Damn, Missed It
Well, Richard Gage came to Seattle last week, and as a result... uhh... well, absolutely nothing happened. No mention in the media, or any truther websites that I can find, except for the usual statistics on the AE911 site. I stayed at home and watched Mad Men from Netflix. According to their site it drew a massive turnout of 77 people, of which 73 were already Truthers to begin with. I guess the moral of the story is that if you put someone in a room outnumbered 20 to 1 by crazy fanatics and bore them to death with Powerpoint slides, you can get the remaining few holdouts to change their mind on something.
But in other news Jim Fetzer is coming to town next month, and admission for that one is free. The crazies just keep on coming!
posted by James B. @ 7:39 PM
117 comments
117 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Wow, that's the way to show PC what you're made of! You'll call Gage a fraud online but you can't find a couple of structural engineers to ask devastating questions when Gage comes to your town? That's pretty lame. IIRC the movie quotes John Skilling to the effect that the buildings were designed to survive the impacts of jetliners and the subsequent fires.
Gage was in Phoenix (well, Tempe) the other day as well, but I had to wash my hair that evening, and I didn't feel like sitting through his snooze-fest of a movie to see if I would be allowed to ask a question. IIRC, at some past events, he has had a moderator screen the questions, which you have to write down on an index card.
What? Gage rigs the discussions?
INSIDE JOB!
In other words, Pat didn't have the guts either to take a couple of structural engineers down there and truth-squad Gage. Or maybe you couldn't find any structural engineers who could actually find anything to criticize about Gage's presentation? You guys are lame.
In other words, Pat didn't have the guts either to take a couple of structural engineers down there and truth-squad Gage.
That would be like walking into a Baptist sermon and discussing inconsistencies in the Bible. It incorrectly presupposes an impartial audience.
I tried asking questions of David Ray Griffin once,i got booed by people who couldn't understand why I didn't just assume that the FBI was part of the coverup. RGT's metaphor is correct.
Why isn't Gage inviting them? Or is he and none of them care what he thinks?
Oh wait...we haev to do the work by purchasing 10 of his DVD's. That's right.
Wow, that's the way to show PC what you're made of! You'll call Gage a fraud online but you can't find a couple of structural engineers to ask devastating questions when Gage comes to your town?
Why would any structural engineer waste their time with a fraud like Gage, especially if they live in Seattle?
"You know, kids, I know it's the first beautiful weekend we've had in months, and I know I've been working really hard, but darn it, I'm going to have to cancel that weekend I promised where we'd go boating on Lake Washington. There's a con artist nobody has ever heard of giving a presentation on conspiracy nonsense. I've got to attend that and rebut his presentation because an unemployed janitor in California demands it."
In other words, Pat didn't have the guts either to take a couple of structural engineers down there and truth-squad Gage. Or maybe you couldn't find any structural engineers who could actually find anything to criticize about Gage's presentation? You guys are lame.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Nobody cares about a fraud like Richard Gage.
"...You know, kids, I know it's the first beautiful weekend we've had in months, and I know I've been working really hard, but darn it, I'm going to have to cancel that weekend I promised where we'd go boating on Lake Washington. There's a con artist nobody has ever heard of giving a presentation on conspiracy nonsense. I've got to attend that and rebut his presentation because an unemployed janitor in California demands it."
LOL!
Ian, if Gage is a fraud then he is an embarrassment to the profession of architecture and he has inspired hundreds of engineers to embarrass their profession as well. I would think that if Gage were a fraud as you claim, that architects and engineers would step up and do their duty and expose him.
You are making excuses. If Gage is a fraud he is insulting the memory of the dead and the grief of the family members and the decent thing to do is go and expose him. The most reasonable thing to suppose from the fact that nobody steps up to the plate is that that they can't expose him because he's not a fraud.
Scum.bag, where did you get the idea that an insane, bisexual Republican compulsive liar is defined as "democracy"?
Did that degenerate-Republican Richard Gage (R -- Dirty Tricks) tell you that?
Ian, if Gage is a fraud then he is an embarrassment to the profession of architecture and he has inspired hundreds of engineers to embarrass their profession as well. I would think that if Gage were a fraud as you claim, that architects and engineers would step up and do their duty and expose him.
Except that nobody cares what he has to say. What you would think is irrelevant, since you're not an architect or an engineer. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor.
The only way I could see someone challenging Gage would be if a significant segment of the population believed his nonsense. That's why you see serious biologists challenging creationism: a lot of people believe it. Nobody believes in 9/11 truth nonsense.
If Gage is a fraud he is insulting the memory of the dead and the grief of the family members and the decent thing to do is go and expose him.
Well, Pat and James have been doing this for 6 years, so maybe you should thank them for exposing this fraud.
The most reasonable thing to suppose from the fact that nobody steps up to the plate is that that they can't expose him because he's not a fraud.
Normal architects and engineers have jobs, friends, family, and normal hobbies. Why would they waste their time on something as irrelevant as Gage?
Your problem, Brian, is that you have no job, no friends, no family, and no normal interests, so you think other people should take an interest in your pathetic babbling about magic thermite elves.
Let's take a quick look at how irrelevant 9/11 truth is, Brian:
Population of metro Seattle: 3,439,809
Number of people who showed up at Gage's presentation: 78
So that's a whole .0023% of the population of the Seattle region who bothered to show up to see Gage, and the majority of attendees were already truthers.
OK, so maybe Seattle was an outlier. How about Portland?
Portland metro population: 2,226,009
People who showed up: 102
Wow! That's twice the percentage of Seattle: .0046%! I can't believe that serious architects and engineers aren't taking the time to refute this mass movement!
Ian, the "Solving the Mystery" video has had 800,000 views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
If Gage is a fraud he is insulting the memory of the dead and the grief of the family members and the decent thing to do is go and expose him. The most reasonable thing to suppose from the fact that nobody steps up to the plate is that that they can't expose him because he's not a fraud.
For Pat and James to claim Gage is a fraud, and then to hide in the closet and refuse to confront him is cowardly. What, are they afraid some con artist is going to call them stalkers?
Scum.bag squeals, "...For Pat and James to claim Gage is a fraud, and then to hide in the closet and refuse to confront him is cowardly. What, are they afraid some con artist is going to call them stalkers?"
