Landing Gear from 9/11 Attacks Found in NYC
Let the illogical and incoherent conspiracy theories begin. Here is the story.
NEW YORK — A rusted 5-foot-tall piece of landing gear believed to be from one of the hijacked planes destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks has been discovered near the World Trade Center wedged between a luxury apartment building and a mosque site that once prompted virulent national debate about Islam and free speech.Update: Turns out the part was from the wing, not the landing gear. OMG! Coverup!
The twisted metal part, jammed in an 18-inch-wide sliver of open space between the buildings, has cables and levers on it and is about 17 inches wide and 4 feet long, New York Police Department Commissioner Raymond Kelly said Friday.
Airline technicians have determined that wreckage believed to be from one of the planes that crashed in to the World Trade Center is not part of the landing gear, but a piece that is critical to supporting a wing on the aircraft, the New York City Police department said on Monday.
A technician for Boeing con firmed to NYPD detectives that the wreckage is a “trailing edge flap actuation support structure from a Boeing 767,” NYPD spokesman Paul Browne said in a release.
The wreckage, believed to be from one of two Boeing 767 airliners destroyed on Sept. 11, 2001, was found last week wedged behind a lower Manhattan building.
Surveyors inspecting the back of 51 Park Place, several blocks from Ground Zero, found the rusted plane part with a Boeing identification number and other debris wedged between the buildings, police said.
Police believe the flap is from one of the two planes that struck the World Trade Center, but have not been able to determine which plane, Browne said.
posted by James B. @ 8:02 PM
154 comments
154 Comments:
Not sure how twoofers will spin this, but they'll find a way.
Also, last night on her show, Rachel Maddow mentioned there a dating site for paranoid anti-American losers who make up Alex Jones's followers.
http://s1076.photobucket.com/user/Planetlnfowars/library/Dating%20Freedom%20Lovers?sort=3&page=1
Just looking at the first page it seems to be overwhelmingly desperate men, which is probably a fair description of the conspiratoid demographic. The question I have is how do they know if their potential soulmate isn't a NWO agent?
Alex Jones has speculated that the "mysterious" ropes on the recently found landing gear were used to plant evidence.
http://www.infowars.com/part-of-landing-gear-from-911-plane-is-found/
I'm not really sure why the government would have to covertly place plane parts when there is plenty of evidence of planes hitting the Towers in the first place. A piece of evidence in particular caught my eye when reviewing 911myths.com. A photo taken of a part of landing gear found in the burlington coat factory after it crashed through the roof and two floors. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Image:LandingGear_nytimes.jpg
I see similar ropes around it securing it to an orange metal piece that I assume was used to life the heavy part out of the building. Is this newly discovered part a piece of this other landing gear found? Maybe a separate landing gear that fell while being recovered long ago? I don't really want to speculate further because I don't really know that much about the situation. I do know other parts from flight 175 were found close to the vicinity so it makes sense that more parts were found in the similar area.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg
I wonder if there are other undiscovered parts from flight 77 south of the sight.
Spin it? well i can imagine a very simple spin, so i will ask the explanations and as an obviously knowledgeable person you will provide an answer backed in facts and then can use it to debunk any future "nutters" lol. So 1) With the landing gear being up on entry to the building, the building being non explosive, the building falling down not sideways. How did this end up about 2 blocks from the site, as reported. 2) As the landing gear were in as such, they would have been either the nose part, or the wing mounted ones. Subsequent investigation will tell which. Assuming the front, they should be severely damaged and realistically, disintegrated totally, assuming the wing ones, which are were the fuel resides, if they survived, how did the black boxes not, when they in fact are designed for full speed collisions and extreme heat whereas landing gear are not. 3) Why is it treated as a crime scene whereas the original site was not and evidenced was rapidly destroyed. 4) Would people like yourselves conclude that in the interest of ending these "awful lies" of explosions etc. That the government department tasked with identifying these, should in fact allow independent access simultaneously to..in the presence of varied media, take images and upload them to the internet, and conduct tests on dust samples taken around this site, and on the gear itself. So that these can be neutral fair assessments, separate, sealed testing equipment is taken and selected for use by NIST, FEMA and any other agency the Official Versioners like, then the "truthers" get the same with themselves to simultaneously conduct analysis and then cross check each others results in a filmed situation. This then would undoubtedly give weight to one side or the other. If this thermite is found the world will see both sides id it simultaneously and recheck an corroborate. Alternately it shows extreme heat warping, and no explosive residue, it helps invalidate the theorists claims. If not and this is tucked away with no independent analysis allowed and becomes part of what is already not allowed access to. That would inevitably arouse more conspiracy claims. So I would love scientifically based responses to 1-3 and a logical answer to 4, has to be yes i imagine, unless one is afraid of validation of the thermite theory?
Well, that illogical and incoherent conspiracy theorist, NYPD, is "looking into a possibility it was lowered by a rope."
Barry, you might be interested in this image of landing gear that apparently came out of WTC1.
http://s266.photobucket.com/user/pilgrum5/media/7-70_tir.jpg.html
" 1) With the landing gear being up on entry to the building, the building being non explosive, the building falling down not sideways. How did this end up about 2 blocks from the site, as reported.
The landing gear parts - obviously - passed through the building and out of the opposite side. This is supported by the fiery ejecta visible in every video of the impact of WTC2. One of the engines landed near by on the street as well. I believe on of the arguments against the new Mosque was that debris from the impact landed in the area.
"2) As the landing gear were in as such, they would have been either the nose part, or the wing mounted ones."
Which pretty much covers the entire landing gear.
"Subsequent investigation will tell which."
Duh.
"Assuming the front, they should be severely damaged"
From the pictures they clearly are.
"... and realistically, disintegrated totally,..."
Not realistic at all. The landing gear are the sturdiest part of the aircraft.
"...assuming the wing ones, which are were the fuel resides, if they survived, how did the black boxes not, when they in fact are designed for full speed collisions and extreme heat whereas landing gear are not."
Your presumption about the landing gear is false. Landing gear are designed for extreme impact. It's called "Landing". Their location within the air-frame is forward of everything else, which is why other sets of landing gear were found - in the street- as well. The black boxes are located in the tail of the aircraft. The part that stayed in the building. The building collapsed on top of it pulverizing each box.
"3) Why is it treated as a crime scene whereas the original site was not and evidenced was rapidly destroyed."
Not a scientific question.
The answer is that the WTC was FIRST a rescue operation. Unknown numbers of people were presumed trapped in the rubble, and the most important thing at the time was getting them out. Then it became a recovery effort to located the bodies of the dead. Finally it was a cleanup operation.
The crime scenes were on the impacted floors of each building, and by 10:28AM both crime scenes were gone.
Designating this discovery as a crime scene is largely a clerical function. It allows budgeting for over-time to keep the area secure, and insures that pieces are recovered by the appropriate specialists.
I can't answer number four because it doesn't make sense.
You have to love "truther" retards.
After all, they're the only people stupid enough to "ask questions" and, in the process, forget to terminate their (loaded) "questions" with a question mark.
questions == "evidence"
Idiots.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
From JREF, this looks more like a flap mechanism:
http://worldofaircraftdesign.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/flaps-boeing-767.jpg
So I would love scientifically based responses to 1-3 and a logical answer to 4
1. Gravity.
2. Entropy.
3a. Probably to check for other items, in particular body parts.
3b. Ground Zero was a crime scene in 2001. Check your facts.
4. No. 9/11 Truthers are notoriously resistant to facts. Nothing short of a mass suicide will make 9/11 Truth go away.
Your writing style and word choice indicate disorganized thought processes.
Thanks for the responses. I have not indicated i'm a "truther" or an official versioner. I simply posed questions. The reason is the same as i asked of the truthers who say there were no planes(that is illogical based on the fact that if they would kill those in the wtc's then a few more wouldn't bother them & what did they do with them-the planes & people-The truth is, these "truthers" have given answers which have some possibility of truth, although not enough to persuade me it is the case. The responses received here however do not have a good basis in sense in the totality of the response.
"3) Why is it treated as a crime scene whereas the original site was not and evidenced was rapidly destroyed."Not a scientific question.Agreed my fault, however, there is procedure, and in most crime scenes evidence is preserved and images taken video, etc etc. That cannot be disputed. As the very people who were tasked to do so then and across the world, verify that it is s.o.p, of course bodies must be id'd but at a murder scene you don't ever cart the dead away then ask later what position they were in etc. So expectation to follow normal investigative procedure is not conspiracist nutty ideas, just normality.
ssuming the front, they should be severely damaged"
From the pictures they clearly are.
"... and realistically, disintegrated totally,..."
Not realistic at all. The landing gear are the sturdiest part of the aircraft.
It is not realistic to expect a massive amount of damage to something that either hit head on through steel not once but a minimum of 3 times (front gear) then fell a large distance, covered in flame if the ejection of flame included the landing gear. If the wing gear (and it sits under the tanks as provable by checking if you wish) The wing gear would be immersed in flame and destroyed with the rest of the building if your "the plane was pulverized" is correct. Although that leads to the question of how a black box design to take the impact of a 500mph smash is destroyed by a building that fell apart, remember, BOTH the tops of the building were slipping sideways then turned to dust, it was NOT the entire building that fell on the plane, and then the mass of the building crumbling under it provided a mass that should've stopped everything above's TOTAL disintegration. However if the confirmation says the gear is wing gear it must therefore have been explosively ejected from a part YOU say should be pulverized, if it got out then it stands to good reason a black box should. And of course my question as to should independent testing be allowed IS valid. AE for 911 truth and others haven't accused. What they have said is a new investigation to answer our questions. My own standpoint to clarify it, is, i have questions and take NONE of either side as fact. Why because 1) conspiracies have been proven 2) It is silly to assume we are never lied to when it is proven 3) both sides have been wrong in this and provably so. So i like to ask a question and see an answer. Do you think i WANT the U.S government or any organisation other than al qaeda to have done this, i do not, no one does, no one wants it to have happened at all. But for those like ME. If there was such analysis, i would be ready to believe in openness. It would be a severe blow to the CT'ist if they had there independent and the official people test and come up negative for thermite. I pose just questions. If they sound too wild or simply don't deserve an answer that inevitably makes one think why not? To me i like facts or if they are not available, then the best supporting evidence. I Just hope that the responses err on the side of sense, science and logic. As opposed to jibes,swearing,belittling and out right ignoring of questions. I continue to ask questions, a fair thing to do.
Barry Mead wrote, "...Thanks for the responses. I have not indicated i'm a 'truther' or an official versioner [SIC]."
Then, in the next breath we read,
"... What they have said is a new investigation to answer our questions."
Contradict yourself much while you weave your web of lies and logical fallacies, "truther"?
Cretin.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Barry Mead wrote, "...Thanks for the responses. I have not indicated i'm a 'truther' or an official versioner [SIC]."
Then, in the next breath we read,
"... What they have said is a new investigation to answer our questions."
Contradict yourself much while you weave your web of lies and logical fallacies, "truther"?
Cretin.
Can you read. Let me run it by you again simpleton It is typical of your sort. I was referring to Architects and engineers for truth an others an said what THEY WANT is "an answer to our questions" as in referring to what THEY want. And i did say i do have questions. A questioner is no Conspiracy theorist. Why IF i was though am i a cretin. Is abuse the best defence. Wow enter that into nist report. You wonder at all why someone with a question becomes a "truther" ? Maybe because i asked, you answer bs or evade answers. Then are an arrogant rude idiot. Well at least you are furthering CT side by having limited intellect to respond and give genuine answers.
1. Gravity. Free fall exists-only present with no impeding mass. Explain..
2. Entropy. Thermo dynamic or statistical mechanics?
3a. Probably to check for other items, in particular body parts. Why destroy moved items rather than preserve?
3b. Ground Zero was a crime scene in 2001. Check your facts. No it wasn't if you check what crime scene preservation is. If items are not photographed,or recorded or preserved it is NOT a proper crime scene
4. No. 9/11 Truthers are notoriously resistant to facts. Nothing short of a mass suicide will make 9/11 Truth go away. Except those who ask specific questions that have NEVER been answered. Answer them and you end the question, prove the answers, you cannot argue black is white when it is there in front of you. But i guess if you are afraid to offer an answer or a chance to prove, you further the chance a simple questioner like me becomes a "truther"
Your writing style and word choice indicate disorganized thought processes. Thanks doc ill see your qualifications to analyze that please, oh yeah you aint got any.
I am forced toward a truther ideal because genuine questions cannot get fair response from any OVB parrot. Evasion and bad mouthing are the sole defence with which i am met. Bad science and bad mouthing well nice cogent responses NOT
I can read just fine, liar.
Here's what you wrote, troofer:
"...... What they have said is a new investigation to answer OUR questions."
See the word "our," liar? What does that word imply?
Now squeal, lie and continue to make an ass of yourself, troofer.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Fuck me you retard, i said our I admit that, in reference to the people i was talking about. That is point 1. If you deny i was talking about architects and engineers for 911 truth i will refer you to reread it AGAIN it is like me saying- Darren an sue were arguing about darren going out with his mates, "well we want our night out" said darren because they had missed their last one. Did i then imply in that that I want a night out? To you yes i did. But actually NO. 2 what is wrong with asking questions. If you have answers be forthcoming. If you can be only rude and quote the context wrong then crack on. I have a RIGHT to question, your bs wont stop me. And currently i am not a ct er as i elaborated, i have a few questions based on PROOF of conspiracies and PROOF of conspiracy theories being wrong. Can YOU personally PROVE every word NIST report says, and show this in testable repeatable results? If so begin i give you one month to do so and give me the proof. If not then entertain the questions with sense and decorum. If a question cannot be answered look for the truth not throw away a hard question. That is what i do. That is why i say Loose change is full of a lot of crap. But A&E they make very valid points. So far YOU have been rude pig shit thick twat. So get some manners and we talk reasonable. Or don't and i'll still be basing what i "ask" on a desire for knowledge not blinding my mind to either side out of misguided stupidity,
BTW Brian. IF i am a "troofer" the insult implied, is only effective if am NOT one you idiot. If i was one then i would, by very fact of being one, be unashamed of and proud to agree i am. So please, be abusive and evasive and thick as shit. But try to use even insults correctly.
The lying troofer prevaricates, "...1. Gravity. Free fall exists-only present with no impeding mass. Explain.[SIC]."
There was no "free-fall," liar. "Free-fall" from the top of the Towers implies a duration of 9.23 seconds. Unfortunately for your bullshit and outright lies, "free-fall" never occurred.
