptic liars..."

Funny, we've yet to meet a "Truther" familiar with the truth...or reality...

From thermite, missiles, and death rays you guys are just silly. Last week you have WTC7 going down because the CIA had an office there. If anything it speaks to their failure to piece intel together, atthe very least it speaks to your lack of knowledge about the CIA (hint: there was nothing in that office which isn't in every CIA field office, and intel is always backed up onto multiple media daily).

So keep trying.

 
At 19 April, 2012 17:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Jon has never encountered a debunker. He'd have to find someone that actually debunks things first. He's only dealt with pseudoskeptic liars..."

Funny, we've yet to meet a "Truther" familiar with the truth...or reality...

From thermite, missiles, and death rays you guys are just silly. Last week you have WTC7 going down because the CIA had an office there. If anything it speaks to their failure to piece intel together, atthe very least it speaks to your lack of knowledge about the CIA (hint: there was nothing in that office which isn't in every CIA field office, and intel is always backed up onto multiple media daily).

So keep trying.

 
At 19 April, 2012 21:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hey look, MGF knows what was in the CIA office in WTC7! I bet you don't even know what floor the CIA office was on, guy.

RGT, "pseudoskeptic" actually has quite a precise definition that describes you guys to a tee. Instead of adopting a position of scientific agnosticism, as I do, you guys assert "negative hypotheses" by which you irrationally misinterpret a failure to meet your unreasonable demands for proof as positive disproof.

You guys don't know what science is.

 
At 20 April, 2012 04:27, Blogger Ian said...

Hey look, MGF knows what was in the CIA office in WTC7! I bet you don't even know what floor the CIA office was on, guy.

Squeal squeal squeal!

RGT, "pseudoskeptic" actually has quite a precise definition that describes you guys to a tee. Instead of adopting a position of scientific agnosticism, as I do, you guys assert "negative hypotheses" by which you irrationally misinterpret a failure to meet your unreasonable demands for proof as positive disproof.

Poor Brian. He's been humiliated so many times that all he can do is post hysterical gibberish now. Brian, you're not an "agnostic" about what happened on 9/11. You're a fanatical believer in controlled demolition at the hands of the Bush administration. That's why you come up with laughable nonsense like silent explosives, spray-on thermite, and wimpy fires. You know that there isn't a shred of evidence for CD, so you invent things that keep your pathetic delusions alive.

 
At 20 April, 2012 05:03, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, "pseudoskeptic" actually has quite a precise definition that describes you guys to a tee.

It doesn't. The principles of skepticism are grounded in science. "Pseudoskeptic" isn't a scientific concept, it's a rhetorical construct. It's a label tossed about by those who've taken on true skeptics and been humiliated.

 
At 20 April, 2012 08:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm sorry that "negative hypothesis" is gibberish to you, but it's not my fault that you're unable to comprehend simple concepts. You are incompetent to tell me what I believe.

Pseudoskeptic is absolutely a scientific concept, and I explained why. It embodies an inherently unscientific concept--pretending to knowledge that you do not have--while masquerading as a scientific attitude.

You guys don't know what science is.

 
At 20 April, 2012 09:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I'm sorry that "negative hypothesis" is gibberish to you, but it's not my fault that you're unable to comprehend simple concepts. You are incompetent to tell me what I believe.

Brian, we know what you believe because you told us what you believe. Squealing about it now isn't going to change things, just as squealing about the fact that you told us you failed out of San Jose State won't change the fact that you failed out of San Jose State.

Pseudoskeptic is absolutely a scientific concept, and I explained why. It embodies an inherently unscientific concept--pretending to knowledge that you do not have--while masquerading as a scientific attitude.

Brian, you're an unemployed janitor with mental illness. You know nothing about science, which is why you babble about meatballs and forks and rakes.

 
At 20 April, 2012 09:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Pseudoskeptic is absolutely a scientific concept, and I explained why. It embodies an inherently unscientific concept--

You can stop there.

 
At 20 April, 2012 10:15, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian is a pseudoskeptic about the theory that the WTC was destroyed by micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. He ignores all of the evidence that points us in that direction.

 
At 20 April, 2012 11:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you haven't provided any evidence for me to ignore.

RGT, if you can't see the relevance of the nature of the unscientific to the nature of the scientific, then you're just simple-minded.

 
At 20 April, 2012 11:54, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you haven't provided any evidence for me to ignore.

False. I've provided much evidence that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers.

RGT, if you can't see the relevance of the nature of the unscientific to the nature of the scientific, then you're just simple-minded.

Of course, a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State is the arbiter of what is "scientific".

 
At 20 April, 2012 12:21, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

It embodies an inherently unscientific concept--pretending to knowledge that you do not have--while masquerading as a scientific attitude.

Isn't Brian the same guy who asks other for their expertise then parades around the gems he pulls from his ass as facts?

