Ground Zero Construction
The financially illiterate Truthers keep on making this bizarre argument that Larry Silverstein was involved in blowing up his own building and made off with a fortune in insurance payments, missing the fact that those insurance payments are compensating him for the fact that he is paying rent on buildings which don't exist anymore.
Unfortunately trying to get the World Trade Center complex rebuilt is continuing to be a nightmare, but that won't stop the idiotic conspiracy theories.
For years, rebuilding of the World Trade Center site was held up by construction delays and fights between government agencies, insurers and a developer.
Now the problem is a lack of tenants. While two office buildings are well underway at Ground Zero, construction of a third tower, 3 World Trade Center, is stalled at eight stories, well shy of the 80 floors planned. The reason: its developer, Silverstein Properties Inc, the company run by Larry Silverstein, hasn't been able to find a tenant, and he can't build any higher without one, based on a two-year-old deal with government agencies.
When Mr. Silverstein started construction in mid-2010 on the building, then-expected to have 2.5 million square feet of space, he had hoped he would be able to find a tenant by now and keep building to the tower's top. But cement stopped pouring at the 8th floor in the past few weeks.
The stunted growth of 3 World Trade Center reflects the stagnation that has taken hold in the nation's largest office market and the struggles Lower Manhattan faces in rebuilding the more than 11 million square feet of space lost in the 2001 terrorist attacks.
posted by James B. @ 10:15 AM
377 comments
377 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
The whackjobs just can't help themselves...case in point:
bpete1969
July 27, 2012 - 10:13 pm
Larry Silverstein didn’t murder anyone that day and to continue to make that claim after 11 years is not only irrational but indicative of a severe defect in cognitive ability.
Gordon Duff
July 28, 2012 - 12:41 am
"bpete
Do you have any facts to base your bizarre claims. We have video of Larry admitting to murder. You seem to have your imagination.
On building 7 alone…when he said he ordered it “pulled,” it was full of people.
and
If you blow up one…you blow them all up."
The libel and slander continue...ad nauseum...
bpete, maybe you should drop your "us v. them" attitude and instead adopt a more nuanced shades-of-gray attitude. A 2-bit computer is not very smart, dig?
Larry Silverstein did say "pull it". That's a fact. What he meant by that, nobody knows. Some unintelligent people, like Dr. Kevin Barrett, claim that "pull it" means that Mr. Silverstein admitted that he blew up a 47-story skyscraper.
When you cite the claims of lunatic bigots as if they represented the position of people who only want answers to legitimate questions, you do a great disservice to truth and to democracy.
Yes, we are aware of the "No true truther" fallacy, where no viewpoint is ever actually representative of the movement itself.
Maybe you should read what I wrote for exactly what it is, an example of an 11 year old libel that will continue long past any of us are here.
The wannabe Irish Imam Kevin Barrett and Uncle Fetzer are given a platform by the likes of Gordon Duff to continue to post the same old tired lies day after day under the the banner of serving veterans.
Fetzer, Barrett and Duff do represent the position of the truther movement and you do a disservice to truth and democracy by refusing to admit that fact.
So do me a favor...ignore anything I post unless it's directed at you specifically.
This comment has been removed by the author.
James B, the basic assertions of the Jersey widows are disputed by no one in the truth movement--and by no reasonable person.
bpete, far from being "given a platform", Fetzer, Barrett, and Duff have to create their own platform. If you know of any respectable 9/11 Truth organization that gives any respect to the Veterans Today nonsense, please identify that organization.
Fetzer, Barrett and Duff do NOT represent the position of the truther movement. How many people showed up for their Vancouver conference? Do you know? Do you care?
Still trying to pass off 273 loaded questions as something other than a wad of logical fallacies that were composed by two hysterical troofer harpies?
Pathetic.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
ButtGoo, pray tell: what is "loaded" and hysterical about these questions to President Bush?
At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack?
Who informed you of this fact?
On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?
What defensive action did you personally order to protect our nation during the crisis on September 11th?
What time were these orders given, and to whom?
What orders were carried out?
What was the result of such orders?
Were any such orders not carried out?
All you've managed to demonstrate is intellectual dishonesty.
Why don't you post all 273 questions, scumbag?
Or do you have something to hide, Mr. Logical Fallacy?
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming? You're the scum of the Earth.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I can't expect you to comment on 273 questions. I therefore ask you to comment on a representative sample.
Are you refusing the explain what is hysterical and loaded about these questions?
Yeah, pretend that Bush and Cheney's real concern prior to 9/11 was some "secret."
Anyone who is remotely informed knows that Bush and Cheney were busy conducting secret meetings with energy conglomerate moguls, while they rigged the energy market in order to extort $20 billion from the state of California.
That's why no attention was paid to Al Qaeda.
The problem isn't "conspiracy," the problem is greed. But you don't give a flying f*ck about the "truth," do you pervert? Your "questions" are nothing but logical fallacies, which you misrepresent as the concerns of the "widows," when in fact Van Auken and Kleinburg represent only a tiny fraction of the people who were made widows on that terrible day.
Thus, you and your "widows" are a fraud--and your insane views don't represent the views of the vast majority of the real widows.
So why do you refuse to post the "questions," liar?
Do you have something to hide?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The questions I cited are about actions and non-actions on 9/11. They have nothing to do with greed. Your frothy incompetence pollutes this blog.
Still refuse to post the "questions," asshole?
The dishonesty that drips from every pore of your crusty, unwashed body pollutes this blog.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming? You're the scum of the Earth.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I'll post the questions after you show what's hysterical and loaded about the ones I did post.
"...On the morning of 9/11, who was in charge of our country while you were away from the National Military Command Center? Were you informed or consulted about all decisions made in your absence?"
Loaded question.
Bush was in charge of the country on that fateful morning. And if you understood our laws--and you don't--you'd know this.
Cretin.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I didn't ask for your answer to the question. I asked you what was loaded about and hysterical about the question.
Did you molest your daughters today?
The loaded questions are not designed to get an answer. The loaded questions are designed specifically to introduce doubt in the reader's mind.
That's willful deception, scumbag.
Thus, your idiotic "questions" are nothing more than deceptive nonsense garnished with controversial and unjustified assumptions.
Too bad that you don't have so much as a rudimentary understanding of elementary logic. But what's new? Same shit, different day.
Cretin.
FAIL
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Your claim that the questions are loaded is based on your logically fallacious assumptions about their intent.
What is idiotic about these questions?
At specifically what time did you become aware that America was under attack?
Who informed you of this fact?
Are you refusing to answer whether you molested your daughters yet today?
Feeling lucky, felcher?
Goat fucker, Pick a park in Palo Alto where we'll meet in 1 hour.
And don't forget to say your prayers, cocksucker.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
What's the matter, snot gobbler? Too much of pussy to put your liver spotted hand's on the line?
Coward.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
So you won't answer whether you molested your daughters? What have you got to hide?
Come on, goat fucker, I'll give you the first punch. And you better knock me out with one punch because if you fail, I'll eviscerate you.
Feeling lucky, snot gobbler?
Oh that's right! You're a pussy who harasses and molests defenseless girls.
You da "man," goat fucker, you da "man."
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Why won't you answer? What are you hiding?
Why won't you pick a park in Palo Alto, snot gobbler?
Oh that's right! You're a coward. You harass defenseless women and you run like a pussy from men.
Do you wax your bikini line, too, snot gobbler?
Harassed any happily married troofers lately, scumbag?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Why would I picnic with a poofwad like you? Why won't you answer the question? What are you hiding? Did you molest your daughters today?
What's the matter pussy? Is your veejayjay bleeding today?
Maybe Cowardly will let you borrow his Midol.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
" If you know of any respectable 9/11 Truth organization that gives any respect to the Veterans Today nonsense, please identify that organization."
There are no respectable 9/11 Troof organizations. They're all psychotic twats.
"Larry Silverstein did say "pull it". That's a fact. What he meant by that, nobody knows."
Everyone knows what he meant because he's explained it.
"Did you molest your daughters today?"
Why? Jealous? You are the only certified sexual predator here. Are you broadening your tastes from married women to children too?
Why won't you answer the question? What are you hiding?
Hide your adolescents--male and female.
Brian "chicken hawk" Good is on the prowl.
And whatever you do, don't drop the soap.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I think the problems with filling the WTC reflect two things. The first is the ecomony as a whole. It has never really recovered from the Tech-Bubble collapse of 2000, and the larger crash of our phantom economy in 2008. Half of the nation's lawyers are out of work, and a large number of tenants of the WTC complex were law offices.
The second problem is the WTC itself. It is a two-time target of successful terror attacks. This has to weigh on the mind of every potential tenant. Before 2001 the WTC was a fashionable, prestigious location so businesses would lease space there to make a statement to their clients.
Filling those spaces will be a chore.
Another factor is that technology has made the traditional office anachronistic.
The office used to be a place where you'd maintain your records, receive your mail, receive your phone calls, supervise your staff, and meet your clients.
Technology has automated or made flexible most of those functions.
Don't forget to lock up your sheep and livestock. After all, when little boys and girls are on Brian "chicken hawk" Good's menu, can the livestock be far behind?
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Did you molest your daughters today, GuitarBill, or do you save that just for special occasions?
Brian,
OK off topic here but I was away last week. You claimed the article in Architect was full of lies but failed to produce any examples. Can you do so?
There's only one problem--you limp wristed little coward: You don't have a scintilla of evidence to support that assertion.
You, on the other hand...
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I guess that's why you fuck your mother. Right, Brian "chicken hawk" Good? After all, your mother is so ugly that you can fuck her in any position and it's still doggy-style.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Gutterball, your erroneous belief that I fuck my mother is incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable.