The south tower collapsed in 14.75 - 15.28 seconds and the North tower collapsed in 22.02 seconds.
That's conclusive evidence that you're full of dog excrement up to your eyebrows, liar.
Now go peddle your malarkey at 9/11Flogger, troofer.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
i referred to wtc7 actually, and the 2 towers were between 9.5 and 10.5 FACTUALLY. That is no lie. And i again reiterate that i ask a question. If you persist in derogatory comments do you expect to change my mind if i am this "truther" because in my mind the CTists seek to convert and if you want people to believe official versions, then if i say-how come in wtc7 fire cannot,cause simultaneous,symetrical collapse, did appear to do so. YOU can respond that a) fuck off troofer b) it didnt or c) actually www........ shows the truth of that and explains it. Thereby i understand the answer1 or 2 are evasions. But i guess you want people to argue conspiracy. You must or else you would give a clear reasoned response. WHO have i accused so far? What conspiracy have i claimed so far? I ask you are rude and evasive. If i have a question where it seems a response is invalid we should logically, discuss until we find evidence to corroborate to the exclusion of any other idea the one or the other idea. If people ask for that is that conspiracy. A truther as i see it is a person asking exactly that. A clear reasoned answer with testable repeatable results leading one answer as the only probability. So again i challenge you to show proof i am wrong using testable repeatable methods and 2 to say who i accused and what conspiracy i claimed?
The lying liar lies, "... referred to wtc7 actuall [SIC]"
Another lie, liar?
Building 7 did not collapse at "free-fall," either, liar.
The collapse began 9 seconds earlier when column 79A buckled and the east penthouse, which was supported by column 79A, crashed through the roof of building 7.
See? You have no idea what you're talking about, liar.
Perhaps your parents should seek the advise of a birth control specialist?
The lying liar continues to lie, "...and the 2 towers were between 9.5 and 10.5 FACTUALLY"
I just proved you're full of cow droppings right here, liar:
The south tower collapsed in 14.75 - 15.28 seconds and the North tower collapsed in 22.02 seconds.
That's three lies on your part, Pinocchio. Thus, I've proven you're a liar. As a result, I'm finished with you, liar.
Have a nice, troofer.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
That's "Have a nice day, troofer."
And no, there's no sense in talking to a liar and an idiot of your ilk. You're hopeless.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
lmfao I love it, a video that shows the start of the collapse of wtc7 in freefall no. Wtc 1 or 2 from the start? impossible to say as the timer shows nothing until 4 seconds then we see falling then away, then pausing then back then pausing then down as the dust spreads out. So. If i showed that as proof it fell in that time id be discredited in seconds. The core existing? well sure the cg overlay cos there was no core when it all cleared. Not at the height shown, so core survives which validates a pancake theory but puff it vanishes ? PUHHHLEASE who is the retard now? Now ill show you what proof is, many videos exist eyewitnesses. So get every angle of the video, get the height get the height of towers adjacent,time speed to the point visibility is blocked, on all angles. And then if using all angles and physics (its an ancient rubbish science thingy you may of heard of) Time it then. Then it will stand up. That bs is absolute ridiculous and as i said were my sole evidence as a supposed troofer just that,id be laughed out of here. Again i repeat though, i am a questioner,and as such I will look and do what i said because you are a conspiracy nut, you think everyones a conspiracy theorist and that is a conspiracy against truth which is unassailable and in a gov. proven to lie it couldnt be that they evr would again. Fucking muppet. Lucky for your "cause" i dont just believe any old conspiracy butt unlucky for the human race, muppets like you still exist
Oh btw 79a was not the cause initially, 79a USING PHYSICS AND LAWS OF MOTION would cause a fall to the side. If the cause was not initially 79 then your version means change the truth to fit. You failed to show where i accused anyone of conspiracy. But i think you are right. There needs to be a challenge. I came to ask a few questions as a impartial but curious person got bs and evasion. Using 79 is laughable as ur vid. And equal to the modify to fit theories PROVEN in YOUR ILK. Prob ur one of those who say confessions taken under torture (admitted by 911 comission btw) are as good as solid proof.As you cannot and will not have manners or RATIONAL discussion i will join this "truther" movement. Because if your the best of the officialdom, well man you're fucked
Yawn.
That's right, liar, continue to misrepresent your opinion, naked assertions and 100% fact-free nonsense as evidence, while I post hard evidence that proves beyond a doubt that you're a liar and a cretin.
Obviously, liar, you had a brain transplant and the brain rejected you. Perhaps some day you'll learn not to lie to your moral and intellectual superiors, liar. Yeah, fat chance. Right, liar?
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.
Albert Einstein
Whoever is careless with the truth in small matters cannot be trusted with important matters.
Albert Einstein
I leave with these 2 quotes. And the following. Under YOUR definition. I AM a truther. As, whether official,or conspiracy version. I look for truth. FACT. US benefited from 911 in oil,wiping away $2.3 trillion. Media proven to be controlled,gov conspiracies close to 911 proven. These are factual,As arrogant and as much of a cunt as Brian is. I don't hold his mental retardation against the whole official versioners. I will attempt to validate his ridiculous video an if it is so, then i will believe. Meanwhile i suggest u ovbs answer questions politely and informatively no insulting and stupidly like he. Because it pushes one to want to side against you. Unless that's the goal? Tata brian you mong. Get some better facts that havent been modified several times to fit
Brian shit face, 1 video? sorry muppet fuck but read what i said to others, get evidence not of 1 video, but several from several angles. 1 video debunked 10-20-30 debunked eye witness accounts numbering in the hundreds? Mate i hope you are right but fuck me you deserve to be the next target cos fuck me you are an ill bred inter bred fucking mong. Shame you dont understand shit unless it is at your base level. If you ever grow the fuck up. I am happy to talk even look as i am and did at you r evidence and now i got to go try validating it an i assure you if i can i will. Because that is who i am NOT A CT'IST tata
"...I leave with these 2 quotes."
Yes, I'm sure you leave your pigeon droppings from one end of the Internet to the other, liar. Do you always squeal when you lie?
"...The lady doth protest too much, me thinks" -- William Shakespeare
It doesn't make you any less of a liar who misrepresents his opinion, assertions and outright lies as "evidence."
Clearly, the best part of you ran down your mother's leg.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Yay, another "LOL! Im just asking questions" newbie who thinks they are the first visitor to this place to ever pull the crap they do. This is best you guys can do? Repeat the same "Im not a truther by any means, BUT..." scam , over and over and over?
"FACT. US benefited from 911 in oil,wiping away $2.3 trillion. Media proven to be controlled,gov conspiracies close to 911 proven. "
What the hell are you ranting about? Dude, stay off the crack.
It's not the landing gear, it matches up with a wing flap mechanism.
Really not suspicious at all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I've come to judge the quality of the thought by the quality of the punctuation. Irrational, I know, and I probably miss some reaaaaaly good shit, but life is short and it's a good filter.
Wow, a new truther, and judging by his avatar photo, he's the rare truther who has actually managed to lose his virginity.
I figured 9/11 truth would eventually go extinct because no truthers would breed, and then they'd go extinct (evolution, you know). We may have to wait another generation.
Fyi i have onfirmed a collapse of wtc1 of 15 seconds from multiple sources, although this is assuming all the smoke is still building not just smoke as i calculated from flattening out of the smoke to maximise the time. 2 i have not done. Wtc7, There is NO way unless you slow that down i can make it over 10s it is between 9 and 10 and that is using every visible angle i can. So as it stands 1 point to ill mannered inbreds. Loving your comments btw I should reiterate for the dense i dont need to "claim" i am asking a question. If everyone who asks is a ct then thats tough shit but let me tell you this i DO claim to be a ct'ist re. Jfk. This i claim to be on the fence. And just validated 1 of your own claims. I will work on 2 and then use software to ensure my visual analysis is accurate. But do keep up with your abuse because it wont change what i am or believe an when/if i say i am a ct'ist in this. I will be More than happy to confirm it. So as i told fucker, calling me a ct'ist or truther is no insult unless i wasn't. But anyhow my main point is to give arse face his sought after confirmation on wtc 1
I've come to judge the quality of the thought by the quality of the punctuation.
I haven't. Barry Mead obviously isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but look at yourself. Most of your sentences are of fine grammar, and you're still a hopeless lunatic who can't even hold down a job mopping floors and thinks magic thermite elves destroyed the WTC.
Barry Mead will probably stop posting here within a few days. You, on the other hand, have spent over 4 years lying and squealing and calling people "girls" on this blog. You're far, far, far more pathetic and insane than he is.
Mate i hope you are right but fuck me you deserve to be the next target cos fuck me you are an ill bred inter bred fucking mong.
If Loose Change was directed by Guy Ritchie...
If Loose Change was directed by Guy Ritchie...
LOL!
No he probably won't. The one thing i find odd,which i mentioned already. When you act as though you want people to believe official versions, when someone asks a legitimate question,say maybe they had listened to these "truthers", they come to see what "the other side" says to refute supposedly outlandish claims. Do they get a response that immediately makes them think,wait,these guys are far more rational and reasoned? No they get abuse. I ought really apologise for my own rudeness because it is not constructive and it is irrelevant whether your lot are rude or not because it takes away from your arguments by making someone think, wait they are just evasive and abusive. I certainly will post again, because with any question i pose, ONE of you may come up with a argument to refute it, which then helps me see which side is really true. So far, there are elements on both sides, however i have agreed on 1 point and looking at others eg the thermite claims, and squibs. Let us hope that YOU are correct, because it would be far worse than a terror strike IF it was allowed or orchestrated. So for the reasoned debaters, keep it up. For the trolls...Whatever! have fun.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Barry, rudeness is the only legitimate response to these clowns. The liars GuitarBill, Ian, MGF, and RGT drove the serious pro-OCT (official conspiracy theory) posters off this board years ago.
Well, they won't drive me away because they are rude. If they cannot or will not answer a question, i will assume they conclude that there IS no answer except that supplied by ct'ists. At least even with the most outlandish of the conspiracy theories, there is no shortage of them who will take the time to explain their hypothesis. As mentioned before, i don't hold with several of them, but some really beg the reader to ask questions. A fine example is the following. August 26, 2008: In a public session on NIST's WTC7 preliminary report, a high school physics teacher, David Chandler, challenges NIST's assertion that free fall had not occurred. Chandler shows that for the first 105 feet, WTC7 was in fact in free fall. In its final report, NIST acknowledges this fact, but continues to deny that explosives were used. Now typically you will find Chandler just discredited, not his qualifications which are verifiably valid, nor even has ANY person succesfully used any method to invalidate what he said which is why NIST acknowledge it. But to further cause for ct'ists-"NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. Therefore, NIST shall not release the following information: So saying either, we know why it happened but it may be dangerous to let you know because....or we know why it happened and we aren't going to say. Which means if it happens again we have concrete proof the fault lies with NIST and if fire was the answer as said, it is entirely possible a fire could happen again. So in fact if it does with that documented sentence. The public/building owners could sue NIST an the U.S government to hell and back for failure to disclose information in the public interest. Pray god it never ever happens anywhere in the US where a fire causes a similar collapse or the coffers will run dry with a massive class action.
The lying liar lies, "...The liars GuitarBill, Ian, MGF, and RGT drove the serious pro-OCT (official conspiracy theory) posters off this board years ago."
Lying again, liar?
You've never proven that we're liars. On the other hand, we've proven that you're a liar and a cretin on NUMEROUS OCCASIONS.
In fact, your life involves nothing BUT lying about 9/11 24x7x365. That's why you've been banned from every troofer website on the Internet.
You're a waste of skin.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
The sock puppet whines, "...Well, they won't drive me away because they are rude."
If anything should drive you away, it's the presence of 9/11 sex stalker, Brian Good (aka, "snug.bug").
Like it or not, you are known and judged by the company you keep. That's why TruthAction's "SnowCrash" and "Cosmos" immediately banned Brian Good (aka, "snug.bag") when they discovered he's an infamous Internet sex stalker. Likewise, the troofers at CIT, Jim Fetzer, Richard Gage, etc won't tolerate a liar and sex stalker in their midst, either. That's why all of them banned "snug.bug."
So what's your excuse, troofer?
Oh, that's right! You're a two-bit liar and degenerate just like Brian Good. Proving once again that birds of a feather flock together.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Aw! Look at this:
TruthAction.org no longer exists and the domain name is up for sale.
9/11 troof is as dead as Brian Good's brain.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
ButtGoo, I've shown you many times for a liar.
Your claim that I am a sex stalker is not just untrue, it is libelous, and I challenge you to provide your real name and the name of your legal counsel so that you may face accountability for your crimes.
I understand that you have publicized what you believed to be my IP address, and that this action should disqualify you from IT work anywhere.
Where's your buddie Wizzie LiedRugAs, ButtGoo? He ran away screaming and crying after I showed that his hero story was a lie, and he hasn't been back since.
Your credulity with respect to the con artist's fraudulent story torpoedoes your credibility, fool.
The lying liar lies, "Your claim that I am a sex stalker is not just untrue"
Lying again, liar?
Yeah, that explains why you refuse to take your accuser, the victim, Carol Brouillet, to court. You're guilty as charged, and you know it, liar.
Furthermore, you've never proven that we lie, and your complete failure to substantiate your argument proves my point.
You, on the other hand, lie CONSTANTLY. You lie about your alleged "scientific reputation," while I've proven again and again that you know nothing about science.
You claim the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 250 degrees C; yet, in the next breath, when it suits your lying "iron microspheres" bullshit, you'll claim the temperature inside the Towers exceeded 3000 degrees C. Then, in the next breath, you'll lie through your terracotta teeth and again claim that NIST says the beams never exceeded 250 degrees C. So which it it, liar?
NIST, however, did not say that the beams were not heated above 250 degrees C. NIST says plainly that the beams which had enough paint on them to be identified were not heated above 250 degrees C. Obviously, any beam that reached 250 degrees C temperature did not have paint, thus they could not identify where they came from.
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
And you claim to be an "expert" on the content of the NIST report?!?!?!?
Clearly, you lie so often that you can't keep your lies straight.
And that's just one example of the lies you tell 24x7x365.
The lying liar whines, "Where's your buddie Wizzie LiedRugAs"
As usual, when you're caught lying, you attempt to change the subject to your homosexual infatuation for William Rodriguez. You're as transparent as the air between your ears.
