Wednesday, April 10, 2013

And The Winner Is....



Actually I am not sure that's the winner; it's just one of the top ten vote-getters, and the first posted with the announcement. I'm always amused at the exhortation to do the math; what is the solution? Is it 1.5? And anyway, their numbers are off to begin with; there were more than three buildings destroyed on 9-11, including St. Nick's and the Marriott hotel. WTC 4, 5 and 6 were also destroyed; what's the math on them?

Update: Ian points out in the comments that the building identified with a "3" on that photo is not even WTC-7; that's actually One Liberty Plaza. In fact, as best as I can determine, WTC-7 is the building just to the left of WTC-1 (in shadow).

How typical of the Troofer idiots; they can't even identify the right building.

Oh, and here's an update on the money situation:

We’re excited to announce…
We’ve already raised over $100,000 in matching money!
  Um, wasn't that the amount they had raised before this campaign?


85 Comments:

At 10 April, 2013 13:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Amusing that AE911T's fundraising for ads & stickers has scored about $5000, while an effort to verify thermite has flatlined at $1250.

9/11 Truth is clearly poised to go mainstream, thanks to the efforts of these gifted critical thinkers.

 
At 10 April, 2013 14:02, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

3 Buildings
2 Planes
1 Lie
Do the Math


I'll gladly do the math: WHERE THE HELLS THE EVIDENCE OF AND INSIDE JOB?

 
At 10 April, 2013 14:52, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

They should have it saying:

3 Fireproofed Buildings
2 Faked Planes
1 Lie based on other lies by pseudoscientists.

We don't know the math.

 
At 10 April, 2013 15:15, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

More lies from Pat Ponyboy.

Which of those buildings experienced an interval of free-fall that you can't explain?

...and try to provide sources this time. Or any time.

 
At 10 April, 2013 15:56, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

2.25 seconds of free fall isn't proof of anything. Besides the Truthers always leave out how WTC7 decelerated after it reached 2.25 seconds due to the debris piling up and the internal structure slowing the free fall down.

 
At 10 April, 2013 16:02, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.


Hence no free fall speed means no explosives used which means that the Truthers are full of shit, like usual.

 
At 10 April, 2013 16:51, Blogger Ian said...

You know what wasn't destroyed on 9/11? The building marked "3", which is actually One Liberty Plaza. I would know, I used to work there.

Christ, how hard is it to find an old photo of the lower Manhattan skyline that has WTC 7? I just googled "downtown Manhattan" and found an image with WTC 7 in about 15 seconds.

 
At 10 April, 2013 18:11, Blogger Pat said...

Heheh, good catch Ian. Looking at the photo it looks like Building 7 is actually the building to the left of WTC-1 (in shadow).

 
At 11 April, 2013 09:30, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Why did you dodge the question, Pat? Ask TAW for the help you need. Clearly he's as knowledgable and educated as you are on the subject.

...and don't forget those sources you can never provide.

 
At 11 April, 2013 10:17, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

No doubt the derp who came up with the "2 planes 3 buildings" nonsense is just as confused by twins. 1 penis 2 babies!

 
At 11 April, 2013 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you dispute that it was 2 planes 3 buildings? The damage to WTC6, 5, 4, and 3 was clearly ancillary to the damage to WTC 1 and 2.

That wasn't the case with WTC7. NIST concluded that any structural damage from WTC1 played no part in collapse initiation.

 
At 11 April, 2013 13:25, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"No doubt the derp who came up with the "2 planes 3 buildings" nonsense is just as confused by twins. 1 penis 2 babies!"
-Sham Master

Talk about nonsense...

 
At 11 April, 2013 15:24, Blogger Ian said...

Do you dispute that it was 2 planes 3 buildings? The damage to WTC6, 5, 4, and 3 was clearly ancillary to the damage to WTC 1 and 2.

That wasn't the case with WTC7. NIST concluded that any structural damage from WTC1 played no part in collapse initiation.