I've only fucked my mother a dozen times or so.
A better question: why do I fuck goats on the edge of a cliff.
So the goat's will push back!
My motto: Internet--the final frontier. The gobbledegook you're about to read are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
Gutterball, where is Jon Gold's sex organ?
In his feet -- if he steps on you you're fucked.
My motto: Internet--the final frontier. The gobbledegook you're about to read are the lies and obsessions of The Goat Fucker's Advocate. My ten-year mission: to explore new methods of deception; to seek out and formulate new logical fallacies; to boldly go where no Internet troll has gone before.
Yes, Len, I can produce examples. But I'm not going to waste my time discussing the article with people who have not read it when Ian and ButtGoo are just going to cut and paste yards of spam over it.
GutterBall wrote: You don't have a scintilla of evidence to support that assertion.
Well, if you'd made a fools of Kevin like I did, he'd lie about you just like he lies about me.
Brian,
You wrote:
"Yes, Len, I can produce examples. But I'm not going to waste my time discussing the article with people who have not read it when Ian and ButtGoo are just going to cut and paste yards of spam over it."
Translation, you can't. Prove me wrong.
Len
This comment has been removed by the author.
Stahl's claim on page 1 is a lie: "Gage feigned to distance his organization, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, from these remarks."
Stahl's claim on page 2 is a lie: "The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims." Typical of what? How can he claimn they're pseudo-scientific unless he shows how?
His claim on page 2 that AE911truth's technical arguments have been debunked is a lie.
Stahl's claim on page 2 is a lie: "All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics."
It's not just a lie, it's logically absurd. All of Gage's evidence can not have been rebutted by all of those sources because many of those reports were written before the evidence was even developed.
After more closely examining the article I can't help but wonder if the AIA is deliberately trying to praise Gage with faint damnation by having an incompetent messenger and by revealing in the the article that 100 AIA members and 6 AIA Fellows are among Gage's adherents. Any half-way intelligent person will recognize that with respect to the technical issues Stahl merely engages in empty name-calling with no substance at all.
please go...and don't forget your cardboard box...
BRIAN: Stahl's claim on page 1 is a lie: "Gage feigned to distance his organization, the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, from these remarks."
LEN: How was that a lie? He did try to distance AE911T from such claims but members of the group back them.
========================
BRIAN: Stahl's claim on page 2 is a lie: "The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims." Typical of what? How can he claimn they're pseudo-scientific unless he shows how?
LEN: Typical of the crap generated of cranks, there was no need to go through the claims that's been done elsewhere that was not the aim of the article.
=========================================================
BRIAN: His claim on page 2 that AE911truth's technical arguments have been debunked is a lie.
LEN: Of course they've been debunked, point to one that hasn't.
=================================================================
BRIAN: Stahl's claim on page 2 is a lie: "All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics."
LEN: As above, point to one of Gage's claims that hasn't been refuted.
=================================================================
BRIAN: It's not just a lie, it's logically absurd. All of Gage's evidence can not have been rebutted by all of those sources because many of those reports were written before the evidence was even developed.
LEN: Nothing illogical about it many of his claims had been refuted already when he added them to his spiel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Are 6 Fellows of the AIA to be considered cranks?"
According to the AIA "there are over 3,000" fellows. If only 6 (0.2%) are kooks that'a not bad.
I won't get into the rest I'm not into quibbling over semantics and the points you raise either have been debunked or don't contradict the NIST account. Everyone else reading this either knows this or won't benefit from having the facts presented once again.
The main point of the article was that the AIA wants nothing to do with Gage or AE911T, do you think its a coincidence they chose Stahl to write the article?
It is also quite telling that despite being held at the AIA HQ no architects showed up. You can choose to not believe Stahl but note that no truthers have disputed this which they obviously would have done if it were not true.
Stahl didn't say Gage distanced the group. He said he "feigned to distance" it. If you're going to correct every text before you decide it's just fine, you're going to live in the same kind of fantasy world the other guys on this board inhabit.
Stahl didn't demonstrate that Gage's claims were typical of the claims of cranks. Are 6 Fellows of the AIA to be considered cranks? Why? Says who? What are Stahl's technical credentials?
Among many of Gage's technical claims that have not been refuted are the observations that NIST does not have core steel samples to prove their claim that fires weakened the steel, that NIST did not explain the pulverization of the concrete, did not explain the melted steel, ignored first responders' reports of sounds of explosions and flashes of light, did not test for explosive residue, did not explain the structural behavior of the building during the course of the collapse, has not provided data that allows the computer models to be evaluated critically, has refused to provide the calculations to support their collapse initiation theory for WTC7, and that NIST's justification for extending the time of final collapse of WTC7 is illegitimate.
The evidence of the molten steel is not refuted. The evidence of multi-ton steel sections being hurled 200 yards at 55 mph is not refuted. The evidence of NIST's inability to make their computer models reproduce what the buildings did is not refuted. The evidence of the first responders' testimony is not refuted. The evidence of a coverup implicit in the rapid destruction of the steel is not refuted. The evidence of a coverup implicit in an "investigation" that refuses to go beyond the moment of collapse initiation to explain tghe actual collapse is not refuted.
What's illogical about Stahl's sentence is that he claims that all the evidence has been refuted by all the authorities he cites. That's absurd because many of his authorities don't even address certain aspects of the evidence.
What he probably meant to say was "All of the evidence has been rebutted in papers or by scientific authorities such as..." but he's such a sloppy thinker he makes a fool of himself. And then he compounds the damage to his credibility by calling Popular Mechanics an "engineering journal".
Stahl is a joke. Take a look at the 9/11 series he wrote for Slate last September if you want to see something really, really, lame.
Among many of Gage's technical claims that have not been subjected to any form of formal scrutiny...
FFY...I think you just proved why Gage's snake oil show is a sham.
So you think that the fact that something has not been studied shows it's a sham? And it doesn't bother you that it's a convenient philosophy for a self-deceiver?
Bullshit!
Kim Hill annihilates Richard Gage.
Is Kim Hill supposed to be some kind of technical expert? What's your point?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Yeah, tell us about technical expertise, Mr. Doesn't Know the Definition of ΔT. Tell us more about technical expertise, Mr. Doesn't Have a Clue How To Use "google" [SIC].
It's a wonder that you don't choke on your hypocrisy.
If you had a brain in your microcephalic noggin, you'd know that Richard Gage is a pettifogger--and so are you.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming? You're the scum of the Earth.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...I wouldn't know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist." -- Richard "mealy mouthed" Gage.
LOL!
Pettifog much, scumbag?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
So where've you been, ButtGale? Playing naked games with your daughters, eh?
What's the matter scumbag? Can't handle it when your bullshit is exposed for the stinking pile of "Pat Cowardly" that it is?
You sniffed the troofer bullshit and stuck your liver-spotted hand's in Richard Gage's excrement. Thus, only one question remains: When do you plan to eat it, felcher?
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Is that the best you can do? Just empty questions and a link to a lying, Jew-hating wife- and child-beater?
Still lying about the real origin of Kevin Barrett's article? You know as well as I do that Keven Barrett copied the thread from Screw Loose Change, 2010.
Proof?
"... Screwloosechange publishes Snugbug's address & phone number, various & psundry pseudonyms, prominent activist's plea for him to stop harassing her, and more " -- Kevin Barrett.
So, are you trying to claim that Pat and James are Jew-haters and Child abusers?
Or are you trying to change the subject because you know that Kim Hill eviscerated Richard "mealy mouth" Gage?
"...I wouldn't know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist." -- Richard "mealy mouthed" Gage.
"...This [nanothermite] is not made in a cave in Afghanistan." -- Self-admitted, "Reagan Republican" and racist, Richard Gage.
LOL!
Pettifog much, scumbag?
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Now watch, folks. The scumbag will play "rope-a-dope" until between 12:30 and 2:00 AM Pacific Standard Time, and then he'll post another screeching, hysterical pile of bullshit.
Same shit, different day.
LOL!
"...I wouldn't know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist." -- Richard "mealy mouthed" Gage.
"...This [nanothermite] is not made in a cave in Afghanistan." -- Self-admitted, "Reagan Republican" and racist, Richard mealy mouthed" Gage.
Pettifog much, scumbag?
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
So thanks for making clear that you're citing the website of a lying, bigoted, child- and wife-abuser, Kevin Barrett, as if it were credible.
As predicted, right on time, fool.
So why have you repeatedly lied about the origin of the damning thread that proves that you're pervert and a liar?
"... Screwloosechange publishes Snugbug's address & phone number, various & psundry pseudonyms, prominent activist's plea for him to stop harassing her, and more" -- Kevin Barrett.
Lie to us, nut-bag.
"...You're not dealing with it, Kim." -- Richard "mealy mouthed Gage.
LOL! Yeah, that's why we DEBUNK YOUR BULLSHIT!
Answer the question, asshole: Are you trying to claim that Pat and James are Jew-haters and Child abusers?
Go for it, bullshitter.
FACE IT. You're trying to change the subject because you know that Kim Hill eviscerated Richard "mealy mouth" Gage?
Bullshitter.
Now, post more screeching, hysterical non sequiturs and bullshit--you depraved degenerate.
"...I wouldn't know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist." -- Richard "mealy mouthed" Gage.
"...This [nanothermite] is not made in a cave in Afghanistan." -- Self-admitted, "Reagan Republican" and racist, Richard mealy mouthed" Gage.
Pettifog much, scumbag?
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Now watch, folks. Another half hour will pass and the nut-bag will post another screeching, hysterical pile of non sequiturs and bullshit.