Now repeat yourself like a broken record and claim that you never lie, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"Chandler shows that for the first 105 feet, WTC7 was in fact in free fall. In its final report, NIST acknowledges this fact, but continues to deny that explosives were used. Now typically you will find Chandler just discredited, not his qualifications which are verifiably valid, nor even has ANY person succesfully used any method to invalidate what he said which is why NIST acknowledge it. But to further cause for ct'ists-"NIST"), in connection with its investigation of the technical causes of the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11,2001, might jeopardize public safety. "
Great, another guy late to the party.
Chandler fails to mention that WTC7 had begun collapsing internally 20 minutes before the collapse shown in the video. There is at least one picture showing a huge gray cloud of pulverized concrete pouring out of the broken windows of the side of the building that faced WTC1. Chandler assumes the floors were intact when they clearly were not. Missing lower floors allowed the building to drop as fast as it did. It fell in the direction of the North Tower.
You are arguing with bad information all the way around.
I've proven many times that you lie, ButtGoo.
You lied just a week ago when you claimed I was "kicked out of the 9/11 'truth' movement because he's a lying homosexual sex stalker."
I never claimed that "the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 250 degrees C", liar.
I don't have any iron microspheres bullshit. I pointed out many STOOOPID errors in your analysis analysis of the issue. Doing so was not bullshit.
I didn't claim to be an expert on the contents of the NIST report. I don't know anyone who does claim to be expert on its 10,000 pages. I do know what's not in it, though and that's enough for any reasonable person to conclude that it's dishonest and incomplete.
I don't lie, UtterFool.
Why would I want to take Carol to court? I'm disappointed about her weakness when she was pressured by a couple of scumbags, but I've no need to be vindictive.
You changed the subject. If you're going to libel me you'd better provide your real name and the name of your legal counsel.
MGF, since you lie so much there is no reason to believe anything you say.
The lying liar lies, "...You lied just a week ago when you claimed I was "kicked out of the 9/11 'truth' movement because he's a lying homosexual sex stalker.'"
You were kicked out of TruthAction for being a pervert and liar -- and "SnowCrash" said as much in this blog's comment section, liar.
See? You lie first, last and always.
The lying liar lies, "...I never claimed that "the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 250 degrees C", liar."
Another lie. You've claimed on HUNDREDS OF OCCASIONS that the temperature in the Towers never exceeded 250 degrees C.
What's this, liar?
"...NIST says (p. 181 NCSTAR1) that only three of their samples reached temps above 250 C (480 F)--and those were all perimeter columns, not core columns." -- Brian Good (aka, "snug.bug") lying his ass off in Pat's "Jesse Ventura Exposed" thread, 28 February 2011.
See? You're a liar, liar. So why did you carefully omit the key passage from the NIST Report, liar?
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
Now lie through your terracotta teeth and claim that you never lie.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
FACT: You tried to pass off those three samples as representative of temperatures in the core as a whole -- and the link I provide above proves it.
That is a LIE.
Thus, you stand exposed as a liar again, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I am arguing? i just pointed it out. What you should do if you want to argue is this. NIST ADMITTED free fall. NIST & FEMA agreed they couldn't guarantee or explain that fire DEFINITELY caused the collapse. Neither could explain how symmetrical collapse occurred from fire when it has never in the world yet happened despite attempts to replicate that. NIST refused to release their modelling data on the basis it may represent a public safety hazard, which is totally ridiculous. The entire collapse happened in no more than 10s which if that is so for admitted free fall then north towers 14s is still too fast for a supposed NON free fall. WTC had 0 planes hit so no fireproof removed (although NIST failed to prove that in wtc 1 & 2)So how did the fires generate the heat to warp the steel when other fires inc. 1973 wtc fires were at least as hot with NO sprinklers and LESS fireproofing and MORE gaps to allow spreading than was in wtc 7. There were MULTIPLE claims of flashes explosive sounds by people IN wtc7, people saying it will come down, ex army,fdny,police and paramedics even the (on video) main news reported explosions on live camera. NOW IF i was "arguing" That is what i would point out. ALL statements are provable. ALL are undeniable verifiable,checkable,testable,repeatable. ALL simulations by non OVB'S have been made available. So you wanted me to argue, i have. NOW EXPLAIN THEM ALL. Beware pay close attention that NIST,FEMA and 100's of engineers and physicists on the ovb side HAVE tried and ADMITTED it is neither explainable or provable for official version. But maintain they are correct. So bearing that in mind. I am quite interested to see if you can accomplish what a million dollar agency cannot. Then release your simulations and modelling.
Gregory Ferris, just an addition, i haven't checked ALL images and reports for a 20 minutes prior internal collapse, i wonder how you can know that, indeed my position as an interested party is why did wtc 7 collapse, being as it was further from 1,2 than others. There are theories that as it was easier to access for a 3rd plane strike than any of the others, it was the intent to have a 3rd plane hit it, i can't validate that so i can offer no opinion till i look at that aspect i imagine the idea is more circumstantial evidence. However if internal collapse had occurred earlier, symmetrical collapse would not happen. Unless the internal supports had all burnt away and we had a mere shell stood there. Which would mean the walls fell in on themselves. It is not up for debate as to whether fire can or ever has caused symmetrical collapse, nor whether, if the building was a shell, that there would be a fall "in" or "out" but that again it would then not be down nor symmetrical. So remember that unless you can show video proof of it happening (without any explosive device) And mainly my actual interest isn't in you explaining the physicalities as i have no doubt that you cannot and will not, preferring like the rest to bad mouth me. But i would like to know your opinion on why nist felt telling us how the fires caused the collapse (despite admitting they werent sure and couldnt prove it) is NOT in public interest. As mentioned earlier. If it is fire that did it, then being the first ever of its type, if ever it occurred again, anywhere. They are directly to blame for not revealing how they established that and enabling a method to be developed to prevent it happening again. Basically saying we know but wont say so if it re-occurrs... well we don't care, die for all we care, we refuse to tell you how it happened. Where then is the benefit there?
Barry, rudeness is the only legitimate response to these clowns. The liars GuitarBill, Ian, MGF, and RGT drove the serious pro-OCT (official conspiracy theory) posters off this board years ago.
Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so many times about the fact that he's an unemployed janitor who has a hideous homeless mullet.
MGF, since you lie so much there is no reason to believe anything you say.
Brian, nobody cares what you think of MGF. You're a pathetic liar who lives with his parents because he can't hold down a job mopping floors. That's why you spend all day posting dumbspam about magic thermite elves here.
Guitar Bill, you continue to libel me. What is your true name and what is the name of your legal counsel?
I wasn't kicked out of the truth movement. "SnowCrash" seems to have suffered a complete melt-down and disappeared.
I never claimed that "the temperatures in the Twin Towers never exceeded 250 degrees C". Your claim that I did is a lie. You need to learn to read. You've got a bad case of confirmation blindness.
I didn't pass off anything as anything. What I said was true, what you say is a lie--it's a s simple as that.
Lian, your lying lies are just more lying lianianity from a lying liar.
Ah i see these guys must live with you. Where is the response to the points i made? Attack a guy over living with parents? is it true? and if it is do you have a clue how many have not even a home in the world wide recession? If not then your clueless idiots who don't deserve to have 1 word you say listened to. And there's no shame in house sharing with parents or anyone. But i guess your mothers bore you straight to independent living? Doubt you guys even out of diapers let alone home. Cant hold down a job as a janitor? Well what's wrong with janitor? it is A job, and again there are millions can't hold a job. And finally job or no job,live with parents or not, theres hundreds of reasons for both but it doesn't now nor ever will make anyone wrong or a liar based on those two things. I pity your parents though, when they get old there children will say see ya an go off to hold down high paid executive jobs while they die alone. Well what wonderful people. Now In the real world. In the argument, YOU cannot defeat science or hard questions by insults. It doesn't work. Fuck off= nothing in the eyes of law/logic/scientific reasoning. So try a reasoned debate or prove you cannot and have 0 intellect. Solely proving time and again that anything you say is neither valid and can be testably repeated in a scientific manner to demonstrate that.
Also note, that they will hide identity. I do not. Why? because i have no reason, i am not paid for this. I ask questions for interest. I see no delight in bad mouthing. What purpose does it serve. If a realistic rebuttal of all this stuff existed, why are there victims/scientists/police/911 commission staff/aa/faa/fbi/fdny/engineers/general witnesses/some physical basis for questioning/hidden evidence/destroyed evidence/proven lies/admitted lies/architects/demolition experts. ALL without gain,or good reason barring the "truth" saying these things. THAT is why i am asking questions. There is too much to just ignore it all. And yet while wacko theories are clear the ones with experts and eye witness testimony. Have validity. Your responses are character assassination. Based on what YOU see as flaws. To me i wish i still lived with my mom would save a shit load on bills. But to YOU if you did,it would be embarrassing. But as i pointed out before. I get called "truther" as if that will upset me. Yet it cannot if i was. Yet you persist. Demonstrating it is your own fear. Me i find the whole thing interesting, an still waiting my response to when i was told i was "arguing" which i was NOT. Then when i asked hard question i am ignored an another guy is attacked. Evasion, abuse,ignoring. S.O.P for O.V.B's?
Barry, these lying clowns aren't worth your time.
They think they know about the world--what's reasonable and what's not. In the service of their irrational assumptions they make stuff up, they lie, and then they lie about the lies.
Anyone can read the CONTEXT of your lies and see that I'm telling the truth, liar.
YOU deliberately cherry picked the NIST Report and tried to misrepresent the beams with paint as representative of temperatures in the core as a whole, and then YOU SUPPRESSED ALL THE INFORMATION THAT PROVES YOU'RE LYING. That's why you carefully omitted the following passage from the NIST Report, liar:
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
You can lie until you're blue in the face, liar. Your own words -- to say nothing of the cherry picking of data you try to pass off as "scholarship" -- prove you're a liar.
Likewise, your steadfast refusal to bring a law suit against your accuser, Carol Brouillet, proves that your "libel" accusations are as empty as every other threat you've made on this blog.
In fact, you're so dishonest and stupid that you threaten me with a libel suit when you know damned well that Carol Brouillet, the married woman YOU sexually harassed, IS YOUR ACCUSER -- you fuckin' cretin.
Your threats are as empty, illogical and meaningless as the never-ending stream of lies that constantly emerge from your liver spotted hands. Picture me laughing in your ferret face, liar, because that's all you're going to get, pervert.
You're a waste of skin, a troll, a blowhard, a disgusting sex predator and a ruthless compulsive liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Here's what "SnowCrash" has to say about Brian Good (aka, "snug.bug"):
"...You're not polite, you're a cunning troll who has optimized his survival tactics." -- SnowCrash
"... A shameless liar of your caliber needs no additional insurance policies." -- SnowCrash, 911: Only the tip of the Iceberg.
Yeah, the troofers love you. That's why they ban you and call you a liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I didn't misrepresent anything, liar. I said none of NIST's core steel samples show heating above 480 F. That's true.
I didn't threaten you with anything. I pointed out that your lies about me are libelous, and I asked you what was your real name and who was your legal counsel.
Carol Brouillet never accused me of anything other than having inconvenient thoughts, she provided no evidence to support that claim, and it wasn't true. I didn't sexually harass anybody.
Who cares what some anonymous internet troll has to say? SnowCrash has no credibility.
Where's your pet hero, Old Jigglecheeks, anyway? How does it feel to get scammed by a janitor, genius?
The lying liar lies, "...I didn't misrepresent anything, liar. I said none of NIST's core steel samples show heating above 480 F. That's true."
No, that's not true -- you fucking liar.
NIST has HUNDREDS of samples that show heating above 250 degrees C.
Here's what you wrote, liar:
What's this, liar?
"GutterBall, Dr. Bazant claimed that the the annealing studies confirmed that "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C". This is not true. Nowhere does NIST say that the steel heated up to 600 degrees. NIST is citing a metallographic analysis technique that detects exposure to temperatures above 600 C...For you to suppose that saying "None of them were above 600 C" means "They were 599 C" is absurd...NIST says (p. 181 NCSTAR1) that only three of their samples reached temps above 250 C (480 F)--and those were all perimeter columns, not core columns." -- Brian Good (aka, "snug.bug") lying his ass off in Pat's "Jesse Ventura Exposed" thread, 28 February 2011.
Clearly, you are trying to misrepresent the painted columns as representative of NIST's samples as a whole. That's a LIE. And that's why you carefully cherry picked the NIST Report and omitted the passage I include below, liar.
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
As anyone can see, you DELIBERATELY omitted the critical passage from the NIST Report that proves you're lying about the elevated temperature the MAJORITY of UNPAINTED steel samples experienced (FAR IN EXCESS OF 250 DEGREES C) during the fire.
Thus, once again, YOU are a proven liar. Deal with it, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
In a nutshell, here's the lying liar's "logic":
It's like arriving at a multi-fatality car accident, talking to the survivors and then concluding that no one perished in the crash because you failed to count the dead.
You're a waste of skin.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You need to learn to read, GutterBall. I didn't lie about anything.
I said NIST had no core steel samples that showed heating above 480 F. That is true. They never produced any core samples showing higher heating.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I said NIST had no core steel samples that showed heating above 480 F. That is true. They never produced any core samples showing higher heating."
No, that's NOT what you said, and NIST produced HUNDREDS of samples that experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C WHOSE ORIGINAL LOCATION IN THE BUILDING COULD NOT BE DETERMINED.
Do you see what the lying liar is doing, folks?
He leaves out critical information, which I'll include below, in bold font:
NIST says (p. 181 NCSTAR1) that only three of their samples reached temps above 250 C (480 F) whose location could be identified--and those were all perimeter columns, not core columns." -- Brian Good, lying by omission, which is still a lie.
NIST, NEVER claimed that the beams were NOT heated above 250 degrees C. NIST says plainly that the beams which had enough paint on them to be identified were not heated above 250 degrees C. Obviously, any beam that reached 250 degrees C temperature did not have paint, thus they could not identify where they came from.
Can you see "snug.bug"'s slight of hand? It's as plain as the nose on your face.
He only counts the beams whose original location could be determined and ignores the mountains of beams that experienced much higher temperatures and thus their original location could not be determined (ie., the paint melted off the beams in the intense heat produced by the office fire). This is akin to arriving at a multi-fatality car accident, talking to the survivors and then concluding that no one perished in the crash because you failed to count the dead.
All you have are logical fallacies, lies and stinks to high-Heaven bullshit.
Now squeal and lie while you utterly fail to produce a scintilla of evidence to support your lying "argument" (defending the indefensible is futile, cretin).