Hey, if a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic says it, who are we to dispute it?

Hey Brian, maybe if you got a decent haircut, people would take you more seriously when you babble about 9/11.

 
At 11 April, 2013 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hey Lian, maybe if you would inform yourself abut 9/11 you wouldn't be reduced to muttering about fashion tips.

 
At 11 April, 2013 15:52, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Clearly he's as knowledgable and educated as you are on the subject.

I'll take that compliment.

Any Truthers wanna play Jenga? If you do please leave your explosives at home.

 
At 11 April, 2013 16:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Any liars want to play Jenga?

 
At 11 April, 2013 19:48, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because no serious scientist will listen to a lunatic failed janitor with a hideous homeless mullet haircut.

 
At 11 April, 2013 20:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know? 1850 architects and engineers are calling for new investigations of 9/11.

 
At 11 April, 2013 20:07, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Any liars want to play Jenga?

Any idiots who can't come up with their own comebacks wanna play firefighter?

 
At 11 April, 2013 20:08, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

1850 architects and engineers are calling for new investigations of 9/11

12 yrs running and not a damn thing done. Holy shit!

 
At 11 April, 2013 22:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

3 DVDs were done.

 
At 12 April, 2013 04:59, Blogger Ian said...

3 DVDs were done.

Yup. After all, Richard Gage needs to make his alimony payments, and the best way to do that is to swindle mentally ill simpletons like you.

So Brian, on average, what percentage of your hard-earned disability checks do you spend on 9/11 truth-related crap?

 
At 12 April, 2013 09:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can't answer questions based on faulty assumptions.

 
At 12 April, 2013 11:16, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Do you dispute that it was 2 planes 3 buildings? The damage to WTC6, 5, 4, and 3 was clearly ancillary to the damage to WTC 1 and 2.

Nope...no dispute. I just find the "reasoning" hilarious.

That wasn't the case with WTC7. NIST concluded that any structural damage from WTC1 played no part in collapse initiation.

And?

Talk about nonsense...

Tell me about it.

 
At 12 April, 2013 13:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

And?
-Scam Master

And you never debunk anything, and neither does Pat. Why is that?

 
At 12 April, 2013 14:52, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Does anyone really believe that the free fall acceleration occurred only with the "north face", as NIST contentds? Pretendebunkers like to trot that out, when any good compilation of collapse footage shows it happened to the entire building.

Maybe they're just full of shek.

 
At 12 April, 2013 15:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Does anyone really believe that the free fall acceleration occurred only with the "north face", as NIST contentds?

Yes. That's clearly what happens on all videos of the collapse. There are no examples showing anything different.

 
At 12 April, 2013 16:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Do you dispute that it was 2 planes 3 buildings? The damage to WTC6, 5, 4, and 3 was clearly ancillary to the damage to WTC 1 and 2."

You just did. You just listed a total of six buildings, and technically it was a total of seven.

"That wasn't the case with WTC7. NIST ...derp, derp, derp..."

You cannot keep saying NIST is unreliable and then site their work to substantiate one of your claims. Since you keep pointing out the NIST's work was incomplete then you can't use it. If you insist on using it then you have to also accept their final conclusion.

Your lack of logic is stunning.

 
At 12 April, 2013 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Certainly one can be skeptical of NIST and cite them for uncontroversial facts. I don't know where you guys get the idea that I can't. By your "logic" a defense attorney would not be allowed to question the prosecution's witnesses, and a prosecutor could not use a defendant's confession.

 
At 12 April, 2013 19:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Certainly one can be skeptical of NIST and cite them for uncontroversial facts. I don't know where you guys get the idea that I can't.

Citing NIST for uncontroversial facts is one thing. Citing questionable assertions (e.g. "the towers came down essentially in free-fall") as uncontroversial is where you screw up.

 
At 12 April, 2013 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

Brian's selective citing of NIST just demonstrates how hysterical and desperate he is. As is his constant shifting between explanations of what caused the collapse. Sometimes it's invisible silent explosives, and sometimes it's magic spray-on thermite.