 
At 20 April, 2012 13:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I've provided much evidence that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers." -Ian

Joking about 9/11 is HILARIOUS to Ian. Do it again! You're KILLING Pat and his little friends!

 
At 20 April, 2012 13:37, Blogger Ian said...

Joking about 9/11 is HILARIOUS to Ian. Do it again! You're KILLING Pat and his little friends!

I'm not surprised that someone who is too dumb to hold down a job at Burger King wouldn't get the jokes, so I'll spell it out:

I'm not making fun of 9/11, I'm making fun of truthers, you know the kind of winners like yourself and Brian: unemployed, unable to get laid, and generally pissed off that the world doesn't reward them for their laziness and stupidity.

 
At 20 April, 2012 14:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, you lie as usual. You make fun of the widows--claiming they're invisible, that they don't exist, that they murdered their husbands. You scoff at their frustration.

 
At 20 April, 2012 14:16, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, you lie as usual.

False.

You make fun of the widows--claiming they're invisible, that they don't exist, that they murdered their husbands.

False. I make fun of you for being obsessed with widows. Also, if we're going to blame the Bush administration for mass murder on 9/11, we should blame Laurie Van Auken too. The evidence implicates each of them about equally.

You scoff at their frustration.

No, I scoff at your frustration in that you can babble all you want about widows, but nobody will ever care. You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves, and I am amused by your endless squealing and crying when I point that out.

 
At 20 April, 2012 14:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You make fun of the widows--claiming they're invisible, that they don't exist, that they murdered their husbands. You scoff at their frustration.

How do you know the widows are frustrated? You're claiming knowledge you can't possibly have.

 
At 20 April, 2012 16:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, you lie and lie and lie.

RGT, I know they're frustrated because of what they wrote to Senator Leahy, saying "With the narrative of the 9/11 Commission’s final report predetermined and with the preexisting intention to never hold anyone accountable in place, the 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail as a real investigation. The end result of the 9/11 Commission’s work was that some of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions. Since their mandate of a complete accounting was ignored, the recommendations were incomplete at best."

 
At 20 April, 2012 16:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I know they're frustrated because of what they wrote to Senator Leahy

Nowhere do they say they are frustrated. You make up your facts.

 
At 20 April, 2012 17:16, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Hey look, MGF knows what was in the CIA office in WTC7! I bet you don't even know what floor the CIA office was on, guy."

Yes, it was a standard US Government office. Computers, a couple of safes, tacky office furniture, etc.

As much as you and the troofers want to believe it was like James Bond's Q's lab, the fact is it was unremarkable.

I don't give a shit what floor it was on.

 
At 20 April, 2012 17:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, they said "The 9/11 Commission was doomed to fail. . . . [S]ome of the recommendations that they produced were in fact, based on distortions and omissions . . . . . [and] were incomplete at best."

That's frustrated.

 
At 20 April, 2012 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 April, 2012 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

So first MGF claims "there was nothing in that office which isn't in every CIA field office" as if he knew, and when challenged on that, he babbles about office furniture.

Maybe when he stops making shit up he will find enough engagement in reality that he can do something about his sucky life.

 
At 20 April, 2012 18:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So first MGF claims "there was nothing in that office which isn't in every CIA field office" as if he knew, and when challenged on that, he babbles about office furniture."

Anybody can walk into a CIA field office. In fact, you can get a visitor's pass and visit Langley too.

Your problem is you think somehow the CIA's office in WTC7 was some kind of super high-tech lair with fricken laser beams, death cages, torture chambers, operating rooms for plastic surgery , and god knows what else.

It was just a hub office, just like Fish & Game, like the IRS, like Social Security,like ATF, and like the FBI. The fact it was even listed is a big clue about what DIDN'T happen there.

 
At 20 April, 2012 18:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Maybe when he stops making shit up he will find enough engagement in reality that he can do something about his sucky life."

I would but some asshole in Palo Alto got killed UC's outreach scholarship for unemployed, mentally ill janitor/sex stalkers.

 
At 20 April, 2012 21:24, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Jon Gold inspires criminals to do stupid things. Ain't that right Jon?

 
At 21 April, 2012 07:38, Blogger Ian said...

Well, it's good to see that Brian spent another Friday night alone, babbling about invisible widows with "questions".

 
At 21 April, 2012 09:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you seem to think that what's significant about a CIA office is its furniture. Apparently the concept that a CIA office might involve reports or investigations eludes you.

Your bit about UC scholarships is very strange. CSU and UC are two different tracks. And I thought you were a neocon who would have principles about socialistic education. So I'm wrong about that?

Skidmark, I posted at 6:30 in the evening. Not at 10:00 pm like you do on a Saturday night.

 
At 21 April, 2012 09:26, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, you seem to think that what's significant about a CIA office is its furniture. Apparently the concept that a CIA office might involve reports or investigations eludes you.

Hey, who knows more about the CIA than a paranoid lunatic unemployed janitor? The CIA is always at the heart of paranoia for fruitcakes like our little petgoat.