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
So, in "snug.bug"'s twisted mind, if the beam could not be positively located, it must be a perimeter column. It can never be a core column.
Why?
Because if the beam is from the core and the core experienced temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C, such data would contradict "snug.bug"'s propaganda and show him to be the lying son-of-a-bitch he is.
Yep, that's lying Brian Good's "logic." And that's why he cherry picks NIST's data.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
First you lie, and then you lie about the lies.
All you do is repeat yourself. The paint crackle test was NIST's only test for heat exposure.
You have no evidence that any of the steel NIST did not test was exposed to higher temperatures.
Where's your pet hero, Old Jigglecheeks? How does it feel to get scammed by a janitor, genius?
NIST states quite clearly that IT'S A LIE TO ASSUME ONLY A COUPLE OF COLUMNS EXPERIENCED TEMPERATURES ABOVE 250 DEGREES C.
Read it again, cretin:
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
You can't just count the beams that retained their paint and exclude the beams that experienced much high temperatures because their original location in the structure can't be determined. That's cherry picking, liar.
Worse still, YOU'RE BASING YOUR IDIOTIC CONCLUSION ON 1% OF THE SAMPLE!?!?!?!?! That is staggering intellectual dishonesty.
You wouldn't know the scientific method if it jumped up and bit you on the ass.
The NIST Report is clear.
You are a liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"Gregory Ferris, just an addition, i haven't checked ALL images and reports for a 20 minutes prior internal collapse, i wonder how you can know that,"
Reports of the sound of floors collapsing in WTC7 are in all of the newspaper accounts. Every FDNY rescuer at Ground Zero knew that WTC7 was going to collapse as the day went on , again as stated in all of the 9/11 news stories. They know the times as each loud noise was documented by the corresponding radio calls (which are all recorded and time-stamped).
The collapse of WTC7 was no mystery to any of the rescue personnel that day.
"indeed my position as an interested party is why did wtc 7 collapse, being as it was further from 1,2 than others."
It was close enough to be hit by debris from WTC1, and it didn't take much. The fire inside burned for 8 hours.
" There are theories that as it was easier to access for a 3rd plane strike than any of the others, it was the intent to have a 3rd plane hit it"
Those theories are idiotic. They had four planes, and they could have flown all four into Manhattan if that was their plan.
Al Qaeda had already hit the WTC once before in 1993. Their interest in the Twin Towers was two fold, first being a grand, symbolic target, and the second being that they figured that a lot of Jews worked there.
There was no reason to target WTC7, there was nothing in there that anybody cared about, it was a nameless, faceless building in Manhattan.
It would have made more sense to hit the Empire State or Chrysler buildings. As a target WTC7 would have been a waste of resources. This is also why CD is silly. If someone's plan was to instill terror then why not target other, more high profile buildings?
"However if internal collapse had occurred earlier, symmetrical collapse would not happen."
It was not symmetrical.
" It is not up for debate as to whether fire can or ever has caused symmetrical collapse, nor whether, if the building was a shell, that there would be a fall "in" or "out" but that again it would then not be down nor symmetrical."
Actually, it is up for debate. If you're going to claim NIST didn't do its job, then the debate is on.
"So remember that unless you can show video proof of it happening (without any explosive device)"
The video proof is every video of WTC7 coming down.
" But i would like to know your opinion on why nist felt telling us how the fires caused the collapse (despite admitting they werent sure and couldnt prove it) is NOT in public interest."
Your question makes no sense.
"If it is fire that did it, then being the first ever of its type, if ever it occurred again, anywhere. They are directly to blame for not revealing how they established that and enabling a method to be developed to prevent it happening again."
So you admit you have never read the entire NIST report. NIST makes many recommendations for changes in tall building design, most of which have been adopted throughout the US. The new WTC is being constructed under strict new NYC building codes that were adopted post 9/11. Many skyscrapers built after 1970 are undergoing retrofitting to strengthen them.
"Basically saying we know but wont say so if it re-occurrs... well we don't care, die for all we care, we refuse to tell you how it happened. Where then is the benefit there?"
No, they assume everyone knows the two towers were struck by giant commercial airliners moving at flank speed, which initiated everything else that happened that day.
ButtGale, I didn't assume anything. You did. You assumed that the fact that NIST's core steel tests only showed heating of 480 F meant that the untested steel showed higher temps.
You are irrational, you make up your facts, and you lie.
NIST tested some of the steel for temperature, and none of the core steel they tested showed heating above 480 F. That's what I said, that's the truth, and I didn't cherry pick anything.
MGF, if the collapse of WTC7 was no mystery to any of the rescue personnel that day, them how come FEMA couldn't explain it, NIST said they had trouble getting a handle on it, the NIST report wasn't issued until 7 years after the fact, and the NIST report is full of discrepancies that make it very doubtful?
You talk like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. NIST said that damage from flying debris played no part in collapse initiation. You claim that the building burned for 8 hours, but the first photo showing fires was taken at 12:10--and fires only persisted on 6 floors.
How do you know there was no reason to target WTC7? Who gave you the crystal ball to look into the perps' minds?
The collapse of WTC7 was symmetrical. The east wall and the west wall came down vertically. That is symmetry.
That's right, liar, continue to lie and pretend that NIST didn't prove you're lying when NIST wrote:
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
Your lying, underhanded "conclusion" is based on less than 1% of the samples. As NIST points out, for you or any other lying 9/11 "truther," to claim, based on less than 1 % of the samples, that the steel was never subjected to temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C (480 degrees F) is FRAUD.
Misleading the reader by OMITTING data that proves you're wrong is cherry picking. Cherry picking of data IS INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY -- A DELIBERATE LIE.
You are excluding the samples that experienced higher temperatures based on NIST's inability to determine their original location in the building. That's fraud.
Thus, it is clear: You are a liar.
Deal with it, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
"...That is symmetry."
Yeah, that's why building seven damaged the surrounding buildings -- the collapse was "symmetrical." And we know this is true because SLC's resident compulsive liar says so.
You wouldn't know "symmetry" if it jumped up and bit you. Every word that proceeds from your liver spotted hands is a lie.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You continue to lie, Mr. Flaming Bloomers. I didn't say the tested steel was representative. I said the tested steel showed there was no heating above 480 F. That's a fact. That's the information we have. And you're not showing any different.
WTC7 damaged adjacant buildings on 3 sides. I don't think anybody bothered to notice whether it damaged WTC5 and WTC65 on the fourth side.
The lying liar continues to lie, "... I didn't say the tested steel was representative. I said the tested steel showed there was no heating above 480 F."
No, that's not what you did, liar. You deliberately failed to disclose that you based your decision on less than 1% of the sample. That's fraud. In addition, you failed to mention that 250 degrees C (480 degrees F) "cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." *
That's WILLFUL deception -- cherry picking. And you've made this bogus argument on numerous occasions. Thus, you lie with malice and forethought.
Hence, it is logical to conclude that you're a compulsive liar. Deal with it, liar.
* Source: NIST Report.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Barry, these lying clowns aren't worth your time.
They think they know about the world--what's reasonable and what's not. In the service of their irrational assumptions they make stuff up, they lie, and then they lie about the lies.
My, such squealing!
Brian says we're not worth his time, and yet he's spent the last 4+ years posting spam here, and squealing and crying and calling us "girls" when we mock him for it. Of course, Brian has no job, no friends, and lives with his parents, so how else is he going to spend his time? This is the only site on the internet that hasn't banned him for being a liar and a lunatic.
ST said they had trouble getting a handle on it, the NIST report wasn't issued until 7 years after the fact, and the NIST report is full of discrepancies that make it very doubtful?
You talk like you know what you're talking about, but you don't. NIST said that damage from flying debris played no part in collapse initiation. You claim that the building burned for 8 hours, but the first photo showing fires was taken at 12:10--and fires only persisted on 6 floors.
How do you know there was no reason to target WTC7? Who gave you the crystal ball to look into the perps' minds?
The collapse of WTC7 was symmetrical. The east wall and the west wall came down vertically. That is symmetry.
See what I mean? Brian posts spam because he's a mentally ill liar who doesn't understand what happened on 9/11, so he lashes out hysterically at those of us who understand 9/11.
It wouldn't be worth my time, except that Brian is a disgusting pervert and liar who deserves the humiliation I dish out to him on a daily basis.
Speaking of which, I haven't posted a photo of our hero with his hideous homeless mullet and his rejected-by-goodwill wardrobe in a while:
http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
You'll notice, Barry Mead, that Brian was banned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth because he's a liar and a lunatic.
Brian was also banned from AE911Truth, the Northern California Truth Alliance, 911Oz, and numerous other truther groups for being a liar and a lunatic.
GutterBall, it's not my fault that NIST only tested 1% of the steel. That's the steel they tested, 480F was the result of their tests, and that's the information we have.
I didn't lie about anything. I said "NIST has not one piece of core steel that shows heating above 480 F" and that's true.
Ian, I am not aware that I was banned from Scholars from 9/11 Truth. I lost interest in the site because Dr. Fetzer showed himself to be irrational.
The lying liar lies, "...it's not my fault that NIST only tested 1% of the steel."
It is fraud to base ANY conclusion on only less than 1% of the data. NIST didn't offer a conclusion. YOU offered a fraudulent conclusion, liar. In fact, NIST WARNED against coming TO THE VERY CONCLUSION THAT'S THE BASIS OF YOUR FRAUDULENT ARGUMENT. And I quote:
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
Thus, you're a proven liar and a fraud.
The lying liar lies, "...That's the steel they tested, 480F was the result of their tests, and that's the information we have."
False.
You based your fraudulent "conclusion" on less than 1% of the data. NIST never came to a conclusion. You ignored their warning and decided instead to tell half truths (lies). You [1] failed to disclose that you based your decision on less than 1% of the sample. That's academic fraud. To add insult to injury, you [2] failed to mention that 250 degrees C (480 degrees F) "cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." That's cherry picking, which is also fraud.
The lying liar lies, "...I am not aware that I was banned from Scholars from 9/11 Truth. I lost interest in the site because Dr. Fetzer showed himself to be irrational."
The link Ian provides clearly shows a photograph of you with the word "Banned" below your user name.
See? You're a compulsive liar. You lie when the evidence stares you straight in your ferret face. As "SnowCrash" pointed out, you're a "shameless liar."
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The conclusion that in NIST's steel temperature tests no core steel got hotter than 480 F is certainly justified. That's what I said, that's a fact, and that's what you lied about.
I based my conclusion about that on 100% of the steel that NIST tested.
I am not aware that I was banned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth. It doesn't bother me if I was. SInce Dr. Fetzer showed himself to be irrational I don't care.
The lying liar lies, "...I based my conclusion about that on 100% of the steel that NIST tested."
That's right, asshole liar, completely ignore the substance of my argument. Read it again, liar: NIST DIDN'T REACH A CONCLUSION. YOU REACHED A FRAUDULENT CONCLUSION AND TRIED TO PASS IT OFF AS NIST'S CONCLUSION.
YOU based your fraudulent "conclusion" on 1% of the available data, NOT NIST. As NIST pointed out -- and I quote:
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
Thus, YOU based your conclusion on 1% of the available data. That's academic FRAUD.
You didn't base your fraudulent "conclusion" on 100% of anything. You cherry picked the data and [1] failed to disclose that you based your decision on less than 1% of the sample. That's academic fraud. To add insult to injury, you [2] failed to mention that 250 degrees C (480 degrees F) "cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core."
Thus, YOU reached the exact "conclusion" NIST said "cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core."
Clearly, YOU are lying and DELIBERATELY misleading the reader.
YOU, as your fellow troofer "SnowCrash" pointed out, are a "shameless liar."
Now twist my argument beyond recognition again and continue to lie, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The lying liar lies, "...I am not aware that I was banned from Scholars for 9/11 Truth. It doesn't bother me if I was. SInce Dr. Fetzer showed himself to be irrational I don't care."
Translation from homosexual LieSpeak: Yes, as the link Ian posted to SLC proves beyond a doubt, I was banned by "Scholars" for 9/11 "Truth," but I'm too insane and dishonest to the core to admit the truth.
You're a waste of skin, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
GuitarBill said...
That's right, liar, continue to lie and pretend that NIST didn't prove you're lying when NIST wrote:
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core.
NO CONCLUSION? mm so any "fact" cannot be considered such, NO SYMMETRICAL FALL. Video footage can disprove that, as can witness testimony. Reason to believe it would fall. Existed ONLY when advised by an unidentified person that it would-From the lips of fdny chief. (NOT HIS EXACT words that is what happened not a direct quote,but he said he was told by someone who was told by an as yet unidentified person)NO reason to hit wtc7 ? Well as a ct'ist would say. There was IF there was one given the agencies in it, the enron data in it. The collapse of WTC7 was no mystery to any of the rescue personnel that day? No on the day and after it was/is attributed to demolition, by those mentioned (ON THE DAY esp. and news agencies. I think before claiming that floor collapse was heard. You should not attribute a 20 minute disintegration to it. Floor on floor pancaking in 10.s is 4.7s ps to fall,disintegrate and fall again,only problem being disintegrated material cant collapse lower levels and energy conservation law would prohibit the continued collapse if each floor WAS disintegrating the next. PLUS the fact they didnt look for explosive because it wasnt there, thats like going to a murder scene where the victim has wounds consistent with a knife, but saying theres no knife there but there is a piece of cardboard which has never before given this effect. However we wont look for evidence it was a knife. And if the debate is on-bring proof of any building falling the same through fire,if it is not symmetry, prove it because the visual evidence and eyewitness evidence says it was. My question makes no sense re no release of data modelling? Yes it does in regards conspiracies. We say we think fire,say we cant prove it say we choose it anyway,but refuse access to data. Why a ct'ist picks up on that. I have indeed not finished ALL nist an fema data BUT that is why i ask and continue to read it. However it does offer advice but without the released data we can't be sure it is right. Its like me saying i wont tell you why when i mixed x y z chemicals it caused a fire but i will offer advice on what not to mix in future.Would that be sufficient for you to let your child mix chemicals based on my advice? I ask MY questions because how things seem, BECAuse EVEN THE 911 COMISSIONERS SAID CIA LIED AND OBSTRUCTED US. Because several journalist swear they were and are told what to say by military and others even though it is lies or hiding the truth. And look up this...Holy Land Foundation co-founder Shukri Abu Baker, an artile By Steven Downs. Then tell me that i should never question. Sorry but a lot of what i ask, you refute with 0 proof, even vs what IS proven in opposition to you. Still as yet i am levelling no accusation because you are right i know not even a tenth of all FACTS so conclusions are stupid. But as it stands, the balance does not fall in favour of officialdom
Oh and one question for whoever it is who responded sensibly to me. If the fires are from "flying debris" How exactly did that occur. Because if i am right an i am sure you will say if not. WTC 3 and/or 5 is between 1 an 2 and 7 so even when the plane hit, as it was in forward momentum, how does debris fly backwards to such distance and then get inside wtc7. Assuming maybe a few windows were wide open to allow, but that means we are talking no jet fuel,just a regular office fire,where we have seen hundreds even wtc1 in 1973. Burn 2,3 or 4 x longer an still not fall. If the fires alone are responsible then does it equate that every building similar to that will collapse in the event of a fire. I may have asked this i don't recall. But if any of you are brave enough to answer honestly. What would it mean to YOU, IF hypothetically, there was facts to PROVE to convince YOU there was a conspiracy. What would that mean to you personally? I appreciate probably none will give a straight answer, but i am not saying there is/was/ just assume that tomorrow you wake up you see undeniable proof and realise the government lied. What are the personal implications to you?