That's hilarious. And especially so when one considers that you're a lying coward who doesn't have the balls to debate Willie Rodriguez.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: It's a wonder that you don't choke on your hypocrisy, scum.bag.
Ian, the "Solving the Mystery" video has had 800,000 views.
Nobody cares.
If Gage is a fraud he is insulting the memory of the dead and the grief of the family members and the decent thing to do is go and expose him. The most reasonable thing to suppose from the fact that nobody steps up to the plate is that that they can't expose him because he's not a fraud.
Brian, you've already posted this spam. I've told you, what you consider "reasonable" is of no interest to anyone else because you're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who wears women's underwear and was banned from the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.
For Pat and James to claim Gage is a fraud, and then to hide in the closet and refuse to confront him is cowardly. What, are they afraid some con artist is going to call them stalkers?
Or they just don't care that some irrelevant con artist is giving some speech to a tiny group of true believers.
Hey Brian, on the same evening as Gage was presenting in Seattle, the Mariners were playing across town.
23,517 people showed up to the Mariners game, even though the team hasn't been to the playoffs in over a decade, and has never won a World Series title.
You can squeal and cry all you want, but Gage is completely irrelevant. Normal people don't know or care about him or his lies. You care because you're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who wears women's underwear and believes in magic thermite elves and invisible widows.
"an, the "Solving the Mystery" video has had 800,000 views."
OK so about 1/9000 of the world's pop. has seen the video
LOL "2yr old Makena sings Adele...so cute" has 9,387,595 view and it has only been up two months. In other words it been seen 11.5x more times in 4.5x less time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSNxrEa3Usw
"Or maybe you couldn't find any structural engineers who could actually find anything to criticize about Gage's presentation?"
So if Gage's presentation were converted into a formal paper for submission to a reputable engineering journal, it would undoubtedly sail through peer review since no engineer would find anything to criticize. Right?
Serious scientific arguments are advanced in legitimately peer-reviewed publications, not in YouTube videos and traveling circuses. You and your heroes/co-cultists in AE911 "Truth" have had ample time to put together an acceptable scientific study supporting your claims -- but with each passing year, it becomes more apparent that none of you can do it.
Ian, the "Solving the Mystery" video has had 800,000 views.
To put that in perspective,
"No Windows on Flight 175" has 6,781,612 views.
"Missile hits world trade center" has 9,480,461 views.
"satan's face seen in WTC plane crash explosion" has 9,954,461 views.
"NORTH AMERICAN UNION & RFID Chip TRUTH!" has 8,883,467 views.
"Why the Illuminati killed Michael Jackson" has 2,309,762 views.
"humans working along side aliens at area 51" has 2,373,865 views.
"What What in the Butt" has 47,450,193 views.
"Charlie bit my finger" has 457,038,255 views.
MR, I haven't heard any reputable engineers criticize Gage. Have you? I've only heard allegations from people who seem to be afraid to accuse him in real life. How come youse guys can't find one structural engineer in a 30-city tour who's willing to make a fool of Gage? Instead he gets 1700 architects and engineers signing his petition. How many independent architects and engineers have you got supporting the collapse mechanism alleged in the NIST report? NONE! Zero!
"MR, I haven't heard any reputable engineers criticize Gage. Have you? I've only heard allegations from people who seem to be afraid to accuse him in real life. How come youse guys can't find one structural engineer in a 30-city tour who's willing to make a fool of Gage?"
Yeah, they bother to criticize Gage about as much as they bother to criticize Jim Fetzer and Judy Wood. Get Gage to publish a legitimate paper, and maybe engineers who aren't conspiracy theorists will pay attention to him.
"Instead he gets 1700 architects and engineers signing his petition."
...who have produced a grand total of ___ WTC-related papers in reputable structural engineering or structural mechanics journals. I'll let you fill in the blank.
"How many independent architects and engineers have you got supporting the collapse mechanism alleged in the NIST report? NONE! Zero!"
Have you done a poll of independent architects and engineers? Oh, you haven't? Then stop pretending you know the number who agree with NIST.
In their 2008 paper about the tower collapses, Bažant, Le, Greening, and Benson wrote that NIST's collapse triggering mechanism is generally accepted by the structural engineering community. It's a pretty good bet that those authors are familiar with the opinions of their colleagues and peers. Their statement passed muster with the reviewers of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics.
MR, 1700 architects and engineers have already paid attention to Gage to the extent of signing on to his petition calling for new investigations. If you believe they are conspiracy theorists, perhaps you should demonstrate the basis for your belief.
There is no need to publish papers to demonstrate the incomplete nature of the official reports. The prima facie case is irrefutable.
I have repeatedly asked those here to identify independent engineers who will support NIST's findings about the destruction of the towers. They can not identify even one. Ian claims he has an "Uncle Steve" Ian will not identify--but then Ian claims there are no 9/11 widows. ButtGoo claims that Dr. J.R. Harris is independent of NIST and that he has endorsed the NIST report. Both of those claims are lies.
That NIST's collapse triggering mechanism is generally accepted by the structural engineering community is irrelevant. The issue is not the triggering mechanism. The issue is the collapse mechanism.
I'm challenging youse guys. Bring the biggest, baddest, scariest, hairiest structural engineers you can find to Gage's program to make a fool of Gage. Bring video cameras so if any of those crazy truthers misbehave, you can put it on Youtube and/or sue their asses.
Make a fool of Gage. Expose him to the world. You won't do it because you can't do it--'cause you've got to wash your hair or watch "Mad Men".
You're all lame.
Scum.bag lies, "... claims that Dr. J.R. Harris is independent of NIST and that he has endorsed the NIST report. Both of those claims are lies."
Lying again, gay boi?
Never mind that I called Dr. Harris and confirmed that he not only endorses the NIST Report, he's also independent of NIST.
As usual, you claim that I'm "lying." When I gave you Dr. Harris' phone number ((303) 860-9021) in order to confirm my findings, YOU REFUSED TO CALL DR. HARRIS.
So who's lying, gay boi?
ButtGoo, it seems that you lack the intelligence to recognize that the claims of an anonymous internet poster about what some person told him are not just meaningless--they're a waste of time and bring confusion to anyone who's actually dumb enough to believe them.
You also lack the intelligence to recognize that since the Director of NIST appointed Dr. Harris to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee, Dr. Harris can hardly be considered to be an independent engineer.