Your bit about UC scholarships is very strange. CSU and UC are two different tracks. And I thought you were a neocon who would have principles about socialistic education. So I'm wrong about that?

Brian, it's true that you didn't fail out of a UC. You failed out of a CSU. So point for you.

Of course, you have no idea what the word "neocon" means, just as you have no idea what "science", "logic", "facts", or any other big-boy words you use in a desperate attempt to look smart mean either.

Skidmark, I posted at 6:30 in the evening. Not at 10:00 pm like you do on a Saturday night.

Thanks for proving my point. You have no friends, no family, and no normal interests, so you spend your lonely Friday nights posting dumbspam about invisible widows.

 
At 21 April, 2012 11:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

That's frustrated.

That's an emotionless recital of opinions. It doesn't indicate frustation.

If the widows are frustrated it's probably because of all these eccentric loners making a cause out of them. I don't recall any of them asking for that.

 
At 21 April, 2012 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the widows devoted their lives to getting an investigation and then concluded it had been "doomed to fail".

They are mature and intelligent women and if you need emotionalism to perceive frustration, then the problem is yours.

 
At 21 April, 2012 14:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, you seem to think that what's significant about a CIA office is its furniture. Apparently the concept that a CIA office might involve reports or investigations eludes you."

The CIA is not allowed to investigate inside the US. They can do background research, but all of that is forwarded to Langley anyway. A hub office is usually a location for CIA employees to work out of instead of having to work in Virginia. Usually they do reading of foreign trade magazines, white-papers, and academic books. It's secret, but not the kind of secret which requires the security found at CIA HQ.

Even if you're right (which you're not) there is nothing which would have justified the destruction of the entire WTC complex to hide. Hard-drives are easy to destroy, physical evidence is easier to destroy, and since it was secret this could have been done at a remote location without anyone knowing.

Do you drool when you talk about the CIA?

"Your bit about UC scholarships is very strange. CSU and UC are two different tracks."

Why, because I actually plan to graduate?

" And I thought you were a neocon who would have principles about socialistic education. So I'm wrong about that?"

Nope, sorry but you are racist puke here. I'm a life-long democrat. I'm just not a fool.

"Skidmark, I posted at 6:30 in the evening. Not at 10:00 pm like you do on a Saturday night."


Because the public library closes at 7pm, or they restrcit use of the PCV at whatever half-way house for mentally ill people Brian lives at.

 
At 21 April, 2012 16:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your belief that your X-Ray eyes can tell you what was and what was not there is irrational.

 
At 21 April, 2012 22:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Your belief that your X-Ray eyes can tell you what was and what was not there is irrational."

No. CIA has at least one field office in Monterey (near Monterey). The former mayor of Carmel was a CIA agent, we have former CIA people working at MIIS, and the Naval Postgraduate School.

They are not all that mysterious.

 
At 22 April, 2012 10:00, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, the widows devoted their lives to getting an investigation and then concluded it had been "doomed to fail".

They are mature and intelligent women and if you need emotionalism to perceive frustration, then the problem is yours.


I see Brian spent another lonely Saturday night posting spam about "widows" that nobody cares about.

 
At 22 April, 2012 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ummm, that would be MGF posting at 10:00 pm Pacific on Saturday night--doubtless while his gorgeous date was taking a bathroom break. I posted at 4:30 in the afternoon.

I used to live across the street from a CIA analyst. Sure, he wore shorts on the weekend and drove into town every day just like everybody else. So what? To argue that because CIA people put their pants on one leg at a time therefore you know what's in their office is silly. The people that work there don't know everything that's in their office. MGF claims knowledge he can not possibly have, and it makes him look silly.

 
At 22 April, 2012 10:51, Blogger Ian said...

Ummm, that would be MGF posting at 10:00 pm Pacific on Saturday night--doubtless while his gorgeous date was taking a bathroom break. I posted at 4:30 in the afternoon.

Squeal squeal squeal!

I used to live across the street from a CIA analyst. Sure, he wore shorts on the weekend and drove into town every day just like everybody else. So what? To argue that because CIA people put their pants on one leg at a time therefore you know what's in their office is silly. The people that work there don't know everything that's in their office. MGF claims knowledge he can not possibly have, and it makes him look silly.

Nobody cares. You're still a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and spends his lonely Saturday nights posting spam about "widows" that nobody cares about.

 
At 22 April, 2012 11:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, nobody cares that MGF looks silly--that's just business as usual around here--and that you have to lie and lie and lie just to have anything to say at all.

I care about the widows, and if you don't that's too bad for you.

 
At 22 April, 2012 12:02, Blogger Ian said...

Right, nobody cares that MGF looks silly--that's just business as usual around here--and that you have to lie and lie and lie just to have anything to say at all.

False. We care what MGF says, because it's mocking you for being a liar and lunatic. What nobody cares about is the things you babble about, because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who believes in invisible widows.