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's right, liar, don't apologize for lying about the content of the NIST Report. Don't apologize for trying to DELIBERATELY pass off your erroneous "conclusion" as NIST's conclusion. CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND CONTINUE TO LIE AS THOUGH YOU WERE NEVER CAUGHT RED-HANDED LYING -- YOU SCUMBAG LIAR.
And you have the unmitigated gall to call yourself a "truther"? You're nothing but a compulsive liar who defecates on the graves of the 2,956 people who perished on that fateful day.
You're a waste of skin.
Now go peddle your lies at 911Flogger, liar.
Oh, that's right! You're banned from 9/11Flogger because you're a lunatic and a compulsive liar.
Cretin.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Barry, the fires in WTC7 are believed (by those who are very anxious to close the books) to have been started by flying debris from the collapse of WTC1 at 9:58--not by debris from the airplane impact at 8:46
Of course the fact that no photographs show them until after 12:10 would seem to contradict this belief. The first fires were on floors 22, 29, and 30 and did not persist.
Fires did not appear on floors 11 and 12 and 7 until soon after 2:00.
Fire appeared on 13 at 2:30, on 8 at 3:40, on 9 at 4:00 and on 14 at 5:00.
Some of these fires appear to have started on the north side of the building, which wold seem to negate the flaming-debris hypothesis.
The peedunker clowns on this board begin with the lazy assumption that they already know everything they need to know, and they invent the assumptions they need to support their ignorance.
Of course a lot of 9/11 conspiraciy theorists (who wrongly consider themselves Truthers) do the same thing to protect THEIR ignorance.
That's right, liar! Bury your lies in a pile of homosexual LieSpam.
Brian Good == LIAR.
snug.bug == LIAR.
Brian Good == LIAR.
snug.bug == LIAR.
Brian Good == LIAR.
snug.bug == LIAR.
Brian Good == LIAR.
snug.bug == LIAR.
LOL!
You're PATHETIC, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Thanks SNUGBUG, precisely why i think it is necessary to check as many facts first before coming down either side. What gets me-which is the reason i asked what IF...- is the anger, it seems a given that if you question anything, you are disrespectful,just plain wrong, or, a nutter. On the basis of things like http://www.wrmea.org/wrmea-archives/541-washington-report-archives-2011-2015/january-february-2013/11611-why-all-americans-should-case-about-the-holy-land-foundation-case.html%0A It would seem foolish to NOT even ask. Not to mention victim families themselves are the reason for the 911 commission in the first place. I already said i was a ct'ist in the matter of Jfk because after 3 years investigating everything about it, including reading every single warren commission report,the hsca reports and eye witness testimony,and more, i found discrepancies,lies,conflicts of interest and a solid basis to question the official version. Enough in fact to say unequivocally, LHO could not have killed Tippett and could not have acted alone in killing Jfk. But with PROVEN conspiracies like Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin affair. Direct contravention of civil liberties contravening the constitutional rights of people. One should ALWAYS be open minded enough to ASK. A fine example is with Bin Laden,some get enraged at suggestions he should have been submitted to due process,but with ONLY a dodgy tape and some letters that are unconfirmed, guilt was presumed. IF he was indeed the mastermind, he go what was due, but denial of the process,is the first step to allowing denial to any citizen. Another reason to suspect issues,is the attacks bought totally the opposite of what OBL purported to want, a total invasion. And he cannot have failed to realise this may occur. It is in fact the DUTY of everyone to begin from a standpoint where they question EVERYTHING then if official versions stand up. Good. If ever it does not then it is imperative that people do not be so blind as to wait until it is too late. And any who doubt that,examine your legal rights, and what can be done to you now,compared to pre 911, if accused of terrorism. Anyway thanks for the response. As i think of more i shall post more questions as i delve further into it all.
B(owel) M(ovement) wrote, "...Oh and one question for whoever it is who responded sensibly to me."
Hey Yoda, go play in the freeway. You're way out of your league, chump.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
" If the fires are from "flying debris" How exactly did that occur."
Try this at home: Take a frying pan, put it on the stove at 8:46 AM,and heat it at maximum temp and take it off of the stove at 10:28AM.
Put the hot frying pan on your couch. The answer will be revealed.
"Assuming maybe a few windows were wide open..."
I don't think those windows opened. They did break.
"but that means we are talking no jet fuel,just a regular office fire,where we have seen hundreds even wtc1 in 1973. Burn 2,3 or 4 x longer an still not fall."
Post a link to the fire in WTC1 in 1973 that burned on multiple floors for 8 hours. Show me a building identical to WTC7 that burned for 8 hours with no attempt to interdict.
" If the fires alone are responsible then does it equate that every building similar to that will collapse in the event of a fire."
Technically - YES -under the exact same conditions a similar building with similar construction will do the same thing with similar damage.
Example: WTC1 and WTC2. Both hit by 767s going about the same speeds with similar amounts of fuel. Both collapsed after the impact and fires. WTC2 was hit lower and collapsed first, indicating a basic load failure due to structural damage. It is a safe conclusion to assert that both towers would have collapsed sooner had they been struck on lower floors.
It's what we call science.
" What would it mean to YOU, IF hypothetically, there was facts to PROVE to convince YOU there was a conspiracy. What would that mean to you personally?"
It would mean that the stupidest fucking crew of saboteurs in the history of mankind wasted time, money and resources to pull off an attack that made no sense in any real terms.
If it was a conspiracy as the 9/11 retards claim then they could have achieved the perceived objective decisively instead of the half-ass, convoluted mess we got after 9/11.
Let me point out the flaws:
They had 4 767s loaded with fuel. They needed 3 TONs of high explosives, and they needed a team of 300 to 500 men to pull off the rigging of explosives inn the three WTC buildings.
With that destructive power they could have damaged or destroyed three NY bridges at rush hour killing thousands, they would have had explosives left over to bomb subways where they pass under the river, and placed smaller bombs around the city timed to explode in a cascade of death and destruction.
Then they could have flown two of the 767s inthe the WTC for the result that we got. and hit D.C.
Here's the key: They could have linked the attacks to actual IRAQIS, and even linked them to US interests that they could have targeted for liquidation.
They didn't. So if it was a conspiracy I wouldn't worry too much as such men are idiots and ultimately fail in all things. Which is the case with the ACTUAL AL QAEDA CONSPIRATORS. They have failed. Their leadership is dead, or in hiding, their friends and families have been killed in drone strikes, and their remaining friends have sold them out.
After the Marathon bombing in Boston the Jihad websites had a collective heart attack praying it wasn't one of them. Why? They fear US retaliation now, they take us seriously now, and they know that when the US is struck we will do whatever it takes to hunt them down and kill them.
In short, bin Laden and Al Qaeda created a monster. We are in the terrorist killing business, and business is good.
"... you wake up you see undeniable proof and realise the government lied. What are the personal implications to you?"
Buddy, our government lies all the time. That's why we limit its power over us. It's a dance we do. We are not Europe, we are not Asia, we are Americans which means we are more than a little crazy. That's okay with us as we are a nation of individuals doing our own thing. We don't send our best and brightest into elected office; never have and never will.
There's no one in your league, ButtGoo, and you're dumb enough to think that's a compliment.
GuitarBill said...
B(owel) M(ovement) wrote, "...Oh and one question for whoever it is who responded sensibly to me."
Hey Yoda, go play in the freeway. You're way out of your league, chump.
**********
Hello Dunce monkey, if you're unable to answer don't. You are AFRAID i understand that, from the sounds of it you probably dreamed all your life of being a cia operative or green beret. But got about as far as giving head to an undercover tranny. Now i know i know. The government is always right, they never lied blah blah. There is irrefutable factual, proof. Therefore, i have 1) Asked a valid series of questions which were responded to with arguments, that can be prove to be false, like "there was no symmetry in wtc7 falling" The evidence exists in a visual format yet the answer lies. I ask a question "what if..." rather than a response, you evade and abuse. So how can you have a validity? If the ability to rationally discuss, ask real questions, answer if i am asked (even if it is to admit what i do not know) if that makes me out of my league, then based on you using no logic, no common sense, denying proof, denying even what the official version engineers and scientists agree on. Well i guess you must not even qualify, to be in a league at all, let alone out of your depth in one. You have no capacity to argue, because you have closed your mind, Barack Obama, George Bush,George Tenet, and Robert Mueller, could all come and tell you they lied and you would call them "troofers" lol. So say all the bollocks you like, spout your "trutherisms" tell me who is a " liar " who "lives alone or with mom" like that defines rightness lol. I will look on your comments like the cartoon page in the newspaper. Just there to have a laugh at. Any gov,lovin "offishal gover'ment ish not gonna lie to me" Muppets like you are just idiots, believe for sure but to deny you never get lied to, then purport to know if someone on this blog is a liar?????????????? You can be the resident comedian, cos sure as shit we won't wanna rely on your IQ cos NIST got the test results back on that...And yep, they came back negative.
The lying liar lies, "...There's no one in your league, ButtGoo, and you're dumb enough to think that's a compliment."
What's the matter, liar? Trying desperately to change the subject, retard?
You're nothing but a PROVEN compulsive liar who defecates on the graves of the dead. You're a coward who hides behind the skirts of the "widows" while you lie about the events of 11 September 2001. Every word that emanates from your liver-spotted hands is a LIE--you lying, third-rate Al Qaeda apologist.
You're lower than a snake's belly-- you Goddamned liar.
Now go peddle your lies to the droolin' mooks who frequent 911Flogger, liar.
Oh, that's right! You're banned from 911Flogger because you're widely regarded as an insane liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
M Gregory Ferris
Well done, i don't actually agree with it all, but it gives me what i need to go an look at,and THAT Bill is the way to respond. I see one side, get a realistic response on the other side. I disagree M Gregory with on some issues because, i think saying ..it's science. Can be misleading, in as much as scientifically we could say the thermite exits. The provenance of it is needing proving, and i offer 0 comment because i am not even looking at that aspect yet. The fall f the towers, i am looking at the speeds and the floor strength. Science will dictate exactly how fast it should fall, and no one who is sensible can say that David Chandler does not make a compelling argument, but i always like independent check especially as i am not a teacher of that branch of science. Anyway it is good that one among you can sufficiently sensibly attack back or rather answer my questions, because that is the way that you get a final conclusion. And, Hairy Billbag the way to get me to pay attention, is precisely by answering what i actually asked which is what he did.
B(owel) M(ovement) whines, "...And, Hairy Billbag the way to get me to pay attention, is precisely by answering what i actually asked which is what he did."
Blow it out your ass, Yoda. I don't give a damn if you pay attention or not, liar. I proved up thread that you're a liar and a cretin. If you're stoooopid enough to fall for 9/11 "truth" and the lies and bilge that emanate from the keyboards of liars like Brian Good (aka, "snug,bug"), you probably drink used toilet water and call it "ambrosia."
Now go play in the freeway, Yoda.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I proved up thread that you're a liar and a cretin. If you're stoooopid enough to fall for 9/11 "truth" and the lies and bilge that emanate from the keyboards of liars like Brian Good (aka, "snug,bug"), you probably drink used toilet water and call it "ambrosia."
Now go play in the freeway, Yoda.
PROVED I AM A LIAR?
Where, what did i lie about put it in black and white.
CRETIN?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=cretin
It would seem that YOU fit the BILL rather well for that honour.
But you are worth a laugh. So proof please of what i lied about?
Don't give MGF too much credit, Barry.
Put the hot frying pan on your couch.
A more accurate simulation would be—take 200 frying pans, heat one of them, and then pick two at random to put on your couch.
As usual, MGF, you make silly assumptions to strengthen your lazy beliefs.
Post a link to the fire in WTC1 in 1973 that burned on multiple floors for 8 hours. Typical lazy straw man and false dichotomy. The 1975 fire burned for three hours and did not bring the building down. Other high rise fires have raged 17 hours and not brought the buildings down. Your question does not refute the point.
WTC2 was hit lower and collapsed first, indicating a basic load failure due to structural damage.
That's a lazy conclusion that ignores the fact that the fires were going out in WTC2, so if the building was blown up it had to be blown up early before the fireman on 78 reported that the fires were out.
It is a safe conclusion to assert that both towers would have collapsed sooner had they been struck on lower floors. Your "safe conclusion" as usual is lazy and ignorant, and ignores the fact that the lower floors were built much stronger than the upper floors were.
pull off an attack that made no sense in any real terms It has been many times explained to you what enormous benefits came to the military-industrial complex, the national-security-state, and the Bush regime in general from the 9/11 attacks. For you to pretend that it hasn't is typical ignorance and dishonesty on your part. You seem to have no capacity to learn.
they needed a team of 300 to 500 men to pull off the rigging of explosives inn the three WTC buildings
That's ridiculous. Dr. Van Romero said a few charges in key places could bring the buildings down. FEMA's zipper-pancake theory that was conventional wisdom for
3 years held that a few failing truss "clips" could start a chain reaction bringing the buildings down. You don't know what you're talking about and you make stuff up.
Here's the key: They could have linked the attacks to actual IRAQIS
Why would they want to link the attack to Iraq? They wanted to invade Afghanistan first. They didn't need to link the attack to Iraq--Fox News did that for them!
if it was a conspiracy I wouldn't worry too much as such men are idiots
Lunatics yes, idiots no. Your need to feel superior clouds your judgment.
Our government lies all the time. That's why we limit its power over us.