Scum.bag lies, "...it seems that you lack the intelligence to recognize that the claims of an anonymous internet poster about what some person told him are not just meaningless--they're a waste of time and bring confusion to anyone who's actually dumb enough to believe them."
Trying to pass off another misdirection ploy as "debate," scum/bag?
Then why did you refuse to call Dr. Harris' phone number?
(303) 860-9021
For the same reason you refused to call Dr. Astaneh-Asl. To do so will prove that you're full-of-Pat Cowardly (ie., shit).
Scum.bag lies, "...You also lack the intelligence to recognize that since the Director of NIST appointed Dr. Harris to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee, Dr. Harris can hardly be considered to be an independent engineer."
Dr. Harris has never been paid so much as one red cent by NIST. The appointment to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee does not prove that he's dependent on NIST.
Thus, once again, we can see that you're a compulsive liar.
Now go for it, gay boi, and give us a false and self-serving definition of "independent."
Tard.
Someone who has been appointed to a prestigious committee by NIST can not be considered to be independent of NIST. I'm sorry you are so lacking in knowledge of conflicts of interest. Perhaps your general cluelessness about business reality has something to do with the tanking of your IT carreer.
Scum.bag lies, "...Someone who has been appointed to a prestigious committee by NIST can not be considered to be independent of NIST."
Trying to pass off another misdirection ploy as "debate," scum.bag?
Why did you refuse to call Dr. Harris' phone number?
(303) 860-9021
Answer the question, scum.bag.
Scum.bag squeals, "...I'm sorry you are so lacking in knowledge of conflicts of interest. Perhaps your general cluelessness [SIC] about business reality has something to do with the tanking of your IT carreer [SIC]."
Making stuff up, Mr. Failed Janitor?
In fact, you're projecting the failure of your "career" on me. My career never tanked. In fact, I'm making more money today than ever.
You. on the other hand, lost your "career" to a Mexican immigrant. This explains why you hate minorities with a passion. They're eating your lunch, and you don't have the education or the job experience to advance your "career."
Loser.
Now answer the question, scum.bag:
Why did you refuse to call Dr. Harris' phone number?
There's no reason to call Dr. Harris. He is not an independent engineer. He has a clear conflict of interest because NIST appointed him to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee.
Scum.bag prevaricates, "...He is not an independent engineer."
False. The opinion of a failed janitor and proven compulsive lair is not evidence, scum.bag.
Scum.bag prevaricates, "...He has a clear conflict of interest because NIST appointed him to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee.'
False. He was not paid by NIST, nor has he ever been subordinate to NIST.
As I predicted, you gave us your self-serving definition of "independent."
And, of course, you're trying, once again, to pass off another misdirection ploy as "debate."
Well, I have news for you, scum.bag, it won't work.
Why did you refuse to call Dr. Harris' phone number?
(303) 860-9021
Now answer the question, scum.bag
Dance piggy! Dance!
There's no reason to call Dr. Harris. He is not an independent engineer. He has a clear conflict of interest because NIST appointed him to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee.
In any case, the true subject of this thread is the challenge to the alleged debunkers at this site to bring some actual engineering experts to Mr. Gage's screening of the Experts Speak Out video to challenge Mr. Gage's alleged fraudulence.
Babbling like a broken record now, Scum.bag?
I'll tell you why you refused to call Dr. Harris.
Obviously, I gave you his phone number because I have nothing to hide. In other words, I'm telling the truth. Anyone who reads this blog can call Dr. Harris and confirm that I'm telling the truth.
You, on the other hand, had every opportunity to prove that I lied; yet, you refused to take advantage of the opportunity to humiliate me in a public forum. Why is that, scum.bag?
Clearly, you refused to call Dr. Harris because you know that to do so will prove, conclusively, that you're, once again, wrong.
Thus, we can see that you're running like a coward from another challenge to your perverted and dishonest interpretation of the events of 11 September 2001.
You're a liar. And your deceptive answers, spurious rebuttals and steadfast refusal to answer legitimate questions only serves to expose the dishonesty that underscores every comment you spluge on this blog.
Thus, we can see, once again, that you're an oxygen thief and a waste of skin.
There's no reason to call Dr. Harris. He is not an independent engineer. He has a clear conflict of interest because NIST appointed him to the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Advisory Committee.
In any case, the true subject of this thread is the challenge to the alleged debunkers at this site to bring some actual engineering experts to Mr. Gage's screening of the Experts Speak Out video to challenge Mr. Gage's alleged fraudulence.
Poor scum.bag. I've humiliated him again, and now he's reduced to babbling like a broken record.
Once again, I win, and you lose. Loser.
Deal with it, Aunt Fancy.
You're too dumb to know you're making a fool of yourself.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Is that why you're running from another challenge to your perverted World-view, scum.bag?
Is that why you've been reduced to babbling like an idiot, idiot?
You're such an intellectual midget that you ran squealing and crying from a Puerto Rican janitor. Loser.
Let us know when your testicles finally drop, coward.
"I'm challenging youse guys. Bring the biggest, baddest, scariest, hairiest structural engineers you can find to Gage's program to make a fool of Gage. Bring video cameras so if any of those crazy truthers misbehave, you can put it on Youtube and/or sue their asses."
No. We won't for the same reason we don't send scientists to challenge the claims at UFO conferences, and we don't send biologists to heckle bigfoot conferences.
There's no point.
Nobody believes Gage because he'd a dipshit. The people who believe what he says are dipshits.
You can't win a debate with a dipshit.
"Make a fool of Gage."
He does this himself.
" Expose him to the world."
The world already knows.
" You won't do it because you can't do it--'cause you've got to wash your hair or watch "Mad Men""
As a matter of fact - yes - this is the exact reason we won't do it. It's called "Having a life". We're normal people, Brian, we're not consumed by our fantasies, we don't chase phantom conspiracies, or sexually harass women.
Why isn't Gage pursuing defamation actions against those who falsely accuse him of fraud?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"There is no need to publish papers"
No, it's not that there's "no need" to publish papers. It's that your silly crackpot cult can't put together a valid scientific argument. You're not going to sway the mainstream academic and professional communities with YouTube videos and Gage's traveling propaganda show.
"MR, 1700 architects and engineers have already paid attention to Gage"
We've been over this, petgoat. Gage's architects and engineers represent a tiny fringe of their respective communities. Since you lack any sense of perspective, I remind you that the PhD biologist signatories of the "Scientific Dissent From Darwinism" statement far outnumber the total PhD signatories of Gage's petition.