I care about the widows, and if you don't that's too bad for you.

Nobody cares.

 
At 22 April, 2012 12:06, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, you still haven't presented evidence against the proposition that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the WTC towers.

 
At 22 April, 2012 13:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since you haven't presented any evidence for baboons, I needn't present any evidence against them.

 
At 22 April, 2012 13:05, Blogger J Rebori said...

And you still haven't provided any evidence for the use of thermite in any form.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

 
At 22 April, 2012 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

The FEMA Appendix C report is evidence for the use of sulfur-enhanced thermite.

All of the reports of molten steel (such as from Dr. James Glanz, Dr. Abolhassan Asteneh-Asl, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Edward Malloy, Leslie Robertson, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY) are evidence for thermite since the molten steel has not been credibly explained otherwise.

 
At 22 April, 2012 14:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I used to live across the street from a CIA analyst. Sure, he wore shorts on the weekend and drove into town every day just like everybody else. So what? To argue that because CIA people put their pants on one leg at a time therefore you know what's in their office is silly. The people that work there don't know everything that's in their office. MGF claims knowledge he can not possibly have, and it makes him look silly."


This goes to the root of your mental illness. I know what is in a CIA office because they order furniture and office equipment from the same catalog every other Federal Government agency does. While I don't know all the secret stuff I do have a good idea where the secret stuff goes on and where it doesn't. The WTC7 was an unsecured location in a publicly accessible building. We've got a business park where DHS has a sub-office of some kind. I can walk right up to the door. The CIA's Monterey location(s) are harder to get to as they are located in building surrounded by 11-foot tall steel fences, and have in-house goon-squads as the building houses other vital agencies.

While I don't know what goes on inside on a day to day basis it's not hard to guess.

Your problem is you assume because it was a CIA office there must have been something nefarious going on inside. Something so important they had to destroy the entire WTC complex to hide it. Even though on 9/10/2001 nobody knew or cared they were there. Forget about the CIA's documented history of successfully destroying incriminating evidence quietly, and without blowing up buildings.

This is why you are so fucking stupid, Brian. Your obsession with the CIA has not garnered any meaningful knowledge of who they are, or how they operate (and don't operate). The only explanation is mental illness. An inability to process simple information in a way to inform your world view is non-functional in your brain.

Amuse me, Brian, what was in the CIA office in WTC7 the CIA could only hide by mounting a fake terrorist attack to destroy the WTC complex?

This should be comedy gold.

 
At 22 April, 2012 15:37, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

This is totally offtopic and random, but snug.bug -- do you know these people?

 
At 22 April, 2012 15:57, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"All of the reports of molten steel (such as from Dr. James Glanz, Dr. Abolhassan Asteneh-Asl, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Edward Malloy, Leslie Robertson, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY)"

Alison Geyh didn't personally see molten steel.
"I personally saw open fires, glowing and twisted I-beams. I was told, but do not remember by whom, that the workers were finding molten steel. "
http://911myths.com/html/dr_alison_geyh.html

Leslie Robertson denies any knowledge of molten steel:
"I've no recollection of having made any such statements...nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge."
http://911myths.com/html/leslie_robertson.html

I can't believe I bothered, but last Monday I emailed 4 of Brian's other star witnesses (Astaneh, Ghoniem, Glanz, Malloy) to ask whether they're sure they saw molten/melted steel. Only Malloy responded. Here's the exchange, minus opening and closing salutations:

Me:
Would you care to confirm or deny whether you saw molten steel at the World Trade Center site after 9/11?

Malloy:
As I recall, I saw burning steel being lifted up by large cranes.

Me:
Thank you for your reply. If you don't mind my asking for clarification, can you say for sure that the metal was steel (as opposed to aluminum, etc.) and that it was molten (i.e., in liquid form)?

Malloy:
I have no idea what type of metal it was. I am not an engineer. Why do you care one way or the other? That is about all I have to say.

 
At 22 April, 2012 16:12, Blogger Ian said...

The FEMA Appendix C report is evidence for the use of sulfur-enhanced thermite.

All of the reports of molten steel (such as from Dr. James Glanz, Dr. Abolhassan Asteneh-Asl, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Edward Malloy, Leslie Robertson, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY) are evidence for thermite since the molten steel has not been credibly explained otherwise.


Thanks for proving J Rebori's point. You have provided no evidence of thermite. You have simply posted a bunch of irrelevant nonsense and lies, which is to be expected from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

 
At 22 April, 2012 17:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Wait! I've figured it all out!

It wasn't Nano-thermite, it was Nano TERMITES!

The genetically engineered attack baboons snuck them into the complex on 9/10. The Nano Termites were CIA designed to eat steel.

Guess what they poop? Iron micro-spheres.

I'm writing a book.

 
At 22 April, 2012 18:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, so on one hand you claim you know what's in a CIA office but on the other you admit that you "don't know all the secret stuff" and thus don't know what's in the office.

