Bits & Pieces
How's Operation Tip the Planet Going? Gage has gotten $15 in the last week. The good news is that with the matching funds, that's really $30. Woot! Expect the Earth to start wobbling on its axis any moment now.
Alex Jones and the Truthers have gotten quite a bit of bad press the last couple of weeks. They both got a smackdown from Rachel Maddow the other day:
I'm not as big a fan of the comic book version of the 9-11 Commission Report as Rachel is; I found it a little dumbed down and melodramatic. But the Commission Report itself is terrific, as is the Popular Mechanics Debunking book. Still, kudos to her for delivering a well-deserved spanking to the Truthers, leatherlungs Jones, and all those who support them, including Matt Drudge, who apparently tweeted that 2013 would be the year of Alex Jones.
No surprise, Box Boy and a couple other Troofers were offended that Rachel hasn't looked at their pathetic evidence:
posted by Pat @ 2:30 PM
232 comments
232 Comments:
The PM book is "terrific"? The PM book is a joke!
The chuckles start in the first paragraph of its Foreward (page ix) where James Meigs states that "Our investigation found no evidence in support of conspiracy claims". That is irrational. There is plenty of evidence to support conspiracy claims. You can call it unconvincing if you wish, but the claim that it doesn't exist is ludicrous and exposes Mr. Meigs as an incompetent analyst of an issue of vital importance.
The book is full of similar howlers. On page 29 in a discussion of the World Trade Center towers, it claims that the "conspiracy theorists" have no "background in engineering, construction, or related fields." There are 1770 architects and engineers demanding new investigations--40 high rise architects, 50 structural engineers, 6 AIA fellows, at least 40 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers.
On page 40 they claim that steel in the rubble pile cooking for weeks could have gotten hot enough to melt. Apparently they never heard of the 2d law of thermodynamics.
On page 49 they misquote NIST, inserting a word that is not in the quote. On page 51 they show their inability to distinguish between the thickness of the steel plates in a box column and the exterior dimensions of the column.
On page 62 they claim that WTC2 fell in ten seconds and WTC1 fell in 12 seconds.
On page 75 they claim that buildings can not topple. But there are plenty of pictures available that show toppled buildings.
It's a stupid, stupid book.
And you are a stupid, stupid person. When was the book written, Brian? Two years before Box Boy formed his clown posse. As for the time that the WTC towers fell, even the Commission got that one wrong. There are mistakes; any book has mistakes. How many mistakes are there in the New Pearl Harbor, or any of the Truther tomes? I guarantee you won't have to go 40 pages in to find an error.
The second edition, which is what I read, was published in August, 2011, Pat.
"Mistakes"? Ignorance of the laws of physics is a mistake?
It's a stupid, stupid book.
"9/11 Science"...oh man...
On page 62 they claim that WTC2 fell in ten seconds and WTC1 fell in 12 seconds.
What are the correct times?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I though WTC fell in Manhattan.
(Thank you, good night, I'm here all week, remember to tip the waitress.)
Yeah, I know science isn't your strong suit, MGF.
RGT, I don't know what the real times are. Dr. Sunder told NOVA that "the measurements have indicated" 9 seconds and 11 seconds. NIST's report said "essentially in free fall". David Chandler clocked it at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity, though what that translates to in seconds I can't say.
The point is, since you peedunkers get all incensed when the truthers claim the collapses were at near-freefall acceleration, it's pretty silly for y'all to indulge a collapse time estimate of near-freefall acceleration.
The same Dr.Sunder who explained that the speed of collapse was not unusual because the towers were 70% air? That Dr. Sunder?
This comment has been removed by the author.
David Chandler clocked it at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity, though what that translates to in seconds I can't say.
Sure you can. Freefall from 1000 feet is 8 seconds; what's 8 seconds / .67?
RGT, that's wrong. My guesses on the collapse times are approximately 20 seconds, but nobody really knows because the lower parts of the towers get obscured by the dust and debris.
Brian, what do you think about Gage's haul of $15 in the last week? It strikes me that if you had been out there educating the people instead of arguing with debunkers, Gage might have raised a huge amount and be on the verge of tipping the planet. As it is, I think he's going to have to pull a Mike Gravel, and tip the tip jar into his pocket. And soon.
Pat, "free-fall" (ie., gravitational acceleration) from a height of 417 meters is 9.23 seconds. That said, the South tower collapsed in 14.75 - 15.28 seconds and the North tower collapsed in 22.02 seconds.
There was nothing close to "free-fall," and the PROVEN compulsive liar, Brian Good (aka., "snug.bug"), doesn't have a scintilla of evidence to substantiate his "9 seconds and 11 seconds" lie. Hell, a stopwatch is beyond snug.bug's "skill set."
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
My guesses on the collapse times are approximately 20 seconds, but nobody really knows because the lower parts of the towers get obscured by the dust and debris.
This is the closest thing I know of to a full-length collapse video. The collapse takes at least 14 seconds to complete.
What I'd really like snug to explain is why 12 seconds is a joke when PM says it, but worthy of consideration when David Chandler says it.