"I'm challenging youse guys. Bring the biggest, baddest, scariest, hairiest structural engineers you can find to Gage's program to make a fool of Gage."
I'll try to hire Bazant to do it if you cover the cost. But seriously, nobody's going to sit through a propaganda show just to speak for a few seconds before getting shouted down by the audience.
You shouldn't want an opponent for Gage. When Box Boy debated newbie debunker Chris Mohr, more of the audience shifted their opinion in Mohr's direction than in Gage's direction.
I see Brian spent another lonely Saturday night babbling incoherently about Richard Gage's tiny crackpot group. I also see that Brian never addressed the fact that several orders of magnitude worth of people would rather watch a bad baseball team than listen to Richard Gage.
On another note, there's this piece of breaking news. I think the NYPD better cordon off the area and begin searching for elevator repairmen armed with cans of spray-on nanothermite. I'm guessing the NWO is sending a mafia-style message.
MR, certainly there is a scientific argument.
David Chandler measured the descent of WTC7 and put together the argument that it was coming down at freefall and forced NIST to acknowledge that.
Tony Szamboti has put together the argument that under Bazant's theory there should have been an interruption of descent as energy was transferred from the top "block" to the lower block. He has demonstrated that there is a measurable jolt in verinage demolitions (as expected) but there is no jolt in the descent of the top block of WTC1.
There is the argument that molten steel in the rubble pile can not be explained other than through the use of artificial means of energy injection such as explosives or incendiaries.
There is the argument that the collapse of the lower cores in the towers, which had persisted after the outer floors had fallen, has not been explained.
There is the argument that the virtually complete pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors has not been explained.
There is the argument that the collapses' symmetry, totality, and speed have not been explained.
There is the argument that the arrested rotation of the tipping top block in WTC2 is contrary to Newton's 1st Law and the law of conservation of angular momentum.
There is the argument that none of the official theories can explain the jets of pulverized building materials ejected from isolated windows, sometimes 40 stories below the collapse zone.
There is the argument that NIST failed utterly to address the investigatory objective of determining HOW the buildings collapsed, and so their investigation is incomplete.
There are many, many scientific arguments.
40 high rise architects, 50 structural engineers, 40 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers, and 6 fellows of the AIA can not be dismissed as a fringe by any objective person--but only by a lazy paradigmatic who is trying to justify his intellectual sloth.
Mr. Gage frequently operates in a state of extreme sleep deprivation, and his poor performance in any given situation should not be considered to discredit the ideas that 1700 architects and engineers hold. Dr. Bazant will not come to Mr. Gage's presentation. He doesn't have the guts. Wouldn't that make a great Youtube if it turned out as you predict? Bazant introduces himself, "I'm a professor of structural engineering, I've written these papers, I've won these awards..." and then he says "I wanted to ask Mr. Gage this devastating question...." and then you show the video of all the loony truthers shouting him down. Great video. No one will ever make it, though, because Bazant doesn't have the guts--and he really doesn't want his silly ideas (have you heard about his centroid theory about WTC2?) discussed in public.
Look at Ian, who on Saturday morning can deliver a post-mortem of Saturday night.
Yes, those are all arguments. However, they are the arguments of a delusional unemployed janitor and liar and can be dismissed as such.
Nobody cares about your "arguments", Brian.
Look at Ian, who on Saturday morning can deliver a post-mortem of Saturday night.
Well, you've spent the last 3 years posting endless spam about "widows" and magic thermite on this blog, so it's pretty much a safe bet you'll be doing so again tonight, especially since you have no friends and no job and just spend all your time on your parents' computer.
Petgoat, those arguments have been shot to pieces. Every one of them is either fallacious, irrelevant, or a "god of the gaps" type argument (or in this case, "government of the gaps"). They're not scientifically valid, and that's why they can't get published.
Your silly cult members can be rightly dismissed for the same reasons as the much more numerous and influential "intelligent designers" can be dismissed. They have no arguments that stand up to scrutiny.
"There is the argument that the..."
Just because some guy makes an argument doesn't make it valid.
"none of the official theories can explain the jets of pulverized building materials ejected from isolated windows, sometimes 40 stories below the collapse zone."
Serioulsy? You're pulling that one out of your ass? The easiest thing to explain.
You're in over your head.
MR, none of those arguments have been shot to pieces. There is nothing fallacious about the laws of physics.
MGF, you can not explain jets of pulverized building material ejected from isolated windows sometimes as much as 40 stories below the collapse zone, and NIST has not explained it. If you think you can explain it that's only because you're as ignorant in physics as you are in chemistry.
"MGF, you can not explain jets of pulverized building material ejected from isolated windows sometimes as much as 40 stories below the collapse zone,"
Sure I can, so can you since you're a janitor. The upper floors acted as a plunger. The towers were just glorified tubes and the sudden blast of air as the floors collapsed was immense. It blasted through already broken/fractured windows with ease.
The "pulverized material" was damaged sheet-rock from the damaged inner core, and from offices damaged in the initial blast from the cascading jet fuel from the crash.
This isn't even in question.
"and NIST has not explained it."
Because they can't do work to make simpletons happy.
This is why you've been kicked out of every 9/11 Truth sub-group in existence - you're an idiot.
So why are you single?
This comment has been removed by the author.
snug.bug wrote: "There is nothing fallacious about the laws of physics."
What's fallacious is your understanding of the laws of physics, not the laws of physics themselves.
For example, you think the "arrested rotation" of WTC2's upper block defies Newton's 1st law and the conservation of angular momentum, and yet you observed it happening. How does that make sense? Do you think the towers were holograms? Are you becoming one of those TV fakery people?
If the upper block had rotated more freely than it did, I'm quite sure you'd be squealing about the impossibility of that. ("Why didn't the lower block apply an opposing torque against the rotation of the upper block? It must have been blown to smithereens!")
MGF, please advise how air forced by a plunger 40 stories above can exit in the form of discrete jets from isolated windows 40 stories below. What pre-weakened the windows in the center of the wall without pre-weakening the other windows?
NIST's objectives were not to "make simpletons happy". Their objectives were to explain why and how the buildings collapsed. If they can not explain the jets of pulverized building materials (and they can't) then they have not fulfilled their second objective.