Limits? What limits? Because of 9/11 they have taken the power to throw us in jail, assassinate us, wiretap us, and search our premises--all without judicial review and with no accountability. You live in a fantasy world.
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "...Where, what did i lie about put it in black and white"
That's right, liar! Pretend that I didn't destroy your argument. Clearly, you can't get the simplest concepts straight without making major errors or telling outright lies and quoting yourself as an authority.
Show a little humility, liar, and stop SPAMMING THIS THREAD WITH YOUR SUB-LITERATE LIES AND STUPIDITY. Now go play in the freeway, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
So here seems to be a simple way to establish some answers. Don't worry Billy bob, your sister mom can help you if you need.
. Height between floors. Total floors dropped. divide drop time by floors. This will tell you the time per "pancake. Take the height fallen by the top section when it fell to initiate collapse. This will tell you the maximum velocity it could achieve, time x distance. You can assume the maximum gap being the lowest extent of the plane entry and the highest extent. Then take that weight and see if the force generated will be sufficient to pulverize it before it has fallen a further ten floors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsePUn5-88c will show you that a) it is unlikely, b) what the rubble where explosives were used, looks like. It will look quite similar to 911 rubble. Now once you have established the rate of speed per floor, off the top of my head (a estimate NOT fact here) i guess it works out to. 0.15s per floor.(without accounting for deceleration) This you can check and work out yourself i will too. Then equate whether the laws of motion,conservation of energy etc, allow for that to be too fast for a floor to "unzip" from its bolts,fall, then be pulverized, then be ejected laterally at high speed. That is the simplest way to end all arguments. Because there exists sufficient visual data and numerical data and science to establish it one way or another. If it proves that there simply is not time and energy to maintain the speed and destruction. Then the answer is settled one way or another. I know of course YOU wont HairyBillBag because you don't care one way or another. But for those who do i imagine that cannot fail but to demonstrate truth in the matter of wtc 1 and 2 at the least. You cannot argue with verifiable testable and repeatable results. If the maths and science prove it to not be possible. Then there MUST be another conclusion,conversely, if it shows that the speeds are entirely correct and consistent then who can argue?
The lying liar whines, "...Don't give MGF too much credit, Barry."
That's right, liar, don't admit that you're a shameless liar who was caught red-handed misrepresenting your lies and bogus "scholarship" as a conclusion endorsed by NIST, continue to lie as though your were never exposed as a compulsive liar who defecates on the graves of the victims of Islamic terrorism.
You're a coward who hides behind the skirts of the "widows" while you lie about the events of 11 September 2001. Every word that emanates from your liver-spotted hands is a LIE--you lying, third-rate Al Qaeda apologist.
You're a waste of skin, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
That's right, liar! Pretend that I didn't destroy your argument. Clearly, you can't get the simplest concepts straight without making major errors or telling outright lies and quoting yourself as an authority.
Show a little humility, liar, and stop SPAMMING THIS THREAD WITH YOUR SUB-LITERATE LIES AND STUPIDITY. Now go play in the freeway, liar.
NO MUPPET I DID NOT ASK YOU TO HARP ON LIKE A PISSY 5TH GRADER WHO GOT BEAT DOWN. I SAID SHOW ME THE PROOF I LIED.
NOW YOU ARE A LITTLE SLOW SO AGAIN.......
SHOW ME THE PROOF I LIED. HIGHLIGHT MY EXACT STATEMENTS, ANY RESPONSE MADE,BY ME RELATING TO THAT, TO PROVE IT WAS NOT TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. SHOW THE FORUM EXACTLY WHAT YOU PROVED ME WRONG ON? SHOW ME IF YOU DID WHERE I DENIED YOU WERE RIGHT IF YOU WAS. SHOW IT NOW OR HUSH YOUR BEAK. I CHALLENGE YOU NOW. THAT IF YOU RESPOND ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE CLEAR COURT WORTHY PROOF, I LIED AND YOU PROVED IT. THAT YOU ADMIT YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT AND NOTHING YOU SAY IS OF ANY WORTH
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "...So here seems to be a simple way to establish some answers"
The three links I posted at time stamp 01 May, 2013 11:25 prove you're a liar and a retard, liar. Must I spoonfeed you, too, liar?
Now go play in the freeway, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoAT8Uq8-NM
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "...SHOW ME THE PROOF I LIED."
Learn to read and follow hyperlinks, liar.
The three links I posted at time stamp 01 May, 2013 11:25 prove you're a liar and a retard, liar. Must I spoonfeed you, too, liar?
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Sorry Billy boy but you have PROVEN er.......Nothing. If-and i am not so sure-you can read. Half of what you accuse me of, is an argument you have with someone else. The links pertaining to fall times are actually if you read, where i said YES i agree 14s fall time as YOU said. Freefall, as yet not said that at all for 1,2 i said about 7 which is backed up by nists own people, and scientific proof. Now if you want to invalidate NIST go ahead but you then damage your own cause. So it seems that your links are bullshit. Any question i asked is not a lie, a question can never be a lie, it is an enquiry. So if i am wrong to ask that doesn't equal liar. You have therefore failed to validate your claim. Had you the text of me saying wtc 1 and 2 are in freefall, or it IS an inside job. Then yeah sure, but no you say look at some links where i argue with someone else, i will use that as proof you lied about something you didnt even say yet when i posted a link you agreed but it's a lie but your wrong but your lying about being wrong cos what your lying about is what nist said but you didnt even say that you said something else which if i say your lying i say they are too. CONFUSED? yeah, me too, cos you lied. You said you had proven me wrong- how do you prove a question wrong? You said i had lied, but i agreed with you, ergo either i did NOT lie or you lied too. You said you would prove you disproved me. Well you not only have not disproved my questions, you have used some other argument as proof i lied when i did not so Complete bullshit. AS OF NOW WE WILL CALL YOU BILLY BULLSHIT
B(owel) M(ovement) whines, "...Sorry Billy boy but you have PROVEN er.......Nothing. If-and i am not so sure-you can read. Half of what you accuse me of, is an argument you have with someone else. The links pertaining to fall times are actually if you read, where i said YES i agree 14s fall time as YOU said. Freefall, as yet not said that at all for 1,2 i said about 7 which is backed up by nists own people, and scientific proof. Now if you want to invalidate NIST go ahead but you then damage your own cause...[blah][blah][blah][drool][drool][drool]."
You're an illiterate. I never said any such thing. You have all the reading comprehension skills of a 3rd grader.
Now stop wasting SLC's bandwidth and my time with your sub-literate blather. You're a droolin' cretin.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
YES i agree 14s fall time as YOU said. Freefall, as yet not said that at all for 1,2 i said about 7 which is backed up by nists own people, and scientific proof. Now if you want to invalidate NIST go ahead but you then damage your own cause.
You're an illiterate. I never said any such thing.
GuitarBill said...
The lying troofer prevaricates, "...1. Gravity. Free fall exists-only present with no impeding mass. Explain.[SIC]."
There was no "free-fall," liar. "Free-fall" from the top of the Towers implies a duration of 9.23 seconds. Unfortunately for your bullshit and outright lies, "free-fall" never occurred.
The south tower collapsed in 14.75 - 15.28 seconds and the North tower collapsed in 22.02 seconds.
That's conclusive evidence that you're full of dog excrement up to your eyebrows, liar.
BARRY
Fyi i have confirmed a collapse of wtc1 of 15 seconds from multiple sources
BILLY BULLSHIT
GuitarBill said...
The lying liar lies, "... referred to wtc7 actuall [SIC]"
Another lie, liar?
Building 7 did not collapse at "free-fall," either, liar.
NOW, YOU TOTAL INCOMPETENT NUMBSKULL. THAT shows i agreed with you, in fact i said i agree about 15s you showed me a vid for 14.75 implying it as the "real" truth" Then, you say no freefall in wtc7, it doesnt matter that physically internal crumbling would not,cannot give symetrical falling, visually verifiable. Forget that- the important fact is you said NO FREE FALL. Now we know that a independent name Dave Chandler proved there was. Dont bother refuting him to me, if you doubt him go challenge him publicly and openly to stand up to the ridicule. Because ALSO a FACT is NIST ACKNOWLEDGES FREEFALL for a 2.5s period. Why is irrelevant. I have just FACTUALLY therefore proven that A) YOU are a liar B) YOU are wrong. It is here, now if you are able to delete and edit then hurry up and do so, if not, then unlucky cos it is in black and white (btw i have screen shotted your responses so if you delete them i still have them
Admission on 1 point- i did not "lie" i made a mistake by adding in wtc 1 and 2 fell between 9.5 and 10.5 FACTUALLY that was error in what i typed. To prove that, i refer that i have not said yet, 1,2 entered freefall, i referred to 7 which is confirmed as between 9.5 and 10.5 but hold it up as "a lie" if you will because i have shown billy bullshits own lies. However i make clear now if it seems a lie was made, it was error and i confirm by MY research wtc1 fall of 15s and 7 as maximum of 10.5. That is my claims billy bullshit. If they are lies prove it. And take not i attached no claim pertaining to "what it means" so NO conspiracy theory there
"A more accurate simulation would be—take 200 frying pans, heat one of them, and then pick two at random to put on your couch."
Maybe at San Jose State's "Pr-Science for Non-Science Majors" class, but in grown up science not so much. 1 will do.
"The 1975 fire burned for three hours and did not bring the building down."
A fire that burns for 3 hours while being fought is not the same thing as a fire that rages on multiple floors for 8 hours. You fail basic math now.
"Other high rise fires have raged 17 hours and not brought the buildings down. Your question does not refute the point."
Other highrises not built like the WTC. Sorry - FAIL.
Off to dolt land with you.
"hat's a lazy conclusion that ignores the fact that the fires were going out in WTC2, so if the building was blown up it had to be blown up early before the fireman on 78 reported that the fires were out."
...and the floors above him? You know, those floors that had the flame and smoke pouring out of them in every video.
Dolt dolt dolt...
"imits? What limits? Because of 9/11 they have taken the power to throw us in jail, assassinate us, wiretap us, and search our premises--all without judicial review and with no accountability. You live in a fantasy world."
This is a simple lie. I know it because guys like you are still alive. So this proves 1 of 2 things, the government cannot do those things, or that you are a giant idiot not worth their time.
Maybe both I think.
Actually that last is TRUE it hinges on 1 thing, the determination of what kind of criminal you are. If you are called a terrorist. They Legally CAN do all the above.
Btw if you looked at the two youtube clips, i wonder if your able to explain the fire one ( i daresay-not built the same? although no 2 buildings are so not sure we can continue to apply the argument forever. But as far as my 2nd vid, it would seem to suggest that when wtc 1 collapse initiation began, there was not enough force or distance to disintegrate the section. Besides the fact it is tilted at a 20 degree angle yet suddenly crumbles, I realise the well worn,fire argument will be put forth, however that cant be valid enough alone because there was 0 stress upon the very top so the floors would not collapse,meaning if fires burnt every ounce of concrete to the point a jarring impact turnt it to dust. The frame would be intact, if a little warped at worst, not to mention the core would be in a lump. Now there is no science, barring maybe liquid nitrogen that can disintegrate steel. The actual angle should have seen the top slide off in fact. But whatever way we can find evidence that doesn't need a building to be "built the same" that indicates a heavier part of a building can drop further and not be pulverized. I look forward to the "science" in the answer
Especially for the BILLBAGS
Official version- Terror strikes, unknown about, planes + fire = collapse of 3 buildings
Government do their best and honestly. Nothing hidden no cover up
Conspiracy theorists- Something has been covered up (varying theories as to what/how)
FACT 1) In an open honest report of the events NOTHING needs hiding from the public about those events ON THE BASIS that there was no "inside job" no foreknowledge. Therefore ANYTHING covered up. Ie CLASSIFIED must be ONLY names of people who if identified would have been or will be compromised. (although hardly likely real names would be used.
FACT 2) Multiple intelligence agencies have had "whistleblowers" come forward who have had their testimony,ignored,refused,or redacted
FACT 3) With proven links to Saudi financing (the families launched legal action as did llyods of london) It was slung out time and again and details of the evidence redacted
FACT 4) If 1 document is classified relative to the events of 911 it has been "covered up" if Bush and Cheney testimony needed to be NOT under oath (Bush is very religious) Together and in private with the transcripts classified it has been "covered up"
In a situation where 2 or more people decide together on something they "conspire"
If physical evidence,testimony or documentation of actions prior to or after the events are classified. Then that FACTUALLY IS A CONSPIRACY
So -and i stress that I PERSONALLY- level NO accusations at anyone yet.
it is a simple FACT that CANNOT be denied as much as you may want it to. That there has been a conspiracy to cover up unknown aspects regarding the 911 events. Saying it is a dishonor to the victims and families is the height of ignorance and disrespect given the families launched actions and petitioned for the 911 commission.
What is covered up, by it's very nature is obviously unknown. But what IS known, is the simple logic that dictates that, you don't hide something if you have nothing to hide. Now you can argue,swear,threaten, and stamp your feet all you like. But i will willingly offer to settle the matter in court if you can prove NO 911 information of ANY kind is in fact classified. When we know it is. The very definitions as i have proven, show there IS a conspiracy by un-named persons to cover up unknown aspects of this event. So it is not up for debate as to whether there is a conspiracy to conceal information or elements of the day in question. Simply the debate is..WHAT. is covered up. And i think if you bothered to research properly you would see, that 80-90% of the "truthers" are simply asking exactly that. WHAT IS SO SECRET ABOUT 911,IT NEEDS CLASSIFYING. When we are told we knew nothing,did nothing wrong, and there are NO secrets. You cannot classify a publicly known piece of information. So disprove that BILLYBULLSHITTER. You can't. And if you want as offered we will go to the highest courts to settle it if you dare.
MGF, the problem with "IF this then that would be true" is that it depends on your assumptions that you know what other people are thinking.
If you were a fish, you would have fins. You don't have fins, so you must be a raspberry.
One frying pan will do if you want to demonstrate that hot steel can ignite a couch. Of course it's a pretty meaningless demonstration because the chances that a piece of steel debris hitting WTC7 would be hot are pretty slim, the chance that it would hit a couch are pretty slim, and the chances that any furnishings would be fireproofed are very high. Also, there are no photos of fires before 1-1/2 hours after WTC1 collapsed.
The fires did not rage for 8 hours. Fires persisted only six floors; on only 3 of these did the fire start as early as 2:00.
The fires above 78 in WTC2 were going out. Sure you see the video of the flaming fires that lasted less than ten minutes until the jet fuel burned off.