Then his mother will turn the computer off and tell the obsessed 9/11 nut-bag to drink his warm milk and go to bed.
Sexually harassed any happily married troofers lately, Prince Charming?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
So Brian can you tell us why you deleted your 29 July, 2012 17:11 post and then reposted it AFTER the post I'd written in reply to it? Do you think your arguments come across as less inane (or insane) when presented out of sequence with those from the person you are 'debating' with? Did you think you might dupe so stupid people into thinking I hadn't replied?
The only difference I noticed between the original post and the 2nd coming was that you added "Take a look at the 9/11 series he {Stahl] wrote for Slate last September if you want to see something really, really, lame." If that was all you wanted to change it would would have easier to make a new post.
I edited for clarity. So now do you understand why I am reluctant to put time into substantive posts? You had nothing to say at all. There's no reason to think you even read Stahl's article, and my work just gets buried under a lot of juvenile spam.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Really Brian you think having our posts out of sequence added to clarity?
Yes I read the article I'm not into debating your nitpicks since this would mean going over points that have been repeatedly raked over the coals for the last 10+ years; "molten steel" and sounds of explosions were old hat before James and Pat started this blog.
See if you can rationalize a reasonable reply to my 29 July, 2012 18:29 post.
They've been dealt with only by denial and outright lies. Melted steel was attested to by 5 PhDs and a Captain of the FDNY.
You asked me to identify Stahl's lies and I did. You asked me to provide examples of Gage's technical claims that have not been refuted, and evidence that has not been refuted--and I did.
You dismissed my points as semantical trivia and nitpicks.
Stahl lies. I showed the lies. Gage has evidence and technical arguments that have not been refuted. Deal with it.
You're still missing the forest for the trees, i.e. you're ignoring the main points of the article and focusing on minutia.
Please tell us who the supposed "5 PhDs and...Captain of the FDNY" who "attested to" molten steel were. You do understand that the notion a thermitic reaction could have gone on for more than a few minutes, let alone days or weeks at GZ is preposterous, don't you?
Abolhassan Astaneh Asl, Ahmed Ghoniem, Alison Geyh, Edward Malloy, James Glanz, and FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo.
The fire at GZ was the longest-lasting commercial building fire in history. It persisted despite efforts to suffocate it by dumping dirt on the site. I can't think of a better explanation for that than oxygen-containing incendiaries.
"...Abolhassan Astaneh Asl, Ahmed Ghoniem, Alison Geyh, Edward Malloy, James Glanz, and FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo."
Bullshit!
You just can't stop lying, can you, quote miner the pervert?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Len, the goat fucker is lying through his terracotta teeth. What new, eh?
For example, concerning Dr. Astaneh-Asl:
-----Original Message-----
From: Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl [mailto:astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu]
Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 12:02 PM
To: Ronald Wieck
Subject: Re: 'Hardfire' Appearance
"Dear Ronald: All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.
"All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " . But will they listen?
"Best wishes and hoping that these conspiracy theorists will stop using my name in any context." -- Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., P.E., Professor University of California, Berkeley
Should we expect less than quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I wasn't asserting any theory. I was answering Len's question.
Also, there is no reason to believe the alleged copy of an alleged email posted on the internet by an anonymous liar such as yourself.
Your inability to comprehend the inherent unreliability of electronically-reproduced data makes your claim that you were once an IT professional seem highly doubtful. Any fool can write phony emails and paste them on the internet, but only a fool like you would expect people to believe them.
"... there is no reason to believe the alleged copy of an alleged email posted on the internet by an anonymous liar such as yourself."
Bullshit! We've been over this, too--you lying sack of shit. In fact, you REFUSED to call or e-mail the professor. Why is that, scumbag. Hiding something, pervert?
Anyone can call or e-mail Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and learn that you're a shameless liar with the morals of a street-walking whore.
E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4528
I called Astaneh-Asl AND HE TOLD ME THAT YOU'RE A LIAR. Deal with it, pervert.
Should we expect less than quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Go for it, goat fucker! Bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of dumbspam!
Anything but send that e-mail or pick up that phone. Right, pervert?
E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4528
Now post more dumbspam, liar.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I have no need to bother Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who I'm sure is a very busy man. I am grateful for the courage he showed in telling PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center" and expressing regret about the destruction of the Ground Zero physical evidence:
"After 9/11, we realized that the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey has sent all this steel that we need to study. That's why I'm here to study steel. To send steel to a recycling plant to go to China for recycling, for what? For 15 cents a pound. That's nothing. And all the evidence of steel went to melting pot."
He didn't have to say those things, and I'm glad that he did.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
Yo Brian..."maybe you should drop your nuanced shades-of-gray attitude and instead adopt a more "us v. them" attitude."
Why?
That's right, goat fucker, CHANGE THE SUBJECT. Anything but pick up that phone or send that e-mail. Right, Pinocchio?
E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4528
How does your latest pack of lies change the truth?
YOU LIED ABOUT DR. ASTANEH-ASL, AND YOU'RE TOO MUCH OF A SCUMBAG AND A COWARD TO ADMIT THE TRUTH.
There wasn't a drop of "molten steel" at Ground Zero--and all you can do is lie through your terracotta teeth.
Now slither back to 911Flogger and don't you dare post your lying spam to SLC again. You're a waste of skin--an oxygen thief with the morals of street-walking whore.
Should we expect less than quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Well, I see that everyone's favorite mentally ill unemployed janitor spent his weekend babbling about invisible widows with "questions" even though nobody cares.
Too bad Brian has no friends and no money, otherwise he could have spent the weekend as I did, camping and rafting with old friends.
I have no need to bother Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who I'm sure is a very busy man.
Right, because you know your claims about him are lies, and you'd rather continue your delusional beliefs about "molten steel". After all, you don't want to have to confront the fact that 9/11 truth is just another in the long line of pathetic failures that have made you what you are: a failed janitor who lives with his parents at age 60.
Carol Brouillet said you were delusional when you were stalking her and trying to wreck her marriage. Your delusional mental state is clearly on display here too.
Ian, you lie and lie and lie.
Utterfail, I didn't lie about anything. I reported what Dr. Astaneh said, and my link proved that he said what he said. You can even play the video and hear it with your own ears.
I guess you're thinking we've all forgotten that you can't support your claim that the first responders had fly ash in their lungs.
That's right, goat fucker, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
You lost the fly ash "debate," and you lost this "debate," too. In fact, you've lost EVERY "debate," but you're too insane and delusional to see the truth.
Pathetic--and you have the unmitigated gall to call yourself a "truther"?
Brian "compulsive liar" Good--prevaricator for 9/11 troof.
Anything but pick up that phone or send that e-mail. Right, Pinocchio?
E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4528
Now slither back to 911Flogger and don't post your spam to this blog again, scumbag.
Oh, that's right! You were banned from 911Flogger, just as you've been banned from practically every troofer cult website on the Internet.
Loser.
Should we expect less than quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Ian, you lie and lie and lie.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Utterfail, I didn't lie about anything. I reported what Dr. Astaneh said, and my link proved that he said what he said.
Brian, you lie about Dr. Astaneh-Asl constantly. That's why you're too terrified to contact him. You know he doesn't think there was molten steel at the WTC, and you're hysterically desperate to keep your delusions about 9/11 going.
And you still haven't identified a single question asked by a widow. Not one.
You lie and lie and make a fool of yourself--and everybody who's foolish enough to believe your obvious lies. You obviously don't have the education you claim.
That's right, goat fucker. Excoriate your moral AND INTELLECTUAL SUPERIORS.
Tell us more about ΔT, bullshitter. Tell us more about your alleged "google" skills, while I've proven beyond a doubt that you couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and compass. Do a "calculation" for us, dingbat. You know, your brand of "calculation," which has a built-in error factor of plus or minus an order of magnitude.
Hell, you were LUCKY to finish high school.
So why are you scared to death to call the good professor, scumbag?
E-mail: astaneh@ce.berkeley.edu
Phone: (510) 642-4528
No education, and so stooooopid that you can't figure out how to use "google."
How do you spell "l o s e r"?
Brian "prevaricator for 9/11 troof" Good.
Should we expect less than quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You lie and lie and make a fool of yourself--and everybody who's foolish enough to believe your obvious lies. You obviously don't have the education you claim.
Poor Brian. I've humiliated him again and all he can do is start squealing hysterically. That's because he knows the widows have no questions and that there was no molten steel at the WTC and he can't take it. The truth hurts.
Ian, why do you lie so persistently and obsessively about 9/11? What's in it for you? Do you think it makes the world a better place?
Project much, scumbag?
Should we expect less than quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Ian, why do you lie so persistently and obsessively about 9/11? What's in it for you? Do you think it makes the world a better place?
My, such squealing!
Brian, sometimes I think that it's unfair for someone smart and successful like me to pick on a pathetic loser like you, and I probably wouldn't if your mental illness were different. It's just that you're a disgusting sex predator who also wants to exonerate mass murderers for what they did on 9/11, so I feel better about taunting you.
Also, Brian, you could always just stop posting here and accept defeat.
Ian, any fool can get an MBA--and if he's dumb enough he'll think it proves he's smart and accomplished.
Ian, any fool can get an MBA--and if he's dumb enough he'll think it proves he's smart and accomplished.
This is hilarious coming from you, given that you can't get an MBA. For one, you need a bachelor's degree, and you failed out of San Jose State. For another, you need good work experience to get into a program, and you couldn't hold down a job mopping floors.
No, Brian, the MBA is just a piece of evidence that I'm far more intelligent and successful than you, but there's a lot more to it than that. For instance, I'm not dumb and insane enough to believe 9/11 conspiracy theories....