Par for the course Brian lies the actual quote from the book was (emphasis added for those who need it):
"Though Reynolds and a handful of other skeptics cite academic credentials to lend credence to their views, not one of the LEADING conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields."
The only possible exception is Gage but one could argue that an architect who mostly designed single story structures, a few two story ones and perhaps one three story one doesn't fit the bill.
Quibble, quibble, Len. So what is your point? Are you claiming that PM was saying that lots of conspiracy theorists have a background in engineering, construction, or related fields, but they're just not "leading conspiracy theorists"?
RGT, 12 seconds is a joke when PM says it because it reinforces the claim that the buildings fell at near-freefall acceleration.
Pat, I don't need to have an opinion on Mr. Gage's "haul". I'm educating the people right here. I'm educating them that you guys don't know what you're talking about.
The lying liar lies, "...I'm educating them that you guys don't know what you're talking about."
More delusional bilge, liar?
You're a PROVEN compulsive liar, and you couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.
Any more lies for us, liar?
**********
Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Thank you for sharing your opinion, ButtGale. You don't mind if I open a few windows, do you?
I didn't lie about anything. Your deficits in simple logic might go a long way to explain why your IT career leads to selling used cars.
You lie constantly, liar. In fact, you're a PROVEN compulsive liar.
Cherry picking the data and basing your [cough] "theory" on less than 1% of the data isn't "scholarship," liar. It's academic fraud. Suppressing all evidence that contradicts your [cough] "theory" isn't "scholarship," liar. It's academic fraud. Trying to pass off your bogus [cough] "theory" as NIST's "conclusion" isn't "scholarship," liar. It's academic fraud.
You lie first, last and always.
Deal with it, liar.
I didn't lie about anything, and I didn't cherry-pick anything. I pointed out that 100% of the core steel they tested shows that it didn't get any hotter than 480F.
That's a fact, and your attempt to handwave it out of existence by claiming cherry picking is silly. 100% of the data is not cherrypicking.
Oh, and where's your pet hero, Willie Fraudriguez? He ran away screaming and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie, and he hasn't been back.
How does it feel to get conned by a janitor, genius?
snug.bug said...
"Quibble, quibble, Len.
Not a quibble an important distinction, there are millions of truthers just in the US if you count everyone who believes 9/11 was an "inside job" or thousand if you just count the ones who've signed petitions, handed out pamphlets, posted on forums etc. "LEADING" truthers is a much smaller group of a couple a dozen people. PM limited its comment to the latter which made all your blather about Gage's flock a strawman which is why you omitted the term. You've were caught lying red handed, everyone following this, including you, knows that.
"So what is your point?"
My point was obvious read my previous post and the paragraph above if you're still confused. Why don't you own up to your deception rather than 'play' dumb? Your best excuse would have been to claim your omission was an accident, but since you've failed to do so we can rest assured that wasn't the case.
"Are you claiming that PM was saying that lots of conspiracy theorists have a background?"
LOL speaking of strawmen!
The lying liar lies, "...That's a fact...[blah][blah[blah]."
No, it's not a fact.
"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 based your [cough] "theory" on less than 1% of the data. That's academic FRAUD, liar. Then, you reached the EXACT CONCLUSION NIST WARNED "cannot be considered representative of general conditions in the core." That's academic FRAUD, liar. To add insult to injury, YOU tried to pass off your [cough] "theory" as NIST's "conclusion." That's academic FRAUD, liar.
Thus, you cherry picked the data, and suppressed all the evidence that proves your idiotic "theory" is a pile of crap. Then you attributed your lies to NIST. And that, liar, is thoroughgoing academic fraud -- the kind of academic fraud that will get your sorry ass expelled from any institution of higher learning.
You're a liar and a fraud.
Deal with it, liar.
"I pointed out that 100% of the core steel they tested shows that it didn't get any hotter than 480F."
The highest temps were on the floors, there wasn't much fuel near the core columns.
They only tested pieces whose "as built" could be determined which just about excluded the floor assembles.
Quibble, quibble, Len. So you're saying PM believes that a PhD engineer who publicly calls for new investigations is not a leading truther? And you think it's not dishonest for them to insert the weasely qualification "leading" to restrict the universe of truthers so they can imply that no truthers are qualified in engineering and science?
I didn't lie.
ButtGale, as usual when it's shown that you're wrong, you pretend that repetion makes your error right. My statement was about the core steel that NIST tested, and it was based on 100% of the core steel they tested.
You go ahead and stamp your little pig feet all you want. You're silly.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...and it was based on 100% of the core steel they tested."
No, your [cough] "theory" is based on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region"
Read it until you get through your thick skull, 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
See? On planet Petgoat less than 1% of the samples magically morphs into 100% of the samples.
Get it through your thick skull, dunce:
less than 1% != 100%
(Translation for 'tards: Less than 1% does NOT equal 100%).
Thus, you're a PROVEN compulsive liar.
Deal with it, liar.
I don't have a theory, liar. I have the fact that 100% of the core samples that NIST tested showed heating to less than 480 F.
I didn't lie about anything.