I don't assume anything. You're the one who claimed, irrationally, that "there was nothing in that office which isn't in every CIA field office" and "it was unremarkable".

RGT, you mean you don't recognize me there 3rd from the left?

MR, Leslie Robertson said he saw "like a little river of molten steel, flowing".

Dr. Alison Geyh and Dr. Edward Malloy did not claim that they saw molten steel personally, but they passed on reports that they apparently regarded as credible. Dr. Astaneh said he personally saw "melting of girders" and Dr. Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of previously-molten steel. Dr. Ghoniem said the photo evidence of molten steel was very good.

 
At 22 April, 2012 18:47, Blogger Ian said...

MR, Leslie Robertson said he saw "like a little river of molten steel, flowing".

Dr. Alison Geyh and Dr. Edward Malloy did not claim that they saw molten steel personally, but they passed on reports that they apparently regarded as credible. Dr. Astaneh said he personally saw "melting of girders" and Dr. Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of previously-molten steel. Dr. Ghoniem said the photo evidence of molten steel was very good.


Nobody cares.

 
At 22 April, 2012 19:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right. You can say that to Goethe, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, J.J. Thompson, and Bohr.

 
At 22 April, 2012 19:41, Blogger Ian said...

Right. You can say that to Goethe, Kant, Schopenhauer, Spinoza, J.J. Thompson, and Bohr.

None of those men were truthers.

Also, all are legendary thinkers who contributed to improving our understanding of the reality we inhabit. You, on the other hand, are an irrelevant unemployed janitor with serious mental health problems. You've contributed nothing except thousands of pages of spam that I and others point and laugh at.

You can squeal all you want, but you'll never be worth anyone's serious attention. Sorry.

 
At 22 April, 2012 20:30, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

MR, Leslie Robertson said he saw "like a little river of molten steel, flowing".

Robertson denies having the required knowledge to make such a determination.

Dr. Alison Geyh and Dr. Edward Malloy did not claim that they saw molten steel personally, but they passed on reports that they apparently regarded as credible.

As far as I know, neither Geyh nor Malloy said anything regarding the credibility of molten steel sightings. The news archives are full of reports (mistaken or not) of melted steel in otherwise normal fires, so the WTC is not exceptional in this regard.

Dr. Astaneh said he personally saw "melting of girders"

This was likely corroded steel of the type studied by Barnett/Biederman/Sisson. That's what his photos and descriptions of thinning of beams seem to indicate. Of course, you could call Astaneh and get more information if you really wanted to, but the working half of your brain is afraid that would spoil your fantasy that Americans did 9/11.

Dr. Glanz said he saw a stalagmite of previously-molten steel

Did you get confirmation from Glanz that it couldn't have been aluminum?

Dr. Ghoniem said the photo evidence of molten steel was very good.

Cite please. Did Ghoniem look at the photo evidence himself or did he just report stuff from the Internet? Is this "photo evidence" available so that others can evaluate it?

Can you get ANYBODY to say they're sure they saw molten steel?

In any case, thermite can hardly account for "molten steel" sightings weeks and months after the event. Thermite burns out very quickly and has a relatively low energy density (much lower than paper, wood, etc.).

 
At 22 April, 2012 21:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 April, 2012 21:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right. Now that Robertson knows that molten steel can't be made without incendiaries, he denies that anyone saw molten steel. But he very happily told a Stanford audience ten years ago that he saw molten steel. If it wasn't molten steel, what was it?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw "melting of girders". He said so years after 9/11 and presumably in full awareness of the implications of that statement. If he wants to recant it, that's his prerogative. Until he does, the statement stands.

Dr. Glanz is presumably a competent journalist and knows not to call something steel if it might have been aluminum. If he wishes to change his statement, that's his prerogative. Until he does, the statement stands.

Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, said he saw molten steel. The firemen sitting with him nodded in agreement and offered the amplification that it was flowing like lava.

Since unignited thermite chips were found in the dust, the notion that thermite might have been igniting in the rubble pile weeks or months after 9/11 is certainly reasonable.

 
At 22 April, 2012 21:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, so on one hand you claim you know what's in a CIA office but on the other you admit that you "don't know all the secret stuff" and thus don't know what's in the office."

The "secret stuff" is going to be on their computers. Maybe a bitchin' super secret black box or two.

So I do know with certainty 90% of the contents of a CIA field office. Why? 'Cuz they're still a U.S. Government agency. Nothing fancy. They have a budget too, and Black or not there's only so much money to spend so cheap furniture is the rule of the day.

"I don't assume anything."

Your entire premise is based on an assumption. Your slack-jawed theories about nano-thermite, your accusation the Bush Administration needed 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq...1 & 1/2 years later, and your constant oinking about unanswered questions are all assumptions.


"You're the one who claimed, irrationally, that "there was nothing in that office which isn't in every CIA field office" and "it was unremarkable"."