 
At 13 April, 2013 07:01, Blogger zahid ahmed said...

Many of the Online Jobs and Online Earning System in internet online Business, but here is a best and legit online earning systems with life time opportunity.
www.jobzcorner.com

 
At 13 April, 2013 07:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, what makes NIST's repeated assertion that the towers came down "essentially in free fall" controversial? Who has debunked that claim?

Ian, scholars cite selectively. Peedunkers cite unselectively--naming documents that do not say what they claim, or asserting that 1000-page reports contain statements and proofs somewhere.

I never claimed to have the collapses figures out. All I know is that NIST's reports are inadequate. Compiling contradictory evidence is not shifting stories. We need a new investigation before we'll know what happened.

 
At 13 April, 2013 07:57, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, what makes NIST's repeated assertion that the towers came down "essentially in free fall" controversial? Who has debunked that claim?

It's not controversial because NIST did not make that claim. You made that claim, and you're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who wears women's underwear, so we know how much validity that claim has.

Ian, scholars cite selectively. Peedunkers cite unselectively--naming documents that do not say what they claim, or asserting that 1000-page reports contain statements and proofs somewhere.

See what I mean? Brian, you're not a scholar. You're an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.

I never claimed to have the collapses figures out.

False. You believe with fanatical religious certainty that the Bush administration rigged the towers for demolition.

All I know is that NIST's reports are inadequate.

Nobody cares what you "know" since you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor.

Compiling contradictory evidence is not shifting stories.

Except that there's no evidence of explosives or thermite. There is evidence, however, that you're a liar and lunatic who is delusional about 9/11.

We need a new investigation before we'll know what happened.

We know what happened because we already had investigations. Nobody cares if you want new investigations because (as I've said many times) nobody cares what a mentally ill unemployed janitor thinks of 9/11.

 
At 13 April, 2013 07:59, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, if you want to be taken seriously when talking about 9/11, you should probably get a better haircut and some decent clothes. I imagine you walking into the NIST office, and getting laughed at because the people behind the desk will dismiss you as a homeless lunatic.

Well, you are a lunatic, and you would be homeless if your parents didn't let you live with them, so that wouldn't be a wrong assumption about you.

 
At 13 April, 2013 08:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, what makes NIST's repeated assertion that the towers came down "essentially in free fall" controversial?

Video footage shows the assertion to be false.

 
At 13 April, 2013 17:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, all you do is lie.

RGT, video footage needs interpretation. Who has interpreted it, and what is the provenance of the video they have interpreted? Was it shot at 25 fps or 30 fps?

 
At 13 April, 2013 22:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, video footage needs interpretation.

Not much room for interpretation on this one. The collapse begins at 2:02 and continues for fourteen seconds.

Extra credit: count the number of explosions you hear.

 
At 14 April, 2013 08:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 April, 2013 08:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

The people who made the video are not identified.

The person who uploaded the video has not been identified. He claims to be a Swede, but few Swedes are named "Eddie". He's interested in animation (see "Super Cafe" and "Gummi Bear") and he's interested in action videography using models (see "Final Cut Queen"). He also seems to be very young (he's interested in videos about water-ballooning porta-potties). And he uploaded the 9/11 videos 6 years ago when he was even younger.

This is the kind of evidence you rely upon to dismiss the findings of the NIST report ("essentially in freefall") and the statement of Dr. Sunder ("9 seconds and 11 seconds")?

Note also that Sweden, where the upload is alleged to originate, uses the 25 frame-per-second PAL standard, while the USA uses the 30 frame-per-second NTSC standard. So was the video converted somewhere along the way in a fashion that distorted the timeframe? You confirmation-biased types are insufficiently skeptical of your own bs.

Why would you expect to hear explosions occurring inside sealed steel box columns when the sound is masked by the din of a collapsing building?