MR, you have not shown anything fallacious about my understanding of the laws of physics.
What happened did not, and can not, violate the laws of physics. What violates the laws of physics is
NIST's implicit hypothesis that the rotation of the upper block was arrested in the course of a natural, fire-induced, gravitational collapse.
That you must invent a straw man "squealing" argument for me only shows the weakness of your own position. Rotation of the upper block induced by asymmetrical plane crash damage and asymmetrical fire damage is exactly what a reasonable person would expect. In the early stage the rotation would result from compression failure of fire-weakened columns on the east and south sides. In the later stage the resistance to rotation imposed by tensile restraint on the N and W sides would be overcome, and the top block would fall off the building.
So you're saying thermite (or whatever) stopped the block from rotating?
Youse guys always want to leap to conclusions so you can change the subject and stamp the issue "case closed".
I'm saying the issue needs to be investigated by qualified authorities who, up to now, seem very reluctant to turn over stones to find out what happened.
You didn't answer. How would thermite/explosives stop the rotation of the top block? Whatever happened to conservation of angular momentum?
I don't know. That's what we need a new investigation to find out. How do you stop the rotation? Do you believe Dr. Bazant's claim that the top block somehow adopted a stable, centered configuration by rotating about a centroid? Do you believe that tensile restraint held the block, converting its rotation to downward force?
NIST's reluctance to address the issue suggests that the numbers for these scenarios do not add up.
"I don't know. That's what we need a new investigation to find out."
In other words, you're full of poop. Your argument that the arrested rotation of the top block violates the laws of physics applies equally to a thermite/explosives-driven collapse as to a fire-driven collapse. If it's impossible in one case, it's also impossible in the other. But it's not impossible. It happened. Therefore your understanding of the physics is wrong or at best incomplete.
"How do you stop the rotation?"
There was a lower block below the upper block. Think about it.
"Do you believe Dr. Bazant's claim that the top block somehow adopted a stable, centered configuration by rotating about a centroid?"
Bazant/Le/Greening/Benson said the top part was rotating "essentially" about its centroid. It sure as heck couldn't have rotated about its base, at least not for more than an instant, as they demonstrated pretty conclusively. In other words the top block wouldn't "fall off the building," as you hilariously put it.
A body will be rotating only as long as it remains a body. Individual elements within that body must be evaluated individually when the body's elements become disconnected from the system. This is why we need new investigations and not handwaving arguments from ideologues. Of course, if we'd had a proper investigation that recorded the position of the individual steel components on the ground, we might have answered the questions. But we didn't have a proper investigation. We had one that declared the essential issues irrelevant-and thus persons like Dr. John Gross and Dr. Shyam Sunder will go down in history.
If you really think the lower "block" could resist the rotation of 22 degrees of the upper block, maybe you should should try to draw some diagrams and explain how. If they rotated around a centroid as Dr. Bazant claims, there is almost total disconnect between the lower core and the upper core. Try sticking your fingers in the space next to your car door hinges for an understanding of the effect of rotating bodies.
"MGF, please advise how air forced by a plunger 40 stories above can exit in the form of discrete jets from isolated windows 40 stories below. What pre-weakened the windows in the center of the wall without pre-weakening the other windows? "
Poor Brian, debilitated by his mental state. He lists himself as a "Consultant" because "Unemployable" doesn't have that ring to it.
What windows? Most of the windows were cracked or broken. Nobody disputes this.
Your failed mental state forces you to argue even when there's nothing to argue. I'd kinda sad really.
I can point to the November 4, 2008 edition of Materials Science where G.P. Cherepanov explains the collapse using a hybrid theory which explains the speed and totality of collapse.
But you won't read it, nor if you did you wouldn't understand it.
I can point you toward the Journal of Structural Engineering's January, 2005, edition featuring the paper "Structural Responses of World Trade Center Under Aircraft Attack" by committee of Japanese engineers which models the stresses on each tower before and after impact.
Not a lot a agreement on key factors, but none point to anything suspicious.
Brian, we know who's afraid of whom. Here's a hint: his name rhymes with "Gichard Rage". If you look at 9-11 Blogger's announcement of Gage's appearance, you'll see something interesting:
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-05-29/richard-gage-aia-live-webcast-tempe-az-wed-530
Live webcast from Tempe on 5/30. But if you go to AE911Truth's past speaking events page:
http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php#speakpast
You'll see that Box Boy's actual appearance in Tempe was on 5/29, not 5/30. And if you go back to the 9-11 Flogger page, you'll see that it was posted on 5/29 at 11:19 PM. So even if I had been inclined to attend, the notice was posted at Flogger AFTER the show was over. And, no kidding, this is the second time in a row Gage has visited Phoenix and not had any announcement at 9-11 Blogger until after his appearance.
Here's the announcement of the last visit:
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-03-20/ae911truth-blueprint-monthly-newsletter-march-2012
Posted at Flogger two days after the Phoenix appearance.
Why do you think that is, hmmm?
MGF, please provide the source for your belief that most of the windows in the WTC were cracked or broken before the towers fell. I think this is just another example of you making shit up.
You can point to two references, but it seems that you can't tell us what they say.
"MGF, please provide the source for your belief that most of the windows in the WTC were cracked or broken before the towers fell. I think this is just another example of you making shit up."
Anybody who has seen the Naudet brother's 911 documentary has seen the cracked and broken windows in THE LOBBY. Windows broken on the upper floors are a fact not in dispute.
"You can point to two references, but it seems that you can't tell us what they say"
Face it, by "us" you mean can't tell YOU. Everyone else can look these reports up if they want and read for themselves.
Not you. Why?
Because you're a high school drop out who thinks he knows something because he sat in on a couple of philosophy classes at Cal.
Just as you've ripped off every employer you had you want someone else to do your work for you.
Sorry, retard, drag your ass down to the library and look them up.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I see Brian spent yet another lonely weekend babbling hysterically about his belief that the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition by magic, invisible thermite.
Poor Brian, it's not easy being a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and has now been banned from the truth movement.
Ian you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF, the ejected jets of pulverized building material did not go out the lobby. So I guess you're admitting that your notion that most of the windows in the WTC were cracked or broken is just another something you pulled out of your ass--like most of your silly notions.
Since you just make stuff up, I have no reason to go down to the library on your say so.
What gives you the idea that I'm a high school drop out? Unlike you, I actually studied chemistry in college--which is why I understand energetics and thermodynamics and you do not.