Don't bother snug while the Chinese gymnasts are on.
RGT wrote, "...Don't bother snug while the Chinese gymnasts are on."
LOL!
Yeah, the goat fucker is in a masturbatory haze and can't be bothered now. Asian girls with boy butts and no tits and all. It's all consuming for a bisexual predator.
Should we expect less than sexual depravity, quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Ian, any fool can get an MBA--and if he's dumb enough he'll think it proves he's smart and accomplished.
What is your evidence that I failed out of San Jose State? What makes you think I don't have good work experience?
What makes you think I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories? I'm certainly not dumb enough--as you are--to believe that 19 little guys with boxcutters could defeat the greatest military power the world has ever seen after warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA.
RGT, I don't watch Olympic gymnastics. It's too upsetting to see 15-year-old girls who haven't reached puberty because their training is so stressful. They're freaks like Castrati. It's child abuse.
"...What makes you think I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories?"
That's right, pervert. Parrot Richard Gage.
LOL!
E.g.
"...I wouldn't know, I'm not a conspiracy theorist." -- Richard "mealy mouthed" Gage.
Can't you come up with some original bullshit, plagiarist?
Should we expect less than sexual depravity, quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
IOW, you can't answer the question. Just more poof, poof, poof, from ButtGale.
Why would I answer a pervert's loaded question?
I've already proven that you don't have a college education.
Proof.
Tell us more about ΔT, bullshitter. Tell us more about your alleged "google" skills, while I've proven beyond a doubt that you couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and compass. Do a "calculation" for us, dingbat. You know, your brand of "calculation," which has a built-in error factor of plus or minus an order of magnitude.
You're a cretin, a liar, a pervert, a scumbag and a degenerate with the morals of a street-walking whore.
So when do you plan to answer my question, scumbag?
You sniffed the troofer bullshit and stuck your liver-spotted hand's in Richard Gage's excrement. Thus, only one question remains: When do you plan to eat it, felcher?
Now post more dumbspam, pervert.
Should we expect less than sexual depravity, quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Your belief that you've proved anything only shows your incompetence, ButtGale.
You're having too much fun with your fantasies.
Your belief that your 100% fact-free dumbspam proves anything only shows that you suffer from tertiary syphilis, Mr. Psychopath.
Tell us more about ΔT, bullshitter. Tell us more about your alleged "google" skills, while I've proven beyond a doubt that you couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and compass. Do a "calculation" for us, dingbat. You know, your brand of "calculation," which has a built-in error factor of plus or minus an order of magnitude.
You couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.
Should we expect less than sexual depravity, quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You're getting very repetitive, and proving nothing, Mr. Vaporous Stinky spammer.
Really? When do you plan to apologize for lying about Dr. Astaneh-Asl?
And when do you plan to pick a park in Palo Alto where I'll have the opportunity to tap dance on your head and put you in the ICU for about 6 months?
Oh that's right, you're limp wristed pussy who'd rather suck a dick than fight. Right, Aunt Fancy?
Coward.
Feeling lucky, perverted home wrecker?
Should we expect less than sexual depravity, quote mining and bald-faced lies from a proven pervert? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Ian, any fool can get an MBA--and if he's dumb enough he'll think it proves he's smart and accomplished.
What is your evidence that I failed out of San Jose State? What makes you think I don't have good work experience?
Brian, you told us that you failed out of San Jose State, and you've told us that you used to work as a janitor, security guard, construction laborer...you know, the kind of jobs that a loser who failed out of college would try (and fail at).
But keep posting that hysterical spam about how anyone can get an MBA. It's obvious you're humiliated by how much more intelligent and successful I am than you.
What makes you think I believe 9/11 conspiracy theories? I'm certainly not dumb enough--as you are--to believe that 19 little guys with boxcutters could defeat the greatest military power the world has ever seen after warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA.
Thanks for proving my point. You believe in 9/11 conspiracy theories, which doesn't surprise me given that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor.
RGT, I don't watch Olympic gymnastics. It's too upsetting to see 15-year-old girls who haven't reached puberty because their training is so stressful. They're freaks like Castrati. It's child abuse.
Then why were you banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the page of the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team in 2008?
UtterFail, your belief that I lied about Dr. Astaneh-Asl only shows your irrationality. Your obsessive homosexual fantasies are making a fool of you.
Ian, I never said I failed out of San Jose State. You make stuff up.
Any idiot can get an MBA, and you're living proof. Your belief that only a failure would work as a janitor, security guard, and construction laborer is silly. Some people (like me) go to the trouble to experience life and some people (like you) hide from the world and live in their fantasies. I lived more before I was 30 than you'll live at all.
I don't believe conspiracy theories. You do. You think 19 little guys with boxcutters could defeat the greatest military power the world has ever seen after warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA.
I never vandalized any wiki pages about Chinese gymnasts, and I don't know where you got the idea that I did.
The goat fucker brays, "...Your paper examined 39 FDNY first responders and 20 Israelis. It does not find any fly ash in any of its test subjects."
False.
Still squealing, liar? The paper clearly states "Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash."
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, goat fucker:
"...Differential cell counts and MMP-9 levels in sputum samples. We performed IS differential cell counts in 36 of the 39 FDNY-FFs, 12 of 12 TA-FFs, and 8 of 8 controls. The firefighter groups were significantly different from the nonfirefighter controls, but we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
They obtained the fly ash by a procedure called Bronchoalveolar lavage, which is "an invasive procedure unsuitable for screening or repeated follow-up evaluations after exposure to dusts or combustion/pyrolysis products." The remaining samples were obtained by a procedure called induced sputum (IS), which "provides a noninvasive alternative method to study respired particulate matter and the lung's inflammatory response." The researchers "found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
The Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed on "one FDNY-FF [FDNY Firefighter -- ed.] hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure." Again, the researchers "found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
See? You lie, and lie, and lie, and lie.
So what do we have here? We have another instance of the goat fucker deliberately MISINTERPRETING THE DATA AND THE RESULTS. Then you attack YOUR DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE DATA AND THE RESULTS. In other words, you're resorting to another straw man argument.
Is intellectual dishonesty all you have, goat fucker?
FAIL
So why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
You continue to make a fool of yourself. Your paper examined 39 FDNY first responders and 20 Israelis. It does not find any fly ash in any of its test subjects.
The first part of the paper is an introduction, and a survey of the literature. It reports that another study found fly ash in one person. That person was not in the group that your paper studied.
I don't know what you think "we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups" means, but it's not what you think it means. It contradicts your thesis. If you bother to look at Table 1 http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/slideshow.action?uri=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.7233&imageURI=info:doi/10.1289/ehp.7233.t001 you'll see that it shows that there's no difference between the 39 FDNY firefighters and the 12 Tel Aviv firefighters.
Are you out to prove that the Tel Aviv firefighters have fly ash in their lungs?
The report of fly ash came from a different paper, a study of one hospitalized FDNY first responder.
Here's the paper: http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/166/6/797.full
Here's a picture of the "fly ash"
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/166/6/797/F3.expansion.html
I don't know how the Rop team defines "fly ash". The electron micrograph is not consistent with the iron and silicon spheres I see in other EM pictures of power plant fly ash samples. Also, we don't know the history of the person who exhibited this "fly ash". Maybe there was a power plant in his back yard. Maybe he did tile work on weekends. Maybe he used to go dirt-biking under the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg.
You are very quick to jump to conclusions.
The RJ Lee letter contradicts your fly-ash-in-concrete theory because it proposes that iron and alumino-silicate "formed spheres during the event"--not that they were pre-existing in the floors.
I haven't lied about anything. You lie so habitually that you don't even know when you do it. You also cite the website of a proven liar, bigot, and domestic abuser. Good company for you.
Why are you posting the same pack of lies, goat fucker?
I just DEBUNKED your DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE STUDY WITH DIRECT QUOTES FROM THE STUDY at time stamp 31 July 2012 09:33.
See? You lie, and lie, and lie and lie.
So why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
You seem incapable of comprehending that the quote doesn't say what you think it says. Did you even look at Table 1? It has nothing to do with fly ash.
http://ehp03.niehs.nih.gov/article/showImageLarge.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1289%2Fehp.7233.t001
You're like a guy who says "Harry Womack was stabbed. My neighbor has a knife in his kitchen. Therefore I've proved that my neighbor killed Harry Womack, and anybody who says I didn't is a lying digusting pervert!"
You really need to find another hobby, guy. You're not equipped for this one, and the frustration can't be doing your blood pressure or your family life any good.
That's right, goat fucker, continue to lie while the direct quotes from the study stare you straight in the face.
Again, why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...You seem incapable of comprehending that the quote doesn't say what you think it says. Did you even look at Table 1? It has nothing to do with fly ash."
See? You can't stop lying, can you scumbag?
The paper clearly states "Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash." The report also states that the researchers "found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
See? You lie with abandon.
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, goat fucker:
"...Differential cell counts and MMP-9 levels in sputum samples. We performed IS differential cell counts in 36 of the 39 FDNY-FFs, 12 of 12 TA-FFs, and 8 of 8 controls. The firefighter groups were significantly different from the nonfirefighter controls, but we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
They obtained the fly ash by a procedure called Bronchoalveolar lavage, which is "an invasive procedure unsuitable for screening or repeated follow-up evaluations after exposure to dusts or combustion/pyrolysis products." The remaining samples were obtained by a procedure called induced sputum (IS), which "provides a noninvasive alternative method to study respired particulate matter and the lung's inflammatory response." The researchers "found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
The Bronchoalveolar lavage was performed on "one FDNY-FF [FDNY Firefighter -- ed.] hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure." Again, the researchers "found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
See? You lie, and lie, and lie, and lie.