 
At 14 April, 2013 08:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

You confirmation-biased types are also insufficiently skeptical of Ron Wieck's bs.

 
At 14 April, 2013 08:35, Blogger Ian said...

This is the kind of evidence you rely upon to dismiss the findings of the NIST report ("essentially in freefall") and the statement of Dr. Sunder ("9 seconds and 11 seconds")?

Actually, we don't dismiss the evidence of the NIST report and the statements of Dr. Sunder. What we dismiss is what you say about them

After all, the NIST report does not say the buildings collapsed in free fall, and Dr. Sunder did not say the buildings collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. You say that, but you're a pathetic liar and unemployed janitor, so nobody cares what you say.

Why would you expect to hear explosions occurring inside sealed steel box columns when the sound is masked by the din of a collapsing building?

So the building collapsed before the demolition charges went off? I guess on Planet Petgoat, that's how you demolish a building.

 
At 14 April, 2013 08:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

As usual Lian, your statements are pure fantasy. The NIST report says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down essentially in freefall, and Dr. Sunder's report to NIST of the measurements (9 seconds and 11 seconds) confirm this.

In a controlled demolition that takes 11 seconds to run, Ian, yes, you would expect explosives to be set off after the collapse had already begun. That's how the demo remains controlled. That's the only way that asymmetries (such as the 22-degree tilt in WTC2) can be corrected.

 
At 14 April, 2013 09:20, Blogger Petgoat said...

No doubt, I'm such a moron and a liar that at the ripe old age of 60 I still haven't learned how to use a stopwatch.

On the other hand, my IQ is in "free-fall."

 
At 14 April, 2013 09:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Using a stopwatch to time a video of unknown provenance which may have timescale distortions due to conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps is a waste of time, pg.

According to Dr. Sunder official measurements indicated collapse times of 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Are you calling him a liar?

 
At 14 April, 2013 10:59, Blogger Petgoat said...

Using a stopwatch to time a video of unknown provenance which MAY have timescale distortions due to conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps is a waste of time, pg.

MAY have "timescale distortions"?

Yep, I'm an idiot. After all, I'm willing to throw out perfectly valid data, which utterly destroys my "free-fall" propaganda, in favor of my 100% fact-free SPECULATION about alleged and unproven "timescale distortions." Never mind that I utterly failed to demonstrate the existence of alleged "timescale distortions."

Worship me! I'm a shameless idiot and a liar!

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's nothing "perfectly valid" about amateur analysis of videos of unknown provenance, which analysis contradicts the official findings that have not been officially corrected and have never been authoritatively refuted.

The timescale differences between NTSC and PAL video are not speculation. They are a fact.

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:08, Blogger Petgoat said...

PS,

Yep, I'm a shameless idiot.

After all, I utterly failed to explain how "distortions due to conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps" turned an alleged "9 to 11 second" collapse duration into the 15 to 22 second collapse duration shown in the video.

Hey, a compulsive liar doesn't need no stinkin' facts.

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

So now you've moved the goalposts from your unqualified stopwatch to a claim of a 22-secoind collapse. Who says it was a 22-second collapse? Why should we trust the claims of a self-admitted idiot?

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:14, Blogger Petgoat said...

Yeah, an alleged and unproven "conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps" resulted in DOUBLING the collapse duration from 11 seconds to 22.5 seconds. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Worship me! I'm a shameless liar and a cretin.

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:16, Blogger Petgoat said...

Who says it was a 22-second collapse?

Proof positive that I never watched the video.

Worship me! I'm a shameless liar and an idiot!

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so some guy who claims to be a Swede and goes by the name "EddieGuerreronr1" and appears to be about 19 years old says it was a 22-second collapse? Where did he say that?

You're so gullible I bet you think Willie Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives.

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:26, Blogger Petgoat said...

Yep, I'm a fucktard and an idiot.