Scum.bag brays, "...Unlike you, I actually studied chemistry in college--which is why I understand energetics and thermodynamics and you do not."
Bullshit.
You know nothing about thermodynamics. Hell, you couldn't explain a concept as simple as ΔT. Thus, you couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary chemistry, physics or mathematics.
Your "knowledge" is limited to parroting charlatans like Gage, Hoffman, Jones, etc.
Your claim that I can't explain a trivial concept like ΔT is not only a lie, it is a stupid and irrational lie.
And your belief that ΔT is significant knowledge only shows your own ignorance.
Bullshit. The liar can be found between your keyboard and your chair, charlatan.
FACT: I repeatedly asked you to explain the concept and you steadfastly refused to answer the question.
FACT: You were unable to answer the simple question, and no answer was provided UNTIL I EXPLAINED THE CONCEPT.
You're an arrogant idiot and a compulsive liar. You're not fit to wipe Zdeněk Bažant's backside.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I did not answer your question because
1) it was a stupid question
2) I knew your harping on it would make you look silly
3) I knew you would make the irrational inference that because I did not answer the question, therefore I could not answer the question
4) I knew that doing so would incite you to make a compleat fool of yourself.
It's succeeded far beyond my expectations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lying again, Pinocchio?
You didn't answer the question because you didn't know the answer.
The only person who managed to make himself look "silly" can be found between your chair and your keyboard.
Scum.bag squeals, "...I knew that doing so would incite you to make a compleat [SIC] fool of yourself."
Nice job, spelling bee champ.
So what makes you think that a flunky ex-janitor with "construction experience" is qualified to critique the work of an engineering professor who has held an Illinois-state structural engineering (S.E.) license since 1971?
Do you honestly think that offering a deliberate misinterpretation of Zdeněk Bažant's research, and then attacking the caricature of Bažant's research, will serve to impress anyone? Perhaps you're impressed by such stupidity, but the rest of us are not impressed or fooled by straw man fallacies and calculated, willful deception.
Stick to trolling, Pudly. You don't have the education or the humanity to participate in honest debate.
ΔT is high school chemistry, buttgoo. Another trivial issue that seems to be too complicated for you is GIGO.
Anybody is qualified to criticize the ridiculous assumptions Dr. Bazant must invent in order to force his model to exhibit the desired behaviours.
Scum.bag squeals, "...ΔT is high school chemistry"
Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?
Yes, ΔT is high school chemistry, and you didn't understand the concept until I explained it to you. Thus, all your prattle about "thermodynamics" is just another crock of BS.
Scum.bag brays, "...Anybody is qualified to criticize the ridiculous assumptions Dr. Bazant must invent in order to force his model to exhibit the desired behaviours [SIC]."
See what I mean?
(By the way, nice job, spelling bee champ).
We've already been over this subject, goat fucker, and it was shown that you're deliberately misinterpreting Zdeněk Bažant's research.
It's not hard to see what you're doing, goat fucker.
You're spamming the blog with thoroughly debunked troofer propaganda and hijacking every thread in order to END THE DEBATE. You're nothing but a troll and a waste of bandwidth.
Now go back to 911Flogger and peddle your nonsense, fool.
For you to claim knowledge you do not and can not have is not just a lie, it's a stooooopid lie.
I didn't deliberately misinterpret anything.
Bullshit.
You constantly misinterpret expert opinion and research. I've proven this time-and-time again.
In fact, you're so brazen that you'll deliberately misrepresent Zdeněk Bažant's research, while shamelessly attributing your deliberate misinterpretation of Bažant's ideas to Bažant!?!
Again, the only person you've managed to fool can be found between your chair and your keyboard.
Now go back to 911Flogger and peddle your twaddle, troll.
Your problem is that you mistake poof for proof. I didn't misrepresent anything.
That's right, goat fucker, lie through your terracotta teeth.
Zdeněk Bažant is only one of the victims of your vicious propaganda campaign. Need I mention Drs. Astaneh-Asl, Biederman, Barnett and Sisson? And that's just a small sample of the victims of your sophistry and vicious lies.
You misinterpret everything, scum.bag.
I didn't lie about anything, ButtGIGO
Bullshit.
You lie constantly. In fact, you're so far gone into your own deranged world of cultist dogma and conspiracy bullshit that you can't see the trees for the woods. You're so delusional that you believe your own pettifoggery and rationalizations.
You're almost as pathetic as you are dishonest.
So give it up, Aunt Fancy, because you're not fooling anyone but yourself.
All you do is slather your baseless claims with oodles of phony attitude--all to try to spam away from your total humiliation with regard to the ΔT issue.
Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?
You didn't "humiliate" anyone, scum.bag. I humiliated YOU when I proved that you don't understand high school-level physics, chemistry or mathematics. That's why you couldn't answer my ΔT question. And all the lying and misdirection in the World won't save you from the truth: You're a charlatan who can't pass an elementary examination in high school-level physical science.
You're a liar. You lied about Dr. Astaneh-Asl. You lied about Dr. Biederman. You lied about Dr. Barnett. You lied about Dr. Sisson. You lied about Dr. Harris. And that's just a small sample. The list is endless.
Thus, two facts are established: [1] You know nothing about physical science, and [2] you misrepresent expert testimony in service to your twisted, lying cultist propaganda.
That said, you're not an advocate for the "widows," you're an embarrassment to your tiny, fringe cult. That's why truthaction's moderator revoked your user account on 9 May 2012.
Thus, I stand by my statement: You're a troll.
It doesn't matter what you stand by--you only make it smell bad by doing so. I didn't lie about anything.
Babbling like a broken record again, troll?
Poor scum.bag. He's been humiliated again and all he can do is babble like an idiot.
Why don't you submit your Rake-on-Rake and Meatball on a Fork lunacy for peer review, Petgoat?
Or are you afraid that you might be caught with your pants down and have your alleged "scientific reputation" exposed for the crock-of-shit that it is, fool?
Only an illiterate like you would think peer review is needed to improve a metaphor.
"MGF, the ejected jets of pulverized building material did not go out the lobby."
You asked about windows, I explained about windows. Fail #1
I can tell you with 100% certainty NOBODY knows what happened in the lobby of either tower during the collapse. The idea you think you do is comical. Fail #2
"So I guess you're admitting that your notion that most of the windows in the WTC were cracked or broken is just another something you pulled out of your ass--like most of your silly notions."