So what do we have here? We have another instance of the goat fucker deliberately MISINTERPRETING THE DATA AND THE RESULTS. Then you attack YOUR DELIBERATE MISINTERPRETATION OF THE DATA AND THE RESULTS. In other words, you're resorting to another straw man argument.
So why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
GuitarBill, I'm going to have to stop taunting you with pet names like "UtterFail" and "ButtGale". It's not sporting. You are exhibiting your incompetence. I didn't lie about anything.
You cited the wrong paper for your quote mining. Your paper is not about fly ash. There is no fly ash reported in "the two groups" you keep babbling about. One of the two groups was in Tel Aviv!
I showed you the right paper for the fly ash:
http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/166/6/797.full
I showed you the picture of the fly ash: http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/content/166/6/797/F3.expansion.html
Will you please stop advocating and calm down and investigate?
We need to know why that "fly ash" picture does not resemble power plant fly ash.
We need to know more about the subject's history. Your repetitive lies are getting quite tiresome.
That's right, goat fucker, dig your heels in and continue to lie.
The paper clearly states "Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash." The report also states that the researchers "found no significant differences between the firefighter groups."
The FFs in Tel Aviv were the CONTROL GROUP.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Notice that the goat fucker can't produce direct quotes to support his argument. All he can do is provide his deliberate misinterpretation of the data and the results.
There's a very good reason why he resorts to opinion and misinterpretation.
He's a liar. And he MUST maintain his delusions.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The paper clearly states--and I quote: "...Control subjects were 12 Tel-Aviv, Israel, firefighters (TA-FFs) and 8 Israeli healthcare workers who were not exposed to WTC dust."
See? You lied about the FFs from Tel Aviv.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Why do you keep obsessively demonstrating your miscomprehension?
When your paper says "Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash" it was talking about another paper, Rop's paper. Fly ash was not reported in the study documented in your paper.
Yes, the FFs in Tel Aviv were the CONTROL GROUP. And the quote you mined because you misinterpreted it says there was no difference between the FDNY FFs and the CONTROL GROUP. Get it?
I didn't lie about anything, as anybody who bothers to check the references can see.
You're doing your level best to sow confusion.
That's why you deliberately misinterpret the results, and then attack your deliberate misinterpretation of the results.
Can you say straw man argument?
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I didn't misinterpret or lie about anything. I tried to straighten you out, but you are so emotionally invested in your fly-ash-in-concrete theory that you can not see that the quotes you cite from RJ Lee and the EHP paper not only do not support your theory but sometimes even contradict it.
This is why real scientists try to avoid premature conclusions.
The goat fucker lies, "...Yes, the FFs in Tel Aviv were the CONTROL GROUP. And the quote you mined because you misinterpreted it says there was no difference between the FDNY FFs and the CONTROL GROUP. Get it?"
False.
The abstract states--and I quote: "...Differential cell counts of FDNY-FF IS differed from those of health care worker controls (p < 0.05) but not from those of TA-FFs. Percentages of neutrophils and eosinophils increased with greater intensity of WTC exposure (< 10 workdays or ≥ 10 workdays; neutrophils p = 0.046; eosinophils p = 0.038). MMP-9 levels positively correlated to neutrophil counts (p = 0.002; r = 0.449). Particles were larger and more irregularly shaped in FDNY-FFs (1-50 µm; zinc, mercury, gold, tin, silver) than in TA-FFs (1-10 µm; silica, clays). PSD was similar to that of WTC dust samples. In conclusion, IS from highly exposed FDNY-FFs demonstrated inflammation, PSD, and particle composition that was different from nonexposed controls and consistent with WTC dust exposure."
There was "no difference"? That's not what the report says.
Why is that, goat fucker?
Who do you think you're fooling, liar?
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I didn't misinterpret or lie about anything. I tried to straighten you out, but you are so emotionally invested in your fly-ash-in-concrete theory that you can not see that the quotes you cite from RJ Lee and the EHP paper not only do not support your theory but sometimes even contradict it.
This is why real scientists try to avoid premature conclusions. The reason I can look at the evidence dispassionately is because I never invested anything in microspheres. All I ever said was that they deserve further investigation.
"...Over 15 million metric tons of fly ash were added to portland cement concrete in 2006." -- an excerpt Cement.org's Fly Ash in Concrete
That's expert testimony, idiot.
Portland cement is added to all lightweight concrete. And has been added to lightweight concrete since the 1930s.
The reason the researchers didn't pay much attention to the fly ash in the first responders' lungs is simple: Fly ash was not the cause of the FRs respiratory illness. Fly ash, nevertheless, was present in elevated quantities.
So how did the fly ash get into the FRs' lungs?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...I didn't misinterpret or lie about anything."
Bullshit!
All you've offered is your opinion. And the direct quotes I've provided prove that you're lying.
Now dig your heel's in and continue to lie, scumbag.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The fact of a quote does not prove your interpretation of it, especially when your interpretation is contrary to what it says.
The WTC was not built in 2006, so your expert testimony on that is meaningless.
In a desperate attempt at "gotcha" you conflate two completely different quotes. Yes, the abstract concludes that "IS from highly exposed FDNY-FFs demonstrated inflammation, PSD, and particle composition that was different from nonexposed controls and consistent with WTC dust exposure."
But your quote referencing Table 1 says there was was no difference between the FDNY FFs and the Tel Aviv FFs: "The firefighter groups were significantly different from the nonfirefighter controls, but we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups (Table 1)." You misinterpreted that quote, and you're trying to make that my fault.
You're not being honest with yourself, guy.
Your analysis was completely faulty. You found the phrase "fly ash" in the introduction of the paper, and then you interpreted the phrase "we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups (Table 1)" to mean that ALL the firefighters had fly ash in their lungs. You didn't bother to look at Table 1, and you didn't notice that the findings of fly ash (in one subject) were in a completely different paper.
Now who's quote mining?
That's right, take the quote out of context and then add your lying spin. Anyone can see that you took the quote out of context. And the quote I provided proves it.
You're a shameless liar.
And what part of "and has been added to lightweight concrete since the 1930s" do you fail to understand?
Last time I checked, 1966 through 1971 fell BEFORE 2006.
So what's your point, pettifogger?
As usual, I provide expert testimony and you provide the worthless opinion of an insane college dropout and failed janitor.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Now you're lying about your own quote. You quoted "...Over 15 million metric tons of fly ash were added to portland cement concrete in 2006" as if that should apply to the WTC built in the late '60's. I pointed out that your quote was irrelevant, and you're trying to make that my fault. You're incompetent, guy.
Anybody who bothers to read the references can see that my "opinions" about them are correct and you were all mixed up.
You found the phrase "fly ash" in the introduction of the paper, and then you interpreted the phrase "we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups (Table 1)" to mean that ALL the firefighters had fly ash in their lungs. You didn't bother to look at Table 1, and you didn't notice that the findings of fly ash (in one subject) were in a completely different paper.
"...Your analysis was completely faulty. You found the phrase "fly ash" in the introduction of the paper, and then you interpreted the phrase "we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups (Table 1)" to mean that ALL the firefighters had fly ash in their lungs."
False.
Another straw man argument. That's not what I said at all. As usual all you can do is deliberately misinterpret my argument and then attack YOUR deliberate misinterpretation.
How did the fly ash get into the FRs' lungs?
"...and you didn't notice that the findings of fly ash (in one subject) were in a completely different paper."
False.
I gave you the original document on 1 April 2012. So don't try to pretend that you found the other paper--you lying sack of shit.
The link to the 1 April 2012 quote that proves you're lying: Acute Eosinophilic Pneumonia in a New York City Firefighter Exposed to World Trade Center Dust.
I know damned well where the information come from BECAUSE I GAVE IT TO YOU BACK ON 1 APRIL 2012.
Thus, your argument is a red herring.
Why?
Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
Explain it, liar?
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...Your analysis was completely faulty. You found the phrase "fly ash" in the introduction of the paper, and then you interpreted the phrase "we found no significant differences between the firefighter groups (Table 1)" to mean that ALL the firefighters had fly ash in their lungs. You didn't bother to look at Table 1, and you didn't notice that the findings of fly ash (in one subject) were in a completely different paper."
False.
I gave you the original paper back on 1 April 2012.
Here's the link that proves you're lying.
Now explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Illogical much, cretin?
And your "tiles" red herring doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the elevated levels of fly ash in the FRs' lungs.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
GutterShill loses again. You should find a better spambunker to bury your mistakes in nonsense, James.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...GutterShill loses again."
Yeah, I guess that's why the goat fucker won't answer my questions, while he deliberately misinterprets the data and my argument.
Dishonest much, child molester?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Oh, so you DID notice that the fly ash was in another paper? Then that's even worse! You claimed that results from a study of ONE PERSON in the Rop paper applied to a completely different study of 51 firefighters that did not report finding fly ash.
It's obvious that you're so interested in creating the impression you're right that you have no interest in truth. You make a fool of yourself again and again and again and lie about it.
Another red herring, goat fucker?
Answer the questions:
Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
Now squeal, lie and avoid the question like plague.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Stop changing the subject and answer the question:
Now explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Illogical much, cretin?
And your "tiles" red herring doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the elevated levels of fly ash in the FRs' lungs.
Now squeal, lie and avoid the question like plague.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Now claim that the "GutterShill loses again," while the goat fucker squeals, lies and avoids the questions like plague.
LOL!