After all, I'm trying to convince you that an alleged and unproven "conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps" managed to "convert" the South Tower's collapse duration from 9.2 seconds to 14.5 seconds. Yet, the same "conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps" caused the North Tower's collapse duration to more than DOUBLE from 11 seconds to 22.5 seconds. So how does an alleged "conversion from 30 fps to 25 fps" RESULT IN TWO DIFFERENT RATES OF COLLAPSE WITNESSED IN THE VIDEO?

LOL!

Yep, I'm a shameless liar and a cretin. Any questions children?

 
At 14 April, 2013 11:29, Blogger Petgoat said...

Now hurry, fucktard! Now that I've utterly destroyed your lies and bullshit, change the subject to Willie Rodriguez.

Yep, I'm a fucktard and a shameless liar.

 
At 14 April, 2013 12:13, Blogger Petgoat said...

Yep, I'm a liar and a fucktard.

South Tower: "snug.bug" claims the South Tower collapsed in 9.2 seconds.

Yet, the video of the South Tower's collapse has a duration of 14.5 seconds.

That's a 36.5% "distortion" of the video.

North Tower: "snug.bug" claims the North Tower collapsed in 11 seconds.

Yet, the video of the North Tower's collapse has a duration of 22.5 seconds.

That's a 51% "distortion" of the video.

Care to explain the discrepancy in the rates of collapse and alleged "distortion," liar?

Yep, I'm a fucktard and a shameless liar.

Oh, so some guy who claims to be a Swede and goes by the name "EddieGuerreronr1" and appears to be about 19 years old says it was a 22-second collapse? Where did he say that?

More proof that you didn't watch the video. The video was produced by RKOwens4, not "EddieGuerreronr1."

Have you always been retard, "snug.bug"? Just asking...

Yep, I'm a shameless liar and a cretin. Any questions children?

 
At 14 April, 2013 15:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The people who made the video are not identified.

Video footage isn't subject to contamination like dust samples. Absent some indication of alteration, the identities of the photographer and uploader are of no importance.

This is the kind of evidence you rely upon to dismiss the findings of the NIST report...

As I have explained, the statements you refer to are not material findings. They are casual remarks which you have overinterpreted.

Note also that Sweden, where the upload is alleged to originate,...

Uploading an NTSC video from a PAL country would not change the framerate. Standard NTSC <-> PAL conversions don't alter the speed of a video.

You seem rather distressed by this footage. What do you think it depicts?

 
At 14 April, 2013 18:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

pg, you haven't destroyed anything. The video is of unknown provenance, it could probably not be entered as evidence in court, and I have no need for any opinions about the video.

I didn't claim the South Tower collapsed in 9 seconds. Dr. Sunder did. He claimed there were measurements taken. I never measured it. I don't need to.

The video as linked by RGT was uploaded by EddieGuerreronr1.

RGT, the identities of the photographer and the uploader are of significance, because unless we know both we have no way of knowing that the video was not altered.

NIST's statement in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" is a material finding. Dr. Sunder's statement about the times indicates that measurements were taken, and it corroborates that finding.

We have no way of knowing what conversions may or may not have been done to the video--whether deliberately or accidentally. Thus to time the video with a stopwatch is a fool's errand.

 
At 14 April, 2013 19:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the identities of the photographer and the uploader are of significance, because unless we know both we have no way of knowing that the video was not altered.

Don't feel bad. Every Truther I've shown this to has watched it, vaguely questioned its authenticity, then refused to watch it a second time.

 
At 14 April, 2013 19:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not claiming the buildings fell in freefall. Dr. Sunder is. NIST is. I don't claim to know what happened.

I'm not interested in timing any videos of unknown provenance on the internet, and I'm not interested in buying any $85 Rolexes from some guy working out of an alley.

 
At 14 April, 2013 20:18, Blogger Ian said...

As usual Lian, your statements are pure fantasy. The NIST report says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down essentially in freefall, and Dr. Sunder's report to NIST of the measurements (9 seconds and 11 seconds) confirm this.