The despotic powers that a cowardly population has allowed the government to assume need not be invoked to inhibit. Invoking them would only make martyrs, and prove the alarmists' point. Use your head.
I've said this before and I'll say it again: in order to believe that WTC 7 is some sort of smoking gun, you have to believe that the Bush administration figured that killing 3,000 people and destroying 2 iconic buildings in New York (not to mention the Pentagon and UA 93) would not have been enough to get the public behind the invasion of Iraq. No, what was needed was to destroy an empty building nobody had ever heard of hours after the fact. THEN the gloves would have come off.
Of course, this makes total sense when you're a semi-literate cretin like Barry Mead, or a mentally ill unemployed janitor like Brian Good.
The despotic powers that a cowardly population has allowed the government to assume need not be invoked to inhibit. Invoking them would only make martyrs, and prove the alarmists' point. Use your head.
Nothing I enjoy more that these kinds of posts from Brian, where his bitterness and resentment towards normal people comes out in full fury.
Brian, it's your own fault you fucked up your life and live with your parents and can't afford a decent haircut. Nobody has any sympathy for a liar and lunatic like you.
Oh, and speaking of cowardly, remember when Willie Rodriguez challenged you to a debate and you ran away squealing and crying?
IAN-If i am a semi literate cretin, you still cannot refute my prior post. Simply because it is true. So ill be a cretin, you be someone who tries to deny facts. I am surprised you didn't try to deny it,maybe when confronted with facts you have to admit to yourself their truths. My semi literacy,allows me at the least to understand the world acknowledged definitions of conspiracy and cover up. So i daresay with all that i said in that post, a jury and judge in the highest courts could only agree with my earlier statement. As for who/what? i make no comment. So i am a cretin because i pointed out facts? Ergo anytime YOU make a factual statement YOU TOO are a cretin. I asked questions, so i am a cretin? Then the same for you too. And re. the whole 911 debate. As an even earlier post stated- simple solution, use physics,maths and video,eyewitness and physical evidence. Establish upper and lower limits of times for collapse,divide by no.of floors. Then equate if distance travelled is too much to have the floor "unzip" fall and be pulverized then retain energy to laterally eject material and then collapse the next floor. 2ndly i have given evidence the top falling sections would probably NOT have had energy to collapse just from the fall to the next section. Unrefuted by any. So you can refute what i suggested by questioning. And if valid i will accept it. If not go where the evidence leads. I accepted bills 14.75s collapse. Demonstrating i will accept a provable issue. OVB'S like you will NEVER accept facts. I make no accusations but point facts,ask questions,am open minded, yet I am the cretin? Sorry but that makes ridiculous reading. You're clearly unable to reason anything,read properly,or accept anyone questioning your beliefs,yet neither can you support your own belief by any way but evasion,abuse and refusal to consider anything else. THAT is NOT science not logic,it's simple blind stupid arrogance, and blatantly flawed
IAN-If i am a semi literate cretin, you still cannot refute my prior post. Simply because it is true. So ill be a cretin, you be someone who tries to deny facts. I am surprised you didn't try to deny it,maybe when confronted with facts you have to admit to yourself their truths. My semi literacy,allows me at the least to understand the world acknowledged definitions of conspiracy and cover up. So i daresay with all that i said in that post, a jury and judge in the highest courts could only agree with my earlier statement. As for who/what? i make no comment. So i am a cretin because i pointed out facts? Ergo anytime YOU make a factual statement YOU TOO are a cretin. I asked questions, so i am a cretin? Then the same for you too. And re. the whole 911 debate. As an even earlier post stated- simple solution, use physics,maths and video,eyewitness and physical evidence. Establish upper and lower limits of times for collapse,divide by no.of floors. Then equate if distance travelled is too much to have the floor "unzip" fall and be pulverized then retain energy to laterally eject material and then collapse the next floor. 2ndly i have given evidence the top falling sections would probably NOT have had energy to collapse just from the fall to the next section. Unrefuted by any. So you can refute what i suggested by questioning. And if valid i will accept it. If not go where the evidence leads. I accepted bills 14.75s collapse. Demonstrating i will accept a provable issue. OVB'S like you will NEVER accept facts. I make no accusations but point facts,ask questions,am open minded, yet I am the cretin? Sorry but that makes ridiculous reading. You're clearly unable to reason anything,read properly,or accept anyone questioning your beliefs,yet neither can you support your own belief by any way but evasion,abuse and refusal to consider anything else. THAT is NOT science not logic,it's simple blind stupid arrogance, and blatantly flawed
Lian, your belief that you understand the hypothetical perps' hypothetical motives for bringing down WTC7 is simple-minded.
You fail to consider the possible benefits of intefering with SEC investigations of upcoming business scandals involving friends of the Bushes, and the possible benefits of disrupting the CIA's NYC station.
You fail to consider the benefit of the collapse of a third skyscraper reinforcing the meme that fires can drop skyscrapers, thus normalizing the destruction of the towers and reinforcing the terrorizing effect on a scale more in line with people's every day experience all over the country.
I do resent cowardly citizens like you who think it's okay to give away the rights that the Greatest Generation sacrificed to protect.
I didn't run away from Wizzie LiedRugAs. Here I am, here he is not. He ran away from me. I tried to find an alternative venue after the SLC sponsors showed that they had no interest in protecting innocent third parties from Wizzie's tendency to hide behind human shields. Wizzie (I call him that because his lies whiz on the graves of dead heroes) would not lift a finger to find another venue.
I have debated him here, and the lying con artist you call "hero" ran away screaming and crying after I proved his hero story was a lie--one he stole from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens by breaking down doors on 88 before he died.
"You fail to consider the possible benefits of intefering with SEC investigations of upcoming business scandals involving friends of the Bushes, and the possible benefits of disrupting the CIA's NYC station."
The SEC? The same SEC that allowed Wall Street to run wild between 1993 and 2013? That SEC? The SEC that looked into Bernie Madoff" That SEC?
Yeah, I'm sure Bush's friends were shaking in their boots.
Here's the thing dipshits like you fail to understand about the CIA's office in WTC7 - it was just an office. Nothing special, no secret passage ways, no special elevators; they just rented commercial space.
The great thing about this was that they could move out whenever they felt like it. Just box everything up, hire Manpower labor, haul it into rental trucks and be gone by sun-up.
The delusion that WTC7 was destroyed because the CIA's office was in there is juvenile, and stupid.
I get it, paranoia his a symptom of your larger mental instability, and you blame your many failures in life on the CIA because it makes you feel better.
"You fail to consider the benefit of the collapse of a third skyscraper reinforcing the meme that fires can drop skyscrapers, thus normalizing the destruction of the towers and reinforcing the terrorizing effect on a scale more in line with people's every day experience all over the country."
Yeah, because 767s screaming into the side of the buildings people work in isn't scary enough.
Dolt dolt dolt.
"I do resent cowardly citizens like you who think it's okay to give away the rights that the Greatest Generation sacrificed to protect."
Fuck you, you and your dipshit friends marched in the streets in Berkeley protesting the Greatest Generation. You called them murders. You called them stupid, and now you hide behind them? You're the coward.
You want to know a great irony? George W Bush was the embodiment of everyting the Chicago 5, and the morons at Berkeley stood for: The destruction of the USA, and letting the land be run by fools.
"I didn't run away from Wizzie LiedRugAs. Here I am, here he is not."
Willie has a job, you do not.
"He ran away from me."
Nope.
"I tried to find an alternative venue after the SLC sponsors showed that they had no interest in protecting innocent third parties from Wizzie's tendency to hide behind human shields."
Translation: I wanted to rig the debate.
"I have debated him here,"
No. Name calling is not debate.
"and the lying con artist you call "hero" ran away screaming and crying after I proved his hero story was a lie--one he stole from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens by breaking down doors on 88 before he died."
The problem is that the 9/11 survivors disagree. Since they were actually there at the WTC, (and you were not) they know better. You are just a bitter, racist old dolt. A doddering fool.
I've noticed that conspiracists tend to be poorly educated and very sure of themselves and what they think they know. You fit the pattern very well. I'm sure you've heard of the "dry drunk" who's not really recovering at all. You're a "dry conspiracist".
You start with the assumption that you know everything, and you invent your "facts" to prop up your delusions. Do you ever cite sources for your claims?
Your belief that the CIA office needed Maxwell Smart accessories to make it significant is silly. It's not the building that might make the CIA station politically inconvenient--it's what they know and who's there.
767s screaming into the side of the building is not scary enough. That's just a plane crash, a few hundred killed, life goes on. The building gets repaired, and stands as a monument of strength instead of falling as a symbol of vulnerability. Lousy terrorist op.
I never protested the Greatest Generation, fool! You don't even know what the Greatest Generation is, do you? Maybe if you would spend more time in Santa Cruz and less hanging out at Franco's you might accidentally learn something, and you might not have such an exalted opinion of your intellect and your knowledge.
What makes you think Willie has a job? He swore in federal court papers that he had lost his livelihood when the towers came down--he couldn't clean stairways any more. Willie has a scam. He travels around telling a lying hero story to induce people to give him money.
I wanted to un-rig the debate. I wanted to find a neutral venue. SLC's links to JREF and Willie's links to JREF made SLC sponsorship hinkey.
It's not name-calling to point out a lying scamster's lies.
Name one 9/11 survivor who thinks Willie's a hero. An article in Felipe David's church newsletter discusses Mr. David's 9/11 injuries and doesn't mention Willie at all. David Lim now refuses to comment on Willie's story.
Willie is a blatant con artist. Death statistics prove that his "Key of Hope" claims about hundreds saved are complete hooey. Pablo Ortiz saved dozens by breaking down doors with a crowbar. Willie stole Mr. Ortiz's story and tried to pretend it was his own. The only reason he got away with it so long was because nobody could believe that anyone could be such a scumbag as he is.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here's Felipe David's story, December 2002.
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=4447
He says "I asked God to give me strength. And I was able to get up and run six blocks to find an exit." He says "God saved my life." He says nothing about Willie Rodriguez.
Now is that any way to show gratitude to the guy who claims he single-handedly rescued you and that he carried your bloody skinless body on his back and then he came and ambushed, er, visited, you in the hospital with a news crew? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65aflt8XlIk
B(owel) M(ovement) scribbles, "...Especially for the BILLBAGS"
Sorry, I don't pick on retards...it's unsportsmanlike.
Speaking of retards, it's Lyin' Brian Good. So liar, are you desperately trying to bury the portion of this thread where I expose you as a liar in an avalanche LieSpam, liar?
Of course you are.
Should we expect any less from a PROVEN compulsive liar? Probably not.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
I didn't lie about anything. I said NIST's temperature tests showed that none of their core steel samples showed heating above 480 F. That is a fact. That conclusion is based on 100% of their samples.
GuitarBill said...
B(owel) M(ovement) scribbles, "...Especially for the BILLBAGS"
Sorry, I don't pick on retards...it's unsportsmanlike.
Speaking of retards, it's Lyin' Brian Good. So liar, are you desperately trying to bury the portion of this thread where I expose you as a liar in an avalanche LieSpam, liar?
You don't pick on retards?
Shall i take the extracts of your prior abuse,the points you thought you could argue? You happily argued then,you "picked on" a retard then. I point out something that is totally and unequivocally provable,and, amazingly we see that A) By calling me a retard, you HAVE "Picked on" me, if i am indeed a retard. B) You evaded the question C) Proven you have no logical,factually based rebuttal.
D) You failed not only to answer the post there,you failed to address how you purport wtc 7 never entered free fall, despite independent confirmation it did,despite NIST documenting it did for 2.5s
So OVB as per usual,faced with facts you 1)LIED 2) EVADED RESPONDING 3) WERE ABUSIVE 4) HAVE NO FACTUALLY BASED REBUTTAL
So you will respond -go peddle my lies etc etc. But i have issued no lies,i even issued a method to validate/invalidate the issue of explosive demolition. None of you have tried to do it. WHY? Afraid what it will reveal? I gave a link that casts doubt on the top section turning to dust based on multiple demolitions gone wrong and larger sections NOT smashing to bits. You have no response. I retain STILL an open mind and make NO accusations. You maintain a closed mind that fails to address facts,fails to address key questions,lies about facts and is continually rude.
Yet you consider you have a worth in the debate? Sorry but the use you are for pro OVB'S is as a water boy at best. So go back to bed son you are ineffectual and have lost every argument against me except the ones you are too scared to attempt
I wanted to un-rig the debate. I wanted to find a neutral venue. SLC's links to JREF and Willie's links to JREF made SLC sponsorship hinkey.
Thanks for proving my point. You ran away squealing and crying when Rodriguez challenged you because you're a worthless liar and coward.
Also, why would Rodriguez continue to post here? He's bored of it. If I got bored, I'd stop too. I just find it amusing to taunt you and humiliate you and see how many times you call me "it".
I've noticed that conspiracists tend to be poorly educated and very sure of themselves and what they think they know. You fit the pattern very well. I'm sure you've heard of the "dry drunk" who's not really recovering at all. You're a "dry conspiracist".
You start with the assumption that you know everything, and you invent your "facts" to prop up your delusions. Do you ever cite sources for your claims?
See, this is the kind of stuff I enjoy. Brian, worthless unemployed liar with a hideous homeless mullet that he is, can't stand that other people are far more intelligent and successful than he is, so he posts this hysterical spam when people point and laugh at him for his 9/11 delusions.
I do resent cowardly citizens like you who think it's okay to give away the rights that the Greatest Generation sacrificed to protect.
I commend your parents for taking care of a loser like you for 40 years because you could never hold down a job. I think most people would have eventually kicked their loser son out of the house.
You fail to consider the benefit of the collapse of a third skyscraper reinforcing the meme that fires can drop skyscrapers, thus normalizing the destruction of the towers and reinforcing the terrorizing effect on a scale more in line with people's every day experience all over the country.
Well, of course you'd be terrified of WTC 7 collapsing, because you're a pathetic coward who is too scared to debate Willie Rodriguez.
That's why you invent these fantasy stories about 9/11. You're scared of the world around you, and conspiracy theories are comforting.
Barry, Guitar Bill doesn't debate. He just hurls abuse. He's obviously mentally ill, and has a deep need to project his deficits on others.
I call him ButtGale for that reason.
Ian, show me what you believe to be a 9/11 delusion on my part and I'll show you either a) something that's true or b) something I never asserted.
Any idiot can get an MBA and you don't demonstrate that you even have the one you claim.
I've held down many jobs, and had many employers express regrets when I decided to move on to better things.