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
They included it because in the introduction to their paper they did a survey of the available literature on studies of the first responders' lungs. Their study did not find fly ash, though you've been jumping up and down claiming it did.
Now explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Your question contains many implicit and unjustified assumptions: 1) that I falsely interpreted the data, 2) that I believe that only 1 firefighter was exposed to fly ash 3) that the concrete dust contained fly ash 4) that any fly ash in the dust was not event-generated as RJ Lee suggests.
In fact fly ash was detected in the lungs of only the one person. If you were a reasonable person you would ask yourself how the fly ash could get in one person's lungs but not in the others', and not demand that I explain it to you again and again. Maybe there was a power plant in his back yard. Maybe he did tile work on weekends. Maybe he used to go dirt-biking under the eyes of Dr. T.J. Eckleberg. Maybe he worked in a hot pocket of the debris field where fire-generated fly ash existed. Maybe he dug through a collapsed bathroom and breathed a lot of tile grout.
Your other question, why did I lie, wrongly assumes I lied. I am always looking for information contradicting the conspiracy theories. There is no reason for me to lie. The more silly conspiracy theories we can knock down, the closer we get to the truth. I am very disappointed in the poor quality of your research.
I didn't lie about anything. You lie so habitually and so carelessly that you don't even recognize it any more.
"...They included it because in the introduction to their paper they did a survey of the available literature on studies of the first responders' lungs. Their study did not find fly ash, though you've been jumping up and down claiming it did."
False.
That's your opinion and you can't provide ONE SENTENCE from the study to support your OPINION.
Nice try, liar, but no cigar.
FAIL
"...In fact fly ash was detected in the lungs of only the one person. If you were a reasonable person you would ask yourself how the fly ash could get in one person's lungs but not in the others.'"
False.
You haven't proven that fly ash was not found in the FRs' lungs. All you've given us is your self-serving opinion.
FAIL
Now, either support your bullshit with facts, or STFU.
Now answer the damned questions, and stop pettifogging, liar.
[1] Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
[2]ow explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Illogical much, cretin?
And your "tiles" red herring doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the elevated levels of fly ash in the FRs' lungs.
Now squeal, lie and avoid the question like plague.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
I answered your questions. Do you deny that the "Induced Sputum Assessment" paper begins with a general introduction that includes a literature survey? Do you deny that the Rop paper is relevant to a general introduction? Can you point to any relevance of the presence of fly ash in one set of lungs to a study of 51 firefighters' lungs for which no fly ash was reported?
Your demand that I prove that fly ash was not found in the FRs' lungs is irrational. You're asking me to prove a negative. It's for you to prove that it was, and it's for you to prove that it came from power plant fly ash in the lightweight concrete and not from fire-generated fly ash or from a completely separate source.
So goat fucker, are you trying to tell me that only one firefighter was exposed to fly ash, while the dust cloud covered lower Manhattan?
I guess in your delusional world, I could open the containment valve on a cylinder of gaseous arsine hydride (AsH3), expose dozens of people to the gas, and only one person would die from exposure to the deadly gas. Is that what you're trying to tell us?
You're an idiot.
Now squeal, lie and avoid the question like plague.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
You continue to compose questions based on unjustified and irrational assumptions. I don't know how many firefighters, if any, were exposed to fly ash while the dust cloud covered lower Manhattan. And neither do you.
You could expose dozens of people to poison gas, how many people died would depend on the degree of exposure they had and how hardy they were. I didn't lie about anything.
You're making a fool of yourself. I'm composing lucid, organized, logical posts. And you're ranting and raving and lying.
"...I answered your questions."
No, you didn't "answer" anything. Pettifogging and lying are not "answers."
FAIL
"...Your demand that I prove that fly ash was not found in the FRs' lungs is irrational."
I didn't ask you to "prove" anything. After all, you're a college dropout and a failed janitor. In other words, you're unqualified to interpret the data.
I asked you to explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
I also asked you to explain why the researchers included the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs, and to explain why their inclusion of the data is not relevant.
And you can give me is bullshit and pettifogging.
Now answer the damned questions, and stop pettifogging, liar.
[1] Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
[2] Explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Illogical much, cretin?
And your "tiles" red herring doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the elevated levels of fly ash in the FRs' lungs.
Now squeal, lie and avoid the question like plague.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...You continue to compose questions based on unjustified and irrational assumptions. I don't know how many firefighters, if any, were exposed to fly ash while the dust cloud covered lower Manhattan. And neither do you."
Really? Then why did the researchers include the information about fly ash if it irrelevant?
Both papers contain the data. Why include it if the data is irrelevant?
"...You could expose dozens of people to poison gas, how many people died would depend on the degree of exposure they had and how hardy they were. I didn't lie about anything."
False.
If I expose dozens of people to arsine hydride, all of the people who were exposed will become ill and likely die of kidney failure within a day or two (that is, if they don't perish immediately).
The point is that no one escaped that dust cloud. So how did the fly ash only manage to affect one FF? All the FFs were exposed to the concrete dust cloud. And that's precisely why the researchers included the data.
Now answer the damned questions, and stop pettifogging, liar.
[1] Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
[2] Explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Illogical much, cretin?
And your "tiles" red herring doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the elevated levels of fly ash in the FRs' lungs.
Now squeal, lie and avoid the question like plague.
Answer the question: Why did you deliberately lie about the content of the study?
Should we expect less from a pervert who lies with abandon? Probably not.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...Your other question, why did I lie, wrongly assumes I lied. I am always looking for information contradicting the conspiracy theories. There is no reason for me to lie."
Really? Then why do you constantly lie?
You lied about your non-existent "education;" you lied about your "google" skills; and you lie about the events of 11 September 2001.
Yeah, you're a "font of truth."
You're also a pervert:
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
See? Even when I'm laid up in bed for the last several days with a nasty flu, I can still manage to kick your ass from one end of the blog to the other.
Why is that, cretin?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I answered your questions, as any reasonable person can see. I didn't lie.
The point is that no one escaped that dust cloud. So how did the fly ash only manage to affect one FF?
I've already answered that three times. I didn't lie about anything. Your rhetorical techniques are those of a woman scorned. What's wrong with you?
You're pettifogging, goat fucker.
And you have not answered my questions. And the opinion of a college dropout and compulsive liar isn't "evidence."
[1] Why did the researchers include the information about the fly ash in FR's lungs if it's not relevant?
[2] Explain how only one firefighter (your false interpretation of the data) was exposed to fly ash, while the fly ash somehow managed to avoid the remainder of the FFs who were exposed to the concrete dust cloud.
Illogical much, cretin?
And your "tiles" red herring doesn't cut it. It doesn't explain the elevated levels of fly ash in the FRs' lungs.
Did the fly ash pick and choose the lungs it would damage?
You're an idiot--not to mention a liar.
Now argue that fly ash can select the lungs it will damage.
Delusional much, retard?
Again, all the FFs were exposed to the concrete dust cloud. And that's precisely why the researchers included the data. And that's the only explanation.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, liar:
Again, all the FFs were exposed to the concrete dust cloud. And that's precisely why the researchers included the data. And that's the only explanation.
Now lie to us again, Mr. Pettifog.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
*snore*
honest researchers know better, Cass Wipe.
Honest researchers? You're not an honest researcher.
So tell us, Cowardly, does concrete dust and the fly ash found therein pick and choose whose lungs it will invade?
Illogical much, cretin?
You wouldn't know "honest research" if it jumped up and bit you.
So why did you avoid the content of Rich Lee's letter like plague if you're an alleged "honest researcher"?
Delusional much, retard?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
GB, did anyone ever tell you that you have a mind like a steel trap? You have a mind like a steel trap. It snaps shut and it stays shut.
First you demand answers, then you declare, on the basis of your fantasies about me, that my answers are not answers.
A reasonable person would recognize that if one person's lungs are different from others' it might be that the one acquired his difference in an experience not shared with the others. You reason like a 4-year old.
Have you ever heard the expression "'ASSUME' makes an ASS out of U and ME"?
You seem to have trouble comprehending that the fact that one guy has fly ash in his lungs doesn't mean he got it at Ground Zero.
That's like thinking if Magic Johnson got AIDS then everybody on his basketball team must have it.
From the report we read:
"...In the aftermath of September 11th, the clouds of dust and smoke that stood for days in place of the World Trade Center's (WTC) twin towers raised serious health concerns among exposed workers and residents. The Fire Department of New York City (FDNY) operated a continuous rescue/recovery effort from 11 September 2001 through May 2002. Nearly every FDNY firefighter (FDNY-FF) worked at the site during the first weeks, reporting numerous exposures to airborne particulates and products of combustion/pyrolysis [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002a] that have since been implicated in the development of "WTC cough," airways obstruction, and inflammatory bronchial hyperreactivity. Appropriate respiratory protection was not readily available in the first week (CDC 2002b). Firefighters were not the only ones affected. Respiratory symptoms and pulmonary dysfunction has been reported in other WTC rescue workers (Safirstein et al. 2003; Saltzman et al. 2004; Skloot et al. 2004) and in Manhattan residents living near the site."
Thousand of people were made ill as a result of breathing the concrete dust. ARE YOU TRYING TO SUGGEST THAT ONLY ONE FIREFIGHTER INHALED FLY ASH?
ROTFLMAO!
Take another hit off the bong, idiots.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You keep conflating concrete dust with fly ash--assuming what you purport to prove. But you've only got one case of fly ash inhalation, and you lack the logical skills to recognize that the guy may have inhaled the fly ash years before 9/11.
Bullshit!
Goat fucker, answer the question: [1] Why would the researchers include information about fly ash if it's not relevant?