Guess what, retard? It's not irrational. I happen to be right about this one. It wasn't even their main office in NYC for one thing. The most classified thing they'd have at WTC7 was a list of UN, and foreign types they'd enlisted as informants. Hardly worth torching Manhattan over.

 
At 22 April, 2012 23:22, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 April, 2012 00:19, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 April, 2012 04:31, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Again, Petgoat, reports of melted steel are nothing extraordinary. Melting of steel has been reported in many other fires. Whether steel actually did melt in those fires is open to doubt; the point is that people said steel melted, just like on 9/11. Without confirmatory evidence, your quotes don't mean much.

"Since unignited thermite chips were found in the dust,"

False premise.

 
At 23 April, 2012 23:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

There are photos of the girders with big holes in them. There are photos of girders that are partially vaporized. There is a 40-pound chunk of formerly-molten iron.

You're denying reality. You're demonstrating the pseudoskeptic's attitude under which you think you can dispose of the evidence simply by associating it with a conspiracy theory. A true skeptic, a true scientist, would acknowledge the mysterious nature of the molten steel and would want it investigated.

 
At 24 April, 2012 06:46, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"There are photos of the girders with big holes in them. There are photos of girders that are partially vaporized."

Those aren't consistent with incendiaries. Sisson and Biederman (2006) said "The metal removal most probably occurred in the fire in the rubble after the building collapsed rather than during the fire while the building was standing." What kind of CD removes the metal after the building collapses? S&B also say "The microstructure of the slag with the eutectic structure and the primary FeO indicates temperatures in this region above 940 °C and maybe up to 1100 °C, as indicated by the phase diagram." Those temperatures are too low for bulk melting, and too low to indicate thermite, but are achievable by normal fires in localized spots.

You know what doesn't explain the sulfidation corrosion? Jones and Harrit's "nanothermite," in which negligible sulfur was found. Idiot.


"There is a 40-pound chunk of formerly-molten iron."

Great! All it should take then is for Jones to put this smoking-gun evidence into a scientific paper and convince the scientific community if it is so obvious that it proves CD, right? I mean, what's up with his psuedojournals and internet debate? Hopefully his "evidence" for molten iron will be more convincing than his "evidence" for Jesus in North America. What's he waiting for? What are YOU waiting for?



You're denying reality. You're demonstrating the pseudoskeptic's attitude under which you think you can dispose of the evidence simply by associating it with a conspiracy theory."

No, YOU'RE the one associating the molten steel sightings with a conspiracy theory. I, on the other hand, think there's most likely a more rational explanation for these sightings, one that doesn't involve mass-homicidal elevator mechanics or spray-on thermite or any of that other crap you people make up.

"A true skeptic, a true scientist, would acknowledge the mysterious nature of the molten steel and would want it investigated."

It's ironic you say that, since I am the one emailing the molten steel "witnesses" and you're the one who's steadfastly refusing to do any investigation at all.

 
At 24 April, 2012 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, Jonathan Cole has shown that the thinning and holes are consistent with incendiary thermate.

Sisson and Biederman were never able to propose a plausible mechanism for post-collapse corrosion. Gypsum is not a reasonable candidate. The sulfur in gypsum (calcium sulfate) is already completely oxidized. That's why gypsum is used as fireproofing. It's inert. Jonathan Cole cooked steel for three days mixed up with gypsum and aluminum debris. There was no damage at all.

Obviously 1100 C is hot enough to do bulk melting in the presence of the sulfidated eutectic mixture. That's how you got the holes in the girders and the vaporized girders.

I am not associating molten metal findings with a conspiracy theory. I'm associating it with a botched investigation. By irrationally associating the molten metal findings with "made-up crap" you seek to discard the fact of the findings. None of the witnesses reported any "made up crap". They reported melted steel.

If the witnesses want to recant their statements, it's up to them to do so.
Until they do, their statements stand.

 
At 24 April, 2012 09:01, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 April, 2012 09:03, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"MR, Jonathan Cole has shown that the thinning and holes are consistent with incendiary thermate."

Cole did not look at the microstructure, which is inconsistent with thermate. Besides, nobody found any trace of thermate in the dust, not even Jones and Harrit.


"Sisson and Biederman were never able to propose a plausible mechanism for post-collapse corrosion. Gypsum is not a reasonable candidate."

Biederman and Sisson don't think it's unreasonable: "A more probable source of sulfur is the materials in the building, such as gypsum (hydrated calcium sulfate) board or other construction materials." Sure, the source of the sulfur could have been something else, but not thermate, which acts too quickly and at too-high temperatures to have produced the observed results.

By the way, did Cole's thermate produce molten pools of steel that sat on his lawn for several months? Just asking.


"Obviously 1100 C is hot enough to do bulk melting in the presence of the sulfidated eutectic mixture."

That's not bulk melting; it's corrosion.


"I am not associating molten metal findings with a conspiracy theory."

Oh please, stop it!


"They reported melted steel."