Nope. Based on photographic and video evidence. OLD evidence. Once again your slack-jawed retarded ass has missed simple facts. Fail #3
"Since you just make stuff up, I have no reason to go down to the library on your say so."
Translation: I'm too stupid, plus I've been kicked out of the local libraries for my anti-social behavior.
"What gives you the idea that I'm a high school drop out?"
You said so. Plus you lack of reading comprehension, and inability to focus on a subject. People your considerable age didn't get feel-good diplomas.
"Unlike you, I actually studied chemistry in college--which is why I understand energetics and thermodynamics and you do not."
You didn't go to college. You do not understand energetic, and you repeatedly demonstrate your your lack of knowledge on thermodynamics. Fail #4 & #5
You should be proud though, most people can't live as long as you have without higher brain function.
Ian you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie and lie.
Brian, please provide the contact info for your legal counsel, as I want to discuss your libelous claim that I lie with him.
All you do is slather your baseless claims with oodles of phony attitude--all to try to spam away from your total humiliation with regard to the ΔT issue.
Squeal squeal squeal!
It's hilarious getting a physics lecture from a pathetic lunatic who can't even mop floors correctly.
Only an illiterate like you would think peer review is needed to improve a metaphor.
Brian, you don't know what the word "metaphor" means. For example, you claimed that your "meatball on a fork" idiocy was a metaphor. It was actually an analogy. It was the kind of analogy that we'd expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear.
And let's all remember that Brian STILL hasn't presented a single question that his alleged "widows" have asked. Not one.
MGF, I didn't ask about windows. I asked about the jets of pulverized building materials. You claimed the windows where the jets were observed were weakened. When I asked you to back that up, you talked about windows where no jets were observed.
You have no evidence whatsoever that isolated windows, mostly in the very center of the wall, were broken or weakened.
I never said I dropped out of high school. You don't even know how to spell energetics. You obviously didn't have chemistry 101 because you didn't know what the energy of fusion is.
Ian, I didn't libel you. To say that you lie and lie and lie is a provable fact, and thus not a libel.
Another misdirection ploy, scum.bag?
Only an illiterate scat-muncher like you would believe that an analogy (it's not a "metaphor," douchebag) constitutes "science."
So you don't have a real challenge to Zdeněk Bažant's research beyond calculated, willful deception, deliberate misinterpretation of expert testimony, straw man fallacies and blowhard bullshit. Right, scum.bag?
Yet, you're of the opinion that your half-baked ideas are on a par with Zdeněk Bažant's research. And your rebuttal to Zdeněk Bažant's research is nothing more than a naked straw man fallacy.
Yet, you expect us to take you seriously?
You deliberately misrepresent expert testimony and research; yet, in your twisted mind, you're the "truther"?
Your user account was revoked by truthaction's moderator for "trolling;" nevertheless, you would have us believe that you were banned for another reason, which you can't support with anything more than pettifogging and rationalizations. Yet, in light of this damning evidence, you would have us believe that you're not a troll who systematically hijacks the content of every thread in service to your hidden personal and political agendas?
Have another hit off the glue pot, scum.bag.
You're a troll.
Ian, I didn't libel you. To say that you lie and lie and lie is a provable fact, and thus not a libel.
You have not demonstrated a single lie of mine, and thus you have libeled me. I would ask you again to provide contact for your legal counsel, but I know you're an unemployed janitor and can't even afford to get a decent haircut, much less retain a lawyer.
And I see you STILL haven't provided us with a single question asked by your so-called "widows". Not one.
Ian, your claim that there are no widows is a lie. Your claim that the widows have no questions is a lie. Your claim that I believe in elves is a lie. Your claim that I flunked out of SJSU is a lie.
UtterFail, I not only don't expect you to take me seriously, I don't care if you do or not. Dr. Bazant's assumptions about centroids and perfect frictionless impacts are ludicrous--and were born of his desperate need to get the "right" answer and "explain" the inexplicable collapses.
Ian, your claim that there are no widows is a lie. Your claim that the widows have no questions is a lie. Your claim that I believe in elves is a lie. Your claim that I flunked out of SJSU is a lie.
I never claimed that there are no widows. The other three claims are true. The widows have no questions, and you are a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and flunked out of San Jose State.
UtterFail, I not only don't expect you to take me seriously, I don't care if you do or not. Dr. Bazant's assumptions about centroids and perfect frictionless impacts are ludicrous--and were born of his desperate need to get the "right" answer and "explain" the inexplicable collapses.
The reason you think the collapses are "inexplicable" is because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who knows nothing about physics. That's why it's so entertaining to read your idiotic postings about magic thermite elves on this blog.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, you lie. On Feb 6, 2011 in the Sherlock Holmes thread when I said "You have repeatedly claimed that there are no widows, and that the widows have no questions outstanding,"
you answered:
"This is true. Brian, you're aware that things that are true are not 'lies', right?"
09 January, 2011, 15:00 in the "Ask and You Will Be Answered" thread you said I babble "about imaginary widows and thermite".
13 January, 2011 09:54 in the "Tuscon 9/11 Truth Movement" thread you said I babble "about phony 'widows' all day."
Ian, if the collapses of the buildings can be explained, then why did NIST abandon its objective to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed? I have never posted about magic thermite elves. You are the only one who posts about magic elves.
Also, if NIST can explain the collapses, why did they acknowledge that "we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"?
Ian, you lie. On Feb 6, 2011 in the Sherlock Holmes thread when I said "You have repeatedly claimed that there are no widows, and that the widows have no questions outstanding,"
you answered:
"This is true. Brian, you're aware that things that are true are not 'lies', right?"
And the widows have no questions, so what I said was true.
09 January, 2011, 15:00 in the "Ask and You Will Be Answered" thread you said I babble "about imaginary widows and thermite".
Which you do.
13 January, 2011 09:54 in the "Tuscon 9/11 Truth Movement" thread you said I babble "about phony 'widows' all day."
You're doing so right now.
But thanks for looking back through ancient threads so you could babble about "widows" more.
Ian, if the collapses of the buildings can be explained, then why did NIST abandon its objective to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed? I have never posted about magic thermite elves. You are the only one who posts about magic elves.
Brian, you're babbling about magic thermite elves again.