UtterFail, your battle against your cognitive defects is quite inspiring, and I have to say I admire your persistence. It must be very frustrating for you to be so far off the beam so often.
Were you in a motorcycle accident or something so you hurt your head? Perhaps instead of struggling so, you should face facts and take up something that makes you happy--like painting, maybe, or gardening. Or auto body work.
The lying liar lies, "...I have the fact that 100% of the core samples that NIST tested showed heating to less than 480 F."
There you go again, liar. Trying to pass off "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" as "100% of the core samples."
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, 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
Thus, you based your erroneous "conclusion" on less than 1% of the samples, which is academic fraud. Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
You're so deranged that you'll continue to lie while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
Thus, you are a PROVEN compulsive liar.
RGT, 12 seconds is a joke when PM says it because it reinforces the claim that the buildings fell at near-freefall acceleration.
12 seconds is far slower than freefall acceleration. You must be drinking again this weekend.
Or auto body work.
Body & paint guys make pretty damn good money. Not talking about the Maaco drones, I mean the guys with insurance company connections. Paints are safer now too, so it's not a death sentence for your brain like it was 30 years ago.
11 seconds for WTC1 is freefall, according to Dr. Sunder. Thus 12 seconds is near freefall.
Utterfail, 100% of the core samples that NIST tested show heating of less than 480 F. NIST did the cherry-picking, not I. I picked 100% of the core samples they tested.
You try and try and try to pretend you have a point when you don't.
Do something useful. Straighten a fender.
Oh, and where's your hero friend? I would think after sharing all his press in Equador and Mexico that he would be very anxious to tell us all about Tehran.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...11 seconds for WTC1 is freefall, according to Dr. Sunder. Thus 12 seconds is near freefall."
False.
"Free fall" from 417 meters is 9.23 seconds -- and I don't give a flying fuck who made the assertion.
See? You lie, first last and always.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I picked 100% of the core samples they tested."
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get through your thick skull:
"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 continue to lie while the evidence and the hyperliks I provide prove beyond a doubt that you're a PROVEN compulsive liar
You're a waste of skin, liar.
11 seconds for WTC1 is freefall, according to Dr. Sunder.
Um..... wow. Source? Or are you mistaking Sunder's statement in that NOVA interview for a NIST position?
Dr. Sunder was NIST's lead investigator, and yes, what he said on NOVA and has never corrected is NIST's official position. It is also consistent with the report's statement in section 6.14.4 that the building came down "essentially in free fall".
UtterFail, all you do is demonstrate your compulsive nature and your lack of reading comprehension. Sorry about your motorcycle accident. Face facts. You're not equipped for this.
The lying liar lies, "...It is also consistent with the report's statement in section 6.14.4 that the building came down 'essentially in free fall'."
So now you've come full circle. E.g., on planet Petgoat
less than 1% of the samples is equal to "100% of the sample."
and now
9.23 seconds is equal to "11 seconds."
This is what passes for "consistent" in that shit-filled orb on the puny shoulders.
An arrogant PROVEN compulsive liar and a droolin idiot. What a charming combination.
This comment has been removed by the author.
snug.bug said...
"Quibble, quibble, Len. So you're saying PM believes that a PhD engineer who publicly calls for new investigations is not a leading truther?"
Well if he or she has done little else than sign a petition and perhaps write a brief statement then obviously they aren't a leader of the 'movement', the leaders are the heads of major groups and the authors of books/papers or makers of "documentaries" that have gotten wide (by truther standards) attention, i.e. people like the Joneses, Ryan, Fetzer, Gage, Hoffman, Grifter, Ventura etc.
And why don't you get back to us with a list of PhD SEs "who publicly call[ed] for new investigations" based on their engineering experience. Hopefully they will have read the NIST report.
"And you think it's not dishonest for them to insert the weasely qualification "leading" to restrict the universe of truthers so they can imply that no truthers are qualified in engineering and science?"
No, and it was definitely dishonest of you to have omitted the word from your post. They made no such implication, the comment was limited to "the LEADING conspiracy theorists". And they said nothing about them not having backgrounds in science, that's another strawman.
"I didn't lie."
I doubt even you believe that
ButtGale, my observations about the steel NIST tested is based on 100% of the steel that NIST tested, I'm sorry that such simple concepts elude you, but that motorcycle accident must have caused you to lose your memory of working with number sticks.
I never said 9.23 seconds is equal to 11 seconds. You post nonsense in an effort to give the impression that you know what you're talking about.
All right, Len, I give up. I will stop trying to make sense of PM's claim. It's a stooopid stooopid book, and there's no point in trying to make sense of it.
Collectively, the 1900 architects and engineers for truth are leading truthers, even if most of them stay in the background.
AE911Truth has 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 40 PhD engineers, 11 Stanford engineers.
How about you name to me one PhD SE free of professional ties to NIST who is willing to trash his professional reputation by publicly endorsing NIST's collapse sequence?
That's right, liar, continue to lie while the evidence stares you straight in your ferret face.
The lying liar lies, "...my observations about the steel NIST tested is based on 100% of the steel that NIST tested,"
False.
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I never said 9.23 seconds is equal to 11 seconds."
You