I gave you a rational explanation for the reports. Astaneh saw the results of sulfidation; others saw aluminum. Nobody so far has been willing to confirm they saw "molten steel," but three people have disconfirmed. Besides, I already showed you that "melted steel" sightings happen routinely in other fires.

What are you even doing here, Brian? You can't even convince the Truth Action folks of your insane CD ideas. You tried, and you ended up with so many new assholes that you look like a frickin' sponge.

 
At 24 April, 2012 13:14, Blogger Ian said...

As usual, Brian is just babbling incoherently about things he doesn't understand because he's a mentally ill unemployed janitor. Thus, he babbles about "molten steel" because he doesn't understand that nobody cares.

 
At 24 April, 2012 13:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, Sisson and Biederman are wrong. Calcium Sulfate is completely oxidized, and thus it is inert. That is why it is used for fireproofing.

Cole's samples were not insulated under dust dozens of feet thick.

You can not refute the fact that the girders had holes in them and were partially vaporized. All you can do is try to quibble about semantics.

 
At 24 April, 2012 14:14, Blogger Ian said...

You can not refute the fact that the girders had holes in them and were partially vaporized. All you can do is try to quibble about semantics.

It's funny that you mention vaporized steel. The Trinity test in 1945 vaporized most of the tower that the bomb was planted on. Jet fuel cannot vaporize steel. Neither can thermite.

Nuclear weapons can, however.

 
At 24 April, 2012 15:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thermite can vaporize steel. You don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 24 April, 2012 15:32, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"MR, Sisson and Biederman are wrong."

As Ian might say, if an unemployed janitor on a seemingly permanent acid trip says Sisson and Biederman are wrong, who are we to argue?

Wallboard can thermally decompose above 825 degrees C, yielding corrosive products (sulfur oxides).
http://www.buildsite.com/dbderived/lafarge/derived_files/derived310562.pdf

Several reactions can produce SO2 from gypsum at temps below 1000°C. Drywall is not incinerated in California because it can produce SO2. Drywall was extremely abundant at the WTC. Are you saying none of it could have reacted with the high-temperature chemical stews in the debris piles?

Sisson on BBC Conspiracy Files: "I don’t find it very mysterious at all … if I have steel in this sort of high temperature atmosphere that’s rich in oxygen and sulfur, this would be the kind of result I would expect."

But thermate did it, this you know, for AE911 tells you so. Even though nobody, not even Jones and Harrit, claimed to have found any trace of thermate in the WTC dust.

 
At 24 April, 2012 16:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

They're wrong. Calcium sulfate is fully oxidized. That's why it's inert.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that sulfur dioxide from wallboard can evaporate steel girders. Thermite can do it, that's been demonstrated. That's why we need honest investigations.

 
At 24 April, 2012 17:26, Blogger J Rebori said...

"There is a 40-pound chunk of formerly-molten iron."

No there isn't, not unless Jones has finally published the provenance for it.

The word of a man who claims Christ spent time with the precolumbian Americans isn't worth squat.

Untill he proves it came from the WTC site, it's just a large paperweight.

 
At 24 April, 2012 17:32, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Sure, Brian. Sisson and Biederman are wrong, Lafarge is wrong about its own wallboard product, and the state of California is wrong. Your opinion trumps them all.

Nobody has ever demonstrated that thermite/thermate can produce the microstructural changes observed in the corroded WTC steel. These changes required times on the order of hours (at least), and thermite/thermate reacts in seconds. Therm*te temperatures would destroy the microstructures. Therm*te is ruled out. Sorry.

 
At 24 April, 2012 17:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 April, 2012 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, how nice! An anonymous internet poster has all the answers, so we don't need new investigations! You provide no evidence that sulfur dioxide would be expected either theoretically or practically to have a significant corrosive effect on steel girders. You are thus demonstrating once again the pseudoskeptic's posture of inventing excuses not to examine the evidence and do any actual work.

 
At 24 April, 2012 18:20, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Read Sisson/Biederman. Sulfur oxides (SO2, SO3) can contribute sulfur to the liquid slag, which corrodes the steel. This is well-known stuff. If you want to think that Sisson and Biederman and the peer reviewers at the Journal of Failure Analysis and Prevention don't know what they're talking about, then, well, go right ahead.

 
At 24 April, 2012 18:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Can contribute sulfur" to the slag does not mean they can evaporate steel or make holes in it like swiss cheese. I am not interested in this theoretical handwaving. I want complete investigations.

 
At 24 April, 2012 18:32, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

You're an idiot.

 
At 24 April, 2012 19:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

A classic argument. At least you punctuated it correctly, which puts you up several notches over most of the posters on this board.

 
At 24 April, 2012 19:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" I am not interested in this theoretical handwaving. I want complete investigations."

No you don't. You're a troll. You're a self-absorbed toadie with delusions of intellectual grandeur.

There have been investigations, you just didn't like the answers as they undermine your warped fantasy life.