False.

In a controlled demolition that takes 11 seconds to run, Ian, yes, you would expect explosives to be set off after the collapse had already begun. That's how the demo remains controlled. That's the only way that asymmetries (such as the 22-degree tilt in WTC2) can be corrected.

This is the kind of insanity that I would expect to see written by a failed janitor who lives with his parents and spends every waking moment spamming the internet with his beliefs in modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows.

 
At 14 April, 2013 20:24, Blogger Ian said...

I'm not claiming the buildings fell in freefall. Dr. Sunder is. NIST is.

Actually, neither of them are. Jesus, Brian, your lies are so pathetic I have no idea if you're delusional enough to believe them yourself, or your delusional enough to think we'll believe them. Between your lies about Dr. Sunder and NIST, your lies about your various internet identities, your lies about Willie Rodriguez, and your lies about Carol Brouillet, it's no wonder you're unemployed and live with your parents. Your psychiatric problems are very serious.

Fortunately, I'm here to remind you of what a worthless liar you are, and how you're in desperate need of a better haircut.

 
At 14 April, 2013 20:28, Blogger Ian said...

I'm not interested in timing any videos of unknown provenance on the internet

Of course you're not. After all, if you actually faced the facts about 9/11, you'd have nothing left in life. Better to keep those ridiculous delusions about controlled demolition going. Otherwise, you might have to face the fact that you're unemployed and living with your parents at age 60, and that (among other things) you were banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the Chinese Olympic gymnastics team page.

 
At 14 April, 2013 20:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a liar. There is nothing insane about the proposition that a 115-story building that begins collapsing from the top needs to be weakened symmetrically in lower floors after the collapse initiates but before the progressive collapse reaches the artificially-weakened floor.

Dr. Sunder claimed that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's freefall. NIST said they came down "essentially in freefall".

I never lied about Willie Rodriguez or Carol Brouillet. And I never vandalized any pages about anything, let alone about gymnasts.

You are only seeking to spread confusion and libel.

 
At 15 April, 2013 04:56, Blogger Ian said...

Yup, that's the kind of hysterical squealing I expected to hear from a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic sex predator who was banned from the truth movement.

I'm also glad that Brian admits the towers collapsed because of the impact of the jetliners combined with the subsequent fires. Even in his fantasy world of magic spray-on thermite, invisible silent explosives, and invisible widows with "questions", he acknowledges this.

 
At 15 April, 2013 04:59, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, remember that time you ran away squealing and crying when Craig Ranke challenged you to a debate?

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/3083747/1/

I'm not sure why a serious scholar like Ranke is wasting his time with a failed janitor who lives with his parents. I mean, Craig posted the famous photo of Brian looking like a homeless lunatic, so Craig must know that Brian sniffs glue, has a hideous homeless mullet, and wears clothes rejected by Goodwill.

 
At 15 April, 2013 05:01, Blogger Ian said...

And let's also remember that Brian can't identify a single independent widow with a question. Not one.

 
At 15 April, 2013 08:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lian, I didn't hysterically squeal anything, your libels are untrue, and I didn't admit that the towers collapsed because of the impact of the jetliners combined with the subsequent fires.

I have no fantasy world of magic spray-on thermite, invisible silent explosives. There are no invisible widows.

I didn't run away from Cranky Ranke. I kicked his ass so bad on six internet forums that he shortened the deadline for the challenge. He wanted a stealth debate. I wanted time to promote it so we could have it out once and for all.

Ranke is hardly a serious scholar. He a confirmation-biased fool like you.

All the widows are independent, Lian. Your inability to understand the concept of a conflict of interest shows that you've never had very much responsibility in life.

 
At 15 April, 2013 09:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Why would Pat and James condone the mocking of 9/11 victims on their blog?

I guess that's what "debunking" is to them. Hugh would be SO proud.

 
At 15 April, 2013 13:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why would Pat and James condone the mocking of 9/11 victims on their blog?