I'm not terrified of WTC7 collapsing, and I'm not terrorized by it. You don't understand the meaning of simple words.
I didn't refuse to debate Willie Rodriguez. I kicked his saggy, jiggly butt. Right here. Here I am, here he is not. I proved irrefutably that his hero story was a lie.
And I don't invent any fantasy stories about 9/11.
Only 27 of the widows' 300 questions got answers. That's a fact.
NIST only gave us half a report, and were thus able to ignore 10 essential mysteries of the towers' demise. That's a fact.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I didn't lie about anything. I said NIST's temperature tests showed that none of their core steel samples showed heating above 480 F. That is a fact. That conclusion is based on 100% of their samples."
That's right, liar, tell the same lies I ripped apart up thread as though your filthy lies were never debunked.
You didn't base your fraudulent "conclusion" on 100% of anything. You cherry picked the data and [1] failed to disclose that you based your decision on less than 1% of the sample. That's academic fraud. Then, you [2] failed to mention that 250 degrees C (480 degrees F) "cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." To add insult to injury, NIST didn't come to a conclusion. YOU CAME TO A CONCLUSION, AND TRIED TO PASS OFF YOUR ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION, WHICH NIST WARNED AGAINST, AS NIST'S CONCLUSION. That's fraud.
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
Thus, YOU are a lying sack of dog excrement. "SnowCrash" was right, you're a "shameless liar" -- a waste of skin.
Deal with it, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
The lying liar lies, "...He's obviously mentally ill...[blah][blah][blah]."
Parroting "Oystein," or is something sinister going on here?
Yes liar, it's obvious to everyone with an IQ in excess of their shoe size that "Oystein" is your sock puppet -- you lying fraud.
You lie first, last and always.
Once again, you FAIL, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
This comment has been removed by the author.
UtterFail, the only thing you've ripped apart with your ButtGale is your rectal sphincter.
I didn't cherry pick anything. 100% of the core steel samples that NIST tested for temperature damage showed heating to less than 480F. NIST cherry-picked those samples, not I. First they picked the samples for testing, and then when the results were not to their liking, they claimed that the samples were not representative.
The lying liar lies, "...100% of the core steel samples that NIST tested for temperature damage showed heating to less than 480F."
That's right, liar, continue to lie while the proof that you're a liar stares you straight in your ferret face.
"It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
That's right, liar, make a naked false assertion that's IN DIAMETRIC OPPOSITION TO NIST AND IN SAME BREATH CLAIM YOUR "CONCLUSION" IS "based on 100% of their samples."
You didn't base your lying "conclusion" on 100% of anything. YOU based your conclusion" on LESS THAN 1% OF THE SAMPLES, AS NIST POINTS OUT ABOVE.
See? You're a FRAUD. On planet Petgoat, "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" is magically transformed in to "100% of their samples." That's fraud.
Get it through your thick skull -- you math illiterate retard:
1% != 100% (Translation for retards: "1 % is NOT equal to 100%")
Thus, you're a PROVEN fraud and a liar.
Now continue to lie while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face, liar.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
It must be recognized that the examined locations represent less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and thus these temperatures cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." -- NIST
That surely then means that NIST based 100% of Any theory on the same 1% of examined locations-Which means you can't debunk anyone else on the basis of it being JUST 1% and then validate someone else on that same basis. If a "truther" is wrong on making assumptions based on 1% we cannot then make anyone RIGHT on their assumptions. And as pointed out that 1% makes up 100% of NISTS examined locations, therfeore meaning that a "truther" is basing their theory on 100% of NIST information. So if anyone is wrong then it must be the person who primarily dared to assume fact can be derived from a mere 1% This is simple logic and you can deny it every which way you like but it's the same as when OVB's say ...no building ever collapsed from fire before? Oh really? then go to quote a range of them that have (incidentally those are either NOT total collapses or are totally NOT similar in multiple ways to the wtc's) Then adding comparisons can't be made by "truthers" because no building is the same as wtc. You cannot hold up evidence,and deny the same all at the same time. Either 1% is INVALID to base assumptions off or it isn't. Either buildings can be compared or they can't. You cannot have it both ways
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well I didn't make any assumptions. I don't know if the core got melted, or it didn't, or if it was heat-damaged or if it was not.
All I know is that a lot of people lie about what happened, and I don't.
100% of the core steel samples that NIST tested for temperature damage showed heating to less than 480F. That's a fact, and nothing ButtGirl says can change that.
Well you take what NIST say and so long as it agrees your fine,had you said what you said in support of them would there be debate? No they would be calling you nice things. So far i see the ovbs are the liars Bill says WTC NO freefall. Laws of Physics PROVE there was. Nist denied initially then AGREED there was. Bill denies NIST and PHYSICS (not too clever) I point out that if even 1 document is hidden it is covered up FACT they evade that, i point out illegality and covering up something by 2 or more IS conspiracy (911 Commissioners explicitly and publicly say the cia tortured for evidence-illegal according to the UN.They hid evidence that the commission were lawfully entitled to. Conspiracy. FACT response? none. Then they validate NIST based on what it says but invalidate you,based on.....WHAT NIST SAYS!
They do stick to OVB mandate. Step 1 evade legitimate questions. Step 2 Lie or pretend you have some proof then refer to step 1 when asked to validate that proof. Step 3 If your proof is challenged and shown to be neither testable or repeatable, Swear,abuse, anything to avoid answering the critique. Step 4 Blanket refusal, under no circumstance must you look at a piece of evidence that has validity and if you accidentally do, and cannot debunk it, see preceding steps or just deny it exists. The extreme OVB's Are on step 5. Poke out eyes and puncture ears. Caress Gw Bush replicas. On the other side of the coin, there is me, i hear an argument, i look into it, whther a ovb or ct. Take nothing as FACT unless it conclusively IS
"'ve noticed that conspiracists tend to be poorly educated and very sure of themselves and what they think they know. You fit the pattern very well. I'm sure you've heard of the "dry drunk" who's not really recovering at all. You're a "dry conspiracist"."
Poorly educated, you mean like how you dropped out of San Jose State?
"You start with the assumption that you know everything"
Nope.
" and you invent your "facts" to prop up your delusions."
Nope.
" Do you ever cite sources for your claims?"
There's no point in posting links for you. You don't read them, most likely because you can't.
"Your belief that the CIA office needed Maxwell Smart accessories to make it significant is silly."
Maxwell Smart? You are stupid aren't you? And old.
" It's not the building that might make the CIA station politically inconvenient--it's what they know and who's there."
Quack quack. Again, the stupid is strong in you.
"767s screaming into the side of the building is not scary enough."
That is the single dumbest thing you have ever said. Also poorly written. It should be:
"A 767 is not..." or "767s ARE not..."
Dropout.
"That's just a plane crash,"
But it wasn't just a plane crash. They were used as weapons. Huge difference.
The best part of this whole thing is that you've admitted that as a conspiracy theorist you are uneducated.
Nice going, DOLT.
The lying liar lies, "...100% of the core steel samples that NIST tested for temperature damage showed heating to less than 480F. That's a fact, and nothing ButtGirl says can change that."
No, it's NOT a "fact" -- you lying homosexual degenerate.
You didn't base your lying "conclusion" on 100% of anything. YOU based your conclusion" on LESS THAN 1% OF THE SAMPLES, AS NIST POINTS OUT ABOVE.
Get it through your thick skull -- you math illiterate retard:
1% != 100% (Translation for retards: "1 % is NOT equal to 100%")
Now continue to lie while the evidence that you're a lying homosexual degenerate stares you straight in your ferret face.
You can run, liar, but you can't hide.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
1% != 100% (Translation for retards: "1 % is NOT equal to 100%")
Ok Bill YOU need a lesson 1% is NOT 100%
Well done for that however follow closely now...
If you take 100 cents and examine just 1 cent then tell someone about what ALL the cents look like based on the 1 cent you have looked at. Then 100% of your data is based on 1%
Now if you later say ..That doesn't mean ALL the cents are like that. But we decided to assume based on that,that it means....
And what YOU are doing is saying nist decided x,y,z happened, based on their statements,inferred from their 1% of evidence studied, we the OVB's believe them.
However when someone else uses 100% of the information (sourced from the 1% of evidence) We refuse it.
So you see it is not about maths. It is as i already showed you. You must throw out ALL nists conclusions based on the same 1% If you throw out any argument by anyone BUT nist based on the same 1%
It is a simple thing you can't have the argument work both ways. Either-in the absence of further evidence, any theory based on that 1% has equal right to be heard and accepted. OR EVERYTHING directly extrapolated from the same 1% must be discredited. Now do YOU understand THAT.
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "...And what YOU are doing is saying nist decided x,y,z happened, based on their statements,inferred from their 1% of evidence studied, we the OVB's believe them."
No, that's not I'm saying, retard.
Now take your idiotic straw man arguments, and shove them where the sun doesn't shine, cretin.
Get back to me when your IQ crosses the 70 threshold. Until then, you're nothing but a droolin' 'tard.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Oh and before you continue along the homosexual,retard etc element. I am unfussed as to whether you call me gay-1) because i do not find it offensive 2) If i was i would be,ergo i really really wouldn't care
Retard? well if i was again i wouldn't recognise the insult,so it would be effective to someone who is of a high degree of intelligence and thus hopefully would be upset by the term, thereby inferring,that every time you call me retard,you're complimenting my high iq and hoping -vainly- to upset me
Liar? well show the lie,refute it conclusively "Truther" essentially by definition is someone after "the truth" were there is just cause to assume the truth is not being told. So if i was one i would be someone after truthfullness, to call me or anyone this and deny you are, is to insinuate,you are a liar if you are opposite to me and i am a truther. And as such you can't be valid in a single argument. Or maybe you wanna call me YODA mm yeah what an insult i am a master of the force.OOO stinger. So carry on the insults cos whatever you say i am entirely fine with it,it continues to be the 1 solid piece of proof that you cannot constructively debate,nor scientifically dissemble a single argument.
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "...Either-in the absence of further evidence, any theory based on that 1% has equal right to be heard and accepted."
Wrong again, jackass. Any "theory" based on 1% of the available data, while ignoring the remaining 99% of the data is a logical fallacy called cherry picking. Cherry picking is academic FRAUD, liar.
If you had an education beyond 8th grade you'd know this, liar. Like Brian Good (aka, "snug.bug), you couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.
And you wonder why I call you a 'tard.
Cretin.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Get back to me when your IQ crosses the 70 threshold. Until then, you're nothing but a droolin' 'tard.
Currently it checks in at 132
If yours exceeds that, well done. But based on the lack of substantive verbiage, i have to say the evidence would support a hypothesis that the 70 threshold is where you are,hence you suggested i get back to you when it crosses that level,thus placing me above you and meaning i am worth listening to. But i shall not hold it against you, a lower level intellect still can perform basic tasks,like swearing,and writing incoherent ramblings. Thus far you have evidenced by your responses that YOU are unlikely to exceed your current 70 iq points. But as a benevolent gesture i will teach you. So let me ask you this. You deny you base anything off of what Nist says. Or so it seems. So try and give 1 straight answer
A) Any data NIST extrapolated from the 1% of evidence examined is not valid to support any claim that directly references the findings in that 1%
B) Any data from NIST based on it's findings from 1% of the evidence studied, are strong validations of any assumption directly attributable to any reference to the same 1%
WHICH IS IT, A OR B
Failure to answer will be evasion, i am not arguing with you, i am asking an A or B question. So which one. I can answer and will if you ask. So how about skip the bs insults and give a straight answer.
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "..Currently it checks in at 132."
Yeah, you demonstrated your stupidity when you tried to claim cherry picked evidence is the basis of a legitimate "theory." Like all "truthers" you're a study in Dunning-Kruger effect."
If you have an IQ of "132," I'm the Easter Bunny.
32 is more like it.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Wrong again, jackass. Any "theory" based on 1% of the available data, while ignoring the remaining 99% of the data is a logical fallacy called cherry picking. Cherry picking is academic FRAUD, liar
So on the simple basis that NIST ignored guidelines to check for explosive residue, on the basis an independent scientist of as much validity of any nist scientist, said he found explosive residue and asked them to check it and they failed. That provides reasonable doubt and sufficient cause in line with s.o.p to check for it. Therefore failing to do so equates to NOT having the data to deny explosives exist. If I do not check my pockets for money i can't say there's none until i do.So if they ignorre a possible 100% of evidence for explosive it is worse than ignoring 99%. Therefore any statement of cause cannot,without all factors being checked for,be anything but theory. Now based on what you said. That any THEORY that bases itself on 1% of the data is fraud. Then implies NIST have a fraudulent report. They also refuse to release their modelling. Now the scientists who now have tested and found explosive residues are not cranks, but qualified experienced scientists. To discredit them go launch a legal action against them (you won't because you will lose,hence the reason nist have not either) They have released every part of their research. So based solely on what YOU just said. The entirety of nist info is indicative of not just cherry picking,but creating a changing process to meet a pre decided result. Then blocking access to it's own proof. There are some wack conspiracists out there. But among scientists,engineers,media,pilots and FAMILIES for 911 truth. There are qualified people who have offered to stand up in court,in public and prove their work. Nist have not. You harp about the families,failing to acknowledge the families own legal actions. You sweep aside issues like the blocking by the gov't to lay justifiable charges at the door of the saudis. Yet you swear and abuse ME. So far i have asked questions. Provided facts, and levelled 0 accusations either way. So exactly what are you attacking me for? Asking if there is a remote chance of not knowing the full story, because factually as explained we do not, due to classified materials. Or am i a retard because i don't come here an kiss your ass? What exactly did i do wrong by questioning official theory, what is worse, to ask and find out the gov't tell the truth. Or ask and find out that there have been terrible awful lies?
Oh and by the way Bill. Ill have a Cadbury one this year, thanks floppy ears.
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "..Currently it checks in at 132."
So unless you claim to be my examiner.. which is provable one way or another.
You must concede to speculation, or outright lies. Which would it be?
UNLESS OF COURSE YOU CAN prove MY IQ SENSIBLY AND FAIRLY? I doubt you can prove your own let alone anyone elses.
B(owel) M(ovement) lies, "...Any data from NIST based on it's findings...[blah][blah][blah]."
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! Now "data" is based on "findings"? You're 180 degrees out of phase with reality, dunce.
You just proved beyond a doubt that you're an idiot. Do you bother to read the excrement that emanates from your semen-encrusted keyboard?
Go away, jackass, you're WAY out of your league.
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Post a Comment
<< Home