 
At 24 April, 2012 19:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the warped fantasy life is yours.

What investigations have there been of the molten steel? What investigations of symmetry, totality, the speed of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete? What investigations of the arrested rotation of the WTC top block? What investigations of the collapse of the persistent lower core? please advise.

 
At 24 April, 2012 20:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"What investigations have there been of the molten steel? What investigations of symmetry, totality, the speed of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete? What investigations of the arrested rotation of the WTC top block? What investigations of the collapse of the persistent lower core? please advise."

All of them.

They found molten steel under WTC6, at there was no fire in that building. Why is that Brian? Why was nobody shocked to find molten steel under WTC6?

All you your stupid questions are answered by basic laws of gravity as they apply to the damage - and fires - inside each structure.

The A&ETruth gang can eat my ass.

 
At 24 April, 2012 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

Oh, how nice! An anonymous internet poster has all the answers, so we don't need new investigations!

Nobody wants new investigations. You do, but you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear and babbles about magic thermite elves. Nobody cares what you want.

"Can contribute sulfur" to the slag does not mean they can evaporate steel or make holes in it like swiss cheese. I am not interested in this theoretical handwaving. I want complete investigations.

You don't want complete investigations. You dismiss the possibility that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers, despite the irrefutable evidence of such.

A classic argument. At least you punctuated it correctly, which puts you up several notches over most of the posters on this board.

Poor Brian. He's just squealing hysterically now because he knows he's been beaten.

What investigations have there been of the molten steel? What investigations of symmetry, totality, the speed of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete? What investigations of the arrested rotation of the WTC top block? What investigations of the collapse of the persistent lower core? please advise.

You forgot how there has been no investigation of the laser burns on the steel, the burnt baboon fur in the wreckage, and the radiation in the dust clouds.

 
At 24 April, 2012 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

This might not be the best time to ask, but have the widows had their questions answered yet, Brian?

 
At 24 April, 2012 21:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, as usual you just make stuff up. NO fires at WTC6? Here are several pictures showing fires at WTC6.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150108794855655

Why would anyone bother to eat your ass when it's so easy to kick it instead?

 
At 24 April, 2012 21:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, as usual you just make stuff up. NO fires at WTC6? Here are several pictures showing fires at WTC6.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150108794855655

Why would anyone bother to eat your ass when it's so easy to kick it instead?"

...and walked into an easy trap. So now we have molten steel under a building which didn't have total collapse, and "wimpy" fires yet steel seemed to melt. You just admitted regular fire could melt steel.

Gosh, Brian, you just kicked your own ass.

That takes unique skill

 
At 24 April, 2012 21:33, Blogger Ian said...

I notice that Brian just ignores my substantial points now because I've humiliated him so many times that he can't bear it anymore.

Such a brave seeker of the truth you are, Brian. Laurie Van Auken is sobbing somewhere....

 
At 24 April, 2012 21:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I didn't admit anything. Where do you get your information about molten steel at WTC6?

 
At 24 April, 2012 22:08, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, I didn't admit anything. Where do you get your information about molten steel at WTC6?

Poor Brian. He's been humiliated again. It's tough when you're a delusional unemployed janitor.

 
At 24 April, 2012 23:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie.

 
At 25 April, 2012 06:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie.

See what I mean? Brian is pathetic and has been humiliated again and again, so this is the best response he can muster.

 
At 25 April, 2012 08:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie. Until you stop, that's the only response needed.

 
At 25 April, 2012 08:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie. Until you stop, that's the only response needed.

That response isn't going to get the widows' questions answered, Brian.

 
At 25 April, 2012 08:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your lies are obstructing the widows getting answers.

 
At 25 April, 2012 08:50, Blogger Ian said...

Your lies are obstructing the widows getting answers.

I don't lie, Brian.

 
At 25 April, 2012 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and lie and lie. About all you do is lie.

 
At 25 April, 2012 09:17, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, what did I just say about your ridiculous spam and whether it will help get the widows' questions answered?

 
At 25 April, 2012 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie.

 
At 25 April, 2012 09:51, Blogger Ian said...

Oh well, I guess it's more important for Brian to post hysterical spam than to seek answers to the widows' questions.

Some truth-seeker you are, Brian!

 
At 25 April, 2012 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess it's important that you lie. It seems to be what you do, your profession.

 
At 25 April, 2012 10:58, Blogger Ian said...

I guess it's important that you lie. It seems to be what you do, your profession.

No, it's not my profession, seeing that I don't lie, no matter how much a delusional unemployed janitor squeals about it.

 
At 25 April, 2012 10:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and lie

 
At 25 April, 2012 11:19, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 25 April, 2012 13:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie and lie and you jeer at the widows.

 
At 25 April, 2012 14:39, Blogger Ian said...

You lie and lie and you jeer at the widows.

My, such squealing!

 
At 25 April, 2012 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Can't you spell? It's your suck squealing, not your such squealing.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home