[2] Does concrete dust pick and choose whose lungs it will invade?
[3] How did the other firefighters allegedly manage to escape inhaling the fly ash?
And most important:
[4] If the fly was in the FFs' lungs BEFORE 9/11, why didn't the researchers point this out? The researchers make it clear that the fly ash made its way into the FFs' lungs as a result of breathing the WTC concrete dust.
The report is clear. And the report proves that you're full of crap.
Now avoid the questions and the obvious conclusion like plague.
Cretin.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
[1] Why would the researchers include information about fly ash if it's not relevant?
They included it for completeness' sake because they didn't know if it was relevant or not. And neither do I and neither do you.
[2] Does concrete dust pick and choose whose lungs it will invade?
The issue is not concrete dust but fly ash. And yes, fly ash from Brooklyn will invade lungs in Brooklyn, but not lungs at Ground Zero.
[3] How did the other firefighters allegedly manage to escape inhaling the fly ash?
Maybe there wasn't any fly ash in the dust.
[4] If the fly was in the FFs' lungs BEFORE 9/11, why didn't the researchers point this out?
Don't say FFs'. It was one FF. How would the researchers know when the fly ash got in there? How do we even know it was fly ash? They're pulmonary specialists, not materials scientists. It doesn't look anything like the spheres you find in power plant fly ash.
[5]The researchers make it clear that the fly ash made its way into the FFs' lungs as a result of breathing the WTC concrete dust.
Where did they make that clear?
Your confirmation bias is so heavy you are deceiving yourself.
"...You keep conflating concrete dust with fly ash--assuming what you purport to prove. But you've only got one case of fly ash inhalation, and you lack the logical skills to recognize that the guy may have inhaled the fly ash years before 9/11."
There were thousands of instances of fly ash inhalation. That's why the researchers included the information in the report.
The only person who's making unwarranted assumptions can be found between your chair and your keyboard.
So if the Fly ash was in the FFs' lungs BEFORE 9/11, why didn't the researchers excluded the data from the report?
The answer is obvious: The fly ash was in the concrete dust cloud.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
There were thousands of instances of fly ash inhalation.
You provide no evidence to that effect. You ASSUME that everyone who inhaled concrete inhaled fly ash, and you take one questionable sample for proof.
So if the Fly ash was in the FFs' lungs BEFORE 9/11, why didn't the researchers excluded the data from the report?
They reported what they found. That's how science works. Unlike you, scientists don't go around censoring reality to fit their your preconceptions. You report everything you find, even if it doesn't make sense to you, because maybe future researchers will find it significant even if you didn't.
How are they supposed to know when the fly ash got in there? You're assuming it came from the concrete dust. There are any number of other means by which it could get in there. I think I named fove or six.
Bullshit!
"...Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence for a significant inflammatory response (70% eosinophils and increased levels of interleukin-5) in one FDNY-FF hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure."
Then why wasn't the FF ill BEFORE 9/11?
Obviously, if the FF had elevated levels of fly ash in his lungs PRIOR to 9/11, he would have been debilitated and unable to work as a fireman. Pulmonary disease and firefighting don't mix, fool.
Illogical much, dufus?
OSHA and NIOSH have designed elaborate rules to protect workers from even so much as low levels of exposure to fly ash precisely because it has such devastating consequences for a person's health.
So why wasn't the FF ill BEFORE 9/11? And why didn't the researchers point this out?
The answer is obvious: The FF was HEALTHY prior to 9/11. It was only AFTER exposure to the concrete dust cloud that the pulmonary problems became an issue.
Face it, the fire fighter inhaled fly ash because he was exposed to the concrete dust cloud, as the researchers point out.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
You are lawyering for your pet theory, not acting as a truth seeker. You don't know that fly ash exposure would make someone ill. You make stuff up. Your paper doesn't say that. Your paper also does not say the fly ash came from WTC dust exposure. You're lying about that.
Go for it, goat fucker. SPAM, spam spam! Pettifog, pettifog, pettifog!
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You don't know that fly ash exposure would make someone ill. You make stuff up. Your paper doesn't say that. Your paper also does not say the fly ash came from WTC dust exposure. You're lying about that.
"...You don't know that fly ash exposure would make someone ill."
Acute Lung Disease After Exposure to Fly Ash
What were you saying, goat fucker?
Lie to us again, Pinocchio.
The liar, as usual, can be found between your chair and your keyboard.
FAIL
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...Fine crystalline silica present in fly ash has been linked with lung damage, in particular silicosis. OSHA allows 0.10 mg/m3, (one ten-thousandth of a gram per cubic meter of air). -- Wikipedia, Fly Ash--exposure concerns.
What were you saying, chump?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
As usual you're only exhibiting your reasoning deficits. The mere presence of fly ash in the one Firefighter's lungs does not show that he had intensive exposure to fly ash. The fact that intensive exposure makes one sick does not mean that all exposure makes one sick. If he rode a dirt bike in a ash dump routinely, or did tile work as a second job routinely, he could have had chronic as opposed to intensive exposure.
Your steel-trap two-bit mind is a big disadvantage for you here, guy. Have you considered basketry or embroidery as a hobby? Building birdhouses, maybe? Think of all the millions of homeless birds who need help!
Your articles do not say what you claim, and the fact that something causes damage does not mean it will make you sick. Everybody knows that alcohol makes people sick and tobacco makes people sick. But lots of people smoke and drink and they're not sick.
The bullshitter squeals, "... The mere presence of fly ash in the one Firefighter's lungs does not show that he had intensive exposure to fly ash."
Still reading at a third-grade comprehension level, stooooooooopid?
From the report we read:
"...Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash..."
What part of "significant quantities" do you fail to understand?
Now pettifog some more, liar.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Yes, I saw that, and I knew you would try to make much of it. But what exactly does "significant" mean in this context? Significant in terms of causing damage? Or significant in terms of simply being there? The paper doesn't say.
You are like the nuttiest conspiracy theorist, ransacking Google for anything you can misconstrue as support for your theory. You misinterpret simple quotations and entertain obvious logical fallacies.
Like Freud, you're trying to generalize from one very sick individual to the whole class of people. How many firefighters got Acute Eosinophilic Pneumonia? Maybe the fact that this guy got sick and the others didn't is because he had a prior undetected exposure to fly ash.
You're leaping to conclusions on too little evidence.
"...But what exactly does "significant" mean in this context?"
That old pettifogger, Bill Clinton, has nothing on you, goat fucker.
"It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –- Bill Clinton
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The goat fucker squeals, "...Significant in terms of causing damage? Or significant in terms of simply being there? The paper doesn't say."
Significant enough to land the man in the hospital with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis, which is potentially FATAL.
Put a fork in it, goat fucker. You're done.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You're missing the fact that only one guy got it. How come nobody else got it? He was put on steroids and he recovered.
Once again, it's like saying since Magic Johnson got AIDS (and he could have died from it!) therefore all the Lakers have AIDS.
That's right, goat fucker, pettifog like a shitty lawyer.
The point--you moron--is that the FF did contract acute eosinophilic pneumonitis--and he contracted acute eosinophilic pneumonitis as a result of exposure to "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers."
Notice that fly ash is NUMBER ONE on the list of contaminates the physicians found in the FFs' lungs. That means fly ash was the primary culprit.
Now split more hairs, Mr. Pettifog.
Or better yet, put a fork in it. You're done, goat fucker.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...Once again, it's like saying since Magic Johnson got AIDS (and he could have died from it!) therefore all the Lakers have AIDS."
Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.
When did I claim that all the FRs contracted acute eosinophilic pneumonitis?
Answer: I didn't.
Intellectually dishonest much, Pinocchio?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Have another heaping helping of inferences, eh?
Look I've seen this a zillion times among the loony conspiracy theorists. They think they've got irrefutable proof of inside job, and when you look at it and it starts to fall apart they still can't let go of that AHAHAHAHAHA moment.
You thought you had a paper that showed that 51 FDNY FF's had fly ash in their lungs. But you didn't. And you called me a liar when I tried to point out there was only one.
That's why I couldn't remember our exchange back in March--because your claims were so silly I forgot all about them.
The fact that we have just one case of Acute Eosinophilic Pneumonia shows that data to be anomolous, not representative. You don't know when and how the fly ash got in there (if it was fly ash).
You're like those people who make much of the molybdenum microsphere the USGS. One sample! That sphere could be millions of years old--but no, they think it's proof of a nuclear reaction or
something. You're just like those people.
Interesting study on exposure to fly ash: "Medical evaluations reveal no adverse health effects caused by coal fly ash spill at TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant"
http://www.orau.org/media-center/news-releases/2010/fy10-53-kingston-plant-medical-screening-results.aspx
Some residents initially reported symptoms related to upper airway irritation, such runny nose, cough and congestion. The physical examination conducted as part of the medical evaluation found that most participants were normal and that abnormalities or variations were due primarily to preexisting medical conditions. . . . The December 2008 spill at TVA’s Kingston Fossil Plant released approximately 5.4 million cubic yards of fly ash."
You didn't read the paper, did you, idiot?
The paper was trying to explain the origin of "WTC cough." And I quote:
"...Nearly every FDNY firefighter (FDNY-FF) worked at the site during the first weeks, reporting numerous exposures to airborne particulates and products of combustion/pyrolysis [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) 2002a] that have since been implicated in the development of "WTC cough," airways obstruction, and inflammatory bronchial hyperreactivity."
Thousands of people developed "WTC cough." And they developed "WTC cough" as a result of exposure to the WTC's concrete dust cloud.
Some people became very ill, others experienced other problems of a less significant nature.