Also, if NIST can explain the collapses, why did they acknowledge that "we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"?
Obviously, it's because they want to point and laugh at a mentally ill unemployed janitor with the worst haircut on earth to start babbling about how they ignore "essential mysteries" that lead one to conclude that magic thermite elves destroyed the WTC.
Poor Brian. He's hysterical.
"Also, if NIST can explain the collapses, why did they acknowledge that "we are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"?"
They didn't need to.
They (and everyone else not mentally ill) knew the cause of the collapse (hint: Boeing made them).
You assume nobody else investigated the collapse, yet specific design changes to the new WTC buildings, and specific changes to building codes in Yew York, nation-wide, and globally were made after 9/11.
The reasons these changes have been made are obvious. The original designs of the Twin Towers and WTC7 were flawed. Corners were cut, changed in the NYC building codes were made to allow the buildings to go up.
If anything we're all lucky the towers didn't come down faster. KSM & Mohamed Atta (both architect and engineers) seemed to think they could knock the towers down. They were right.
Ian, you lie. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were not answered.
Your claim is silly that NIST failed to fulfill its own stated investigatory objectives simply so they could point at me. The mysteries don't lead one to conclude anything except that they need to be examined. You try to deny facts because you can't accept the implications you associate with them. That's not rational.
MGF, please advise why NIST did not need to fulfill its investigation's objectives and explain how the buildings came down.
The changes made to building codes were trivial, mostly improvements along the lines of widening exit stairs.
You provide no evidence for your claim that the buildings' design was flawed, and neither does NIST. If the buildings' design was flawed, then NIST was complicit in insurance fraud. Is that what you think?
Most engineers were surprised when the towers came down. A White Paper issued in 1964 claimed the towers were designed to take a hit from a 4-engine 707 traveling at 600 mph.
Ian, you lie. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were not answered.
False.
Your claim is silly that NIST failed to fulfill its own stated investigatory objectives simply so they could point at me. The mysteries don't lead one to conclude anything except that they need to be examined. You try to deny facts because you can't accept the implications you associate with them. That's not rational.
Brian, everyone is pointing and laughing at you, because you're a pathetic unemployed janitor who babbles about magic thermite elves.
MGF, please advise why NIST did not need to fulfill its investigation's objectives and explain how the buildings came down.
Modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes in the towers. We've been over this many times, Brian.
The changes made to building codes were trivial, mostly improvements along the lines of widening exit stairs.
Right.
You provide no evidence for your claim that the buildings' design was flawed, and neither does NIST. If the buildings' design was flawed, then NIST was complicit in insurance fraud. Is that what you think?
No, that's what you think, because you're a delusional liar and unemployed janitor who babbles about magic thermite elves.
A White Paper issued in 1964 claimed the towers were designed to take a hit from a 4-engine 707 traveling at 600 mph.
Nobody cares.
Also, Brian STILL hasn't listed a single question that his alleged "widows" asked. Not one.
Ian, if your SLC colleagues had any integrity at all they would object to your continued lying about the widows' 273 unanswered questions.
http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php You're just trying to spam over MGF's ignorance.
Nobody cares about your ridiculous questions, Brian.
Not my questions, the widows' questions. Your refusal to learn this simple fact us pathological.
They (and everyone else not mentally ill) knew the cause of the collapse (hint: Boeing made them).
MGF, NIST's ridiculous claim that two enormous hunks of metal were suspended in the air for more than 45 minutes before crashing into the towers is contrary to the law of gravity.
Try placing a penny on the ground in Boston. Does the penny rise into the air and float all the way to New York? No.
Not my questions, the widows' questions. Your refusal to learn this simple fact us pathological.
The widows have no questions.
And as I said, nobody cares about the pointless questions of a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who believes in magic thermite elves.
"MGF, NIST's ridiculous claim that two enormous hunks of metal were suspended in the air for more than 45 minutes before crashing into the towers is contrary to the law of gravity.
Try placing a penny on the ground in Boston. Does the penny rise into the air and float all the way to New York? No."
Crap. You've outed me.
Alright, I'm actually Richard Blee's Pilates instructor. I'm force to give you the truth about 9/11.
See, some of the guys in the covert action wing at Langley were talking shit with the cafeteria crew at Langley and dared them to pull off an OP. The cafeteria guys said name it, and the covert wing guys said "attack the World Trade Center or the Pentagon". The cafeteria guys said they'd hit both on the same day. The bet was $75 in Olive Garden gift certificates left over from the CIA Christmas party.
So one guy had a friend who worked for the airlines who was also VP of the local remote control airplane club. They rigged up three jets with RC. They picked 9/11 because they figured the towers would be empty because it was an election day and New Yorkers are fanatical about voting.
Then Antonio said they should probably take down WTC7 because he left a laptop full of bestiality porn in the CIA office. They only had for planes, but he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew a guy and bam! The place was wired with an explosive made from hydrogen peroxide.
I say three jets because the Pentagon just blew up by itself. It was taco day, what did they expect.
Anyway, feels good to get this all off my chest. Sorry about the whole war on terror thing, and I'll see you at the gym!
Ian, if your SLC colleagues had any integrity at all they would object to your continued lying about the widows' 273 unanswered questions.
http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php You're just trying to spam over MGF's ignorance.
That's it, Brian. Just keep repeating the same spam over and over and over and over again. I mean, it's worked so well for the last 11 years. Maybe tomorrow, someone will care about your ridiculous questions enough to answer them.
It works very well to show that you're a liar and that your SLC colleagues, in tolerating your persistent and deliberate lies, have no class at all.
They're not my question, they're the widows' questions. I don't know why you think truth and justice are a joke, but I don't much care either.
It works very well to show that you're a liar and that your SLC colleagues, in tolerating your persistent and deliberate lies, have no class at all.
They're not my question, they're the widows' questions. I don't know why you think truth and justice are a joke, but I don't much care either.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Poor Brian. He thinks attributing his insane, pointless questions to invisible "widows" will get people to take them seriously.
Nobody will ever take you seriously, Brian. We all just point and laugh at you.
Ian, your claim that the widows are invisible is a loony lie. You're just trying to spam over MGF's ignorance. It's a common Bushbot tactic--when somebody on your side says something stupid, pick a fight about something trivial to cover it over.
Here are the widows' 273 unanswered questions.
http://justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Post a Comment
<< Home