9/11 Truth is a self-serving hobby for autistic people. Truthers generally don't give a rat's ass about 9/11 victims. Witness the abnormal fixation on the victimless Building 7.

 
At 15 April, 2013 15:29, Blogger Ian said...

Lian, I didn't hysterically squeal anything, your libels are untrue, and I didn't admit that the towers collapsed because of the impact of the jetliners combined with the subsequent fires.

I have no fantasy world of magic spray-on thermite, invisible silent explosives. There are no invisible widows.

I didn't run away from Cranky Ranke. I kicked his ass so bad on six internet forums that he shortened the deadline for the challenge. He wanted a stealth debate. I wanted time to promote it so we could have it out once and for all.

Ranke is hardly a serious scholar. He a confirmation-biased fool like you.

All the widows are independent, Lian. Your inability to understand the concept of a conflict of interest shows that you've never had very much responsibility in life.


My, such squealing!

 
At 15 April, 2013 15:31, Blogger Ian said...

Why would Pat and James condone the mocking of 9/11 victims on their blog?

I guess that's what "debunking" is to them. Hugh would be SO proud.


So how's the great quest to get past 1st base with a girl going? Did you get a new job to replace the one you lost at Burger King? Chicks dig guys with jobs, you know.

 
At 15 April, 2013 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world. Does your financee go out by herself on Saturday nights when you're posting obsessively about me, or does she sit and watch you do it?

 
At 15 April, 2013 17:50, Blogger Petgoat said...

You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world. Does your financee go out by herself on Saturday nights when you're posting obsessively about me, or does she sit and watch you do it?

LOL!

Shameless, am I not? After all, I'm the compulsive liar who lords over the blog 24x7x365.

Worship me! I'm a fucktard and a shameless liar.

 
At 15 April, 2013 18:26, Blogger Ian said...

You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world. Does your financee go out by herself on Saturday nights when you're posting obsessively about me, or does she sit and watch you do it?

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him again by reminding him that he's a liar who lives with his parents.

Funny you should mention Saturday night, as my fiancee and I went out for my birthday to see the NY Rangers-NY Islanders game. It was a lot of fun.

You wouldn't know anything about such things, given that you're so poor you can't afford a haircut, much less tickets to a hockey game. Plus, you have no friends, and haven't gotten laid in 4 decades, so who would you go with even if you could afford the tickets?

 
At 15 April, 2013 21:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world.

 
At 16 April, 2013 05:16, Blogger Ian said...

You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world.

Yup, this is the kind of response I expect from Brian. After all, the truth movement is dead and Brian knows it, so all he can do at this point is post hysterical spam.

 
At 16 April, 2013 07:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lian, since you lie so much and so obsessively there is no reason to believe anything you say.

 
At 16 April, 2013 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

ALso, what happened to Wizzie LiedRugAs, anyway? He ran away screaming and crying after I showed that his story of the Key of Hope was a lie and that he stole the story from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens of lives by breaking down doors on the 88th floor.

 
At 16 April, 2013 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

And where's Cranky Ranke? How come he won't come here to deal with the fact that there was nowhere for his flyover airplane to go except to make a screaming radically-banked turn and head back upriver.

 
At 16 April, 2013 17:25, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean about Brian posting spam? Nobody cares about his homosexual obsession with Rodriguez.

 
At 16 April, 2013 18:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

You mean that sagging, bragging, lying blob of latin manboob who lives with a dog named Elvis?

 
At 16 April, 2013 20:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You mean that sagging, bragging, lying blob of latin manboob who lives with a dog named Elvis?

About 50% of the Bay Area population fits that description.

 
At 17 April, 2013 01:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

The entire male population of the Bay Area is sagging, bragging, lying blobs of latin manboob who live with dogs named Elvis?

 
At 17 April, 2013 08:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, where is the liar, bigot, and willfully negligent scholar Dr. Kevin Barrett, to defend his libels about me?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home