So if exposure to "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers" nearly killed one FF, that means EVERYONE who breathed the dust was exposed to a potential health hazard. And the thousands of WTC FR's who developed "WTC cough" and other illnesses are proof positive of the danger posed by the WTC's concrete dust.
Thus, anyone who inhaled the WTC concrete dust inhaled the same dust that nearly killed the FF who contracted acute eosinophilic pneumonitis.
And the WTC's concrete dust contained "significant quantities" of "fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers."
Now give us another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your intellectual dishonesty, Pinocchio.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Your inability to distinguish an analogy from a Straw Man suggests that you don't understand either concept.
So after a long long long essay establishing what everybody already knows about the health hazards of concrete dust, you leap to the unjustified conclusion that the presence of fly ash in ONE GUY's lungs means there was fly ash in the WTC concrete.
You only exhibit your faulty logic.
"...Fine crystalline silica present in fly ash has been linked with lung damage, in particular silicosis. OSHA allows 0.10 mg/m3, (one ten-thousandth of a gram per cubic meter of air)." -- Wikipedia, Fly Ash--exposure concerns.
Yeah, fly ash is harmless, That's why OSHA puts strict limits on exposure to the stuff, and that's why "fly ash has been linked with lung damage, in particular silicosis."
You're full of shit, goat fucker.
EVERYONE who was exposed to the cloud INHALED THE SAME DUST THAT WAS IN INHALED BY THE FIREFIGHTER WHO CONTRACTED acute eosinophilic pneumonitis.
Or would you have us believe that "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers" can pick and choose which peoples' lungs it will invade?
Illogical much, Pinocchio?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...Your inability to distinguish an analogy from a Straw Man suggests that you don't understand either concept."
Oh yeah? Too bad that you can't substantiate your argument with anything more than 100% fact-free assertions, ass.
"...So after a long long long essay establishing what everybody already knows about the health hazards of concrete dust, you leap to the unjustified conclusion that the presence of fly ash in ONE GUY's lungs means there was fly ash in the WTC concrete."
Fucking idiot. I just proved that the concrete dust caused the FR's illnesses.
Are you trying to convince us that "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers" can pick and choose which peoples' lungs it will invade?
Illogical much, dufus?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I just proved that the concrete dust caused the FR's illnesses.
My point exactly. Proving what everybody already knows, you demonstrate your lousy analytic skills.
Though it can be reasonably inferred that the dust caused the illness, it can not be inferred that the fly ash caused the illness, or that the fly ash came from the dust.
The presence of fly ash in one guy does not prove it's in everyone. If the guy had typhoid would that prove there was typhoid in the dust?
Fly ash only invades the people who are exposed to it. You only have one guy who has it, and you don't know where he was exposed.
"...Though it can be reasonably inferred that the dust caused the illness, it can not be inferred that the fly ash caused the illness, or that the fly ash came from the dust."
Bullshit!
The physicians determined the cause of the illness: "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers"
Obviously the fly ash came from the dust. And I've presented tons of evidence to support my argument, including expert testimony.
All you've presented, on the other hand, is the worthless opinion of a compulsive liar, failed janitor and deranged college dropout with a hidden personal and political agenda.
Occam's razor, jackass, Occam's razor.
"...Fly ash only invades the people who are exposed to it. You only have one guy who has it, and you don't know where he was exposed."
Bullshit! The FF was healthy BEFORE 9/11. He contracted acute eosinophilic pneumonitis as a result of inhaling "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers" in the concrete dust cloud. And fly ash was the most prominent contaminant in the FFs' lungs.
No one debates this fact accept for an insane failed janitor who will tell any lie in order to preserve his delusions.
You couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic, cretin.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The report reads--and I quote:
"...In the aftermath of September 11th, the clouds of dust and smoke that stood for days in place of the World Trade Center's (WTC) twin towers raised serious health concerns among exposed workers and residents." -- Induced Sputum Assessment in New York City Firefighters Exposed to World Trade Center Dust
Nah, the physicians aren't blaming the dust cloud. Right, Pinocchio? They're blaming the mythical magic thermite elves for "WTC cough."
Cretin.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
So goat fucker, are you calling the researchers liars?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You continue to lie about the papers. Nowhere do they say the cause of the illness was "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers".
It's not at all obvious that the fly ash came from the dust. You have presented zero evidence that it did.
You invent your facts and call that "Occam's Razor." It's more like Occam's bludgeon.
You are absolutely insane! You will tell any lie, even when the evidence stares you straight in your ferret face.
"...Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence for a significant inflammatory response (70% eosinophils and increased levels of interleukin-5) in one FDNY-FF hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure."
"...In the aftermath of September 11th, the clouds of dust and smoke that stood for days in place of the World Trade Center's (WTC) twin towers raised serious health concerns among exposed workers and residents." -- Induced Sputum Assessment in New York City Firefighters Exposed to World Trade Center Dust
Nah, the physicians aren't blaming fly ash in the dust cloud. Right, Pinocchio? They're blaming the mythical magic thermite elves for "WTC cough."
Cretin.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You can continue to conflate two quotes but that doesn't show a causal relationship. Here's a duck, there's a duckling, and there's a cow. The fact that the duck caused the duckling does not mean it caused the cow.
This report from USGS about the dust doesn't say anything about fly ash. Why not?
http://www.usgs.gov/blogs/features/2011/09/10/september-11-2001-studying-the-dust-from-the-world-trade-center-collapse/
You are wasting everyone's time with nonsense like this. You lie about the contents of your own source papers, you leap from unjustified assumptions to irrational inferences, you misinterpret the quotes you present, you show egregious errors in logic. Your claims are just as nonsensical now as they were when I forgot about them in March.
USGS studied the dust. Show me where USGS said there was fly ash. For you to grab at one sample for your only evidence is as loony as the mini-nukers who think the single molybdenum sphere proves inside job.
And the fact that you continue to link to the blog of a proven liar and bigot only shows your inability to think critically.
Idiot squeals, "...This report from USGS about the dust doesn't say anything about fly ash. Why not?"
That's right, goat fucker! Pretend that the RJ Lee Report doesn't mention fly ash, liar. Why did you carefully omit that fact, scumbag?
Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, scumbag?
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, cretin.
"...Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence for a significant inflammatory response (70% eosinophils and increased levels of interleukin-5) in one FDNY-FF hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure."
"...In the aftermath of September 11th, the clouds of dust and smoke that stood for days in place of the World Trade Center's (WTC) twin towers raised serious health concerns among exposed workers and residents." -- Induced Sputum Assessment in New York City Firefighters Exposed to World Trade Center Dust.
So how did "significant quantities" of fly ash get into the FFs' lungs? A quantity of fly ash sufficient to land the FF in the hospital with a life threatening illness, acute eosinophilic pneumonitis.
It's all just a coincidence. Right, Pinocchio? After all, anything that agrees with the goat fucker's lying propaganda is true, and anything that contradicts the goat fucker's lying propaganda is "incomplete, unscientific and unbelievable." Right, nutbag?
So what's new? Same shit, different day.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The nutbag squeals, "...You lie about the contents of your own source papers, you leap from unjustified assumptions to irrational inferences, you misinterpret the quotes you present, you show egregious errors in logic. Your claims are just as nonsensical now as they were when I forgot about them in March."
Project much, scumbag?
Too bad that you can't prove a word of your 100% fact-free nonsense.
FAIL
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, cretin.
"...Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence for a significant inflammatory response (70% eosinophils and increased levels of interleukin-5) in one FDNY-FF hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure."
"...In the aftermath of September 11th, the clouds of dust and smoke that stood for days in place of the World Trade Center's (WTC) twin towers raised serious health concerns among exposed workers and residents." -- Induced Sputum Assessment in New York City Firefighters Exposed to World Trade Center Dust.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, cretin.
"...Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) recovered significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers along with evidence for a significant inflammatory response (70% eosinophils and increased levels of interleukin-5) in one FDNY-FF hospitalized with acute eosinophilic pneumonitis several weeks after WTC exposure."
"...In the aftermath of September 11th, the clouds of dust and smoke that stood for days in place of the World Trade Center's (WTC) twin towers raised serious health concerns among exposed workers and residents." -- Induced Sputum Assessment in New York City Firefighters Exposed to World Trade Center Dust.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Could you possibly be more transparent? Posting the same crap over and over?
You continue to exhibit your irrationality. I asked why USGS didn't find any fly ash. You didn't answer that.
You are simply confusing the issues.
We don't know how "significant quantities" (whatever that means) of fly ash got into one FF's lungs. I suggested several possible mechanisms. RJ Lee says fly ash is present in ordinary office dust. Maybe the guy was a sloppy housekeeper.
RJ Lee says the fly ash was generated in the fires. Since there were only fires on a very few floors, as a percentage of the half-million tons of debris, this fly ash would have been negligible.
Nowhere do your papers say the cause of the illness was "significant quantities of fly ash, degraded fibrous glass, and asbestos fibers".
You can continue to conflate two quotes but that doesn't show a causal relationship. Here's a duck, there's a duckling, and there's a cow. The fact that the duck caused the duckling does not mean it caused the cow.
You lie about the contents of your own source papers, you leap from unjustified assumptions to irrational inferences, you misinterpret the quotes you present, you show egregious errors in logic. Your claims are just as nonsensical now as they were when I forgot about them in March.
USGS studied the dust. Show me where USGS said there was fly ash. For you to grab at one sample for your only evidence is as loony as the mini-nukers who think the single molybdenum sphere proves inside job.
And the fact that you continue to link to the blog of a proven liar and bigot only shows your inability to think critically.
Post a Comment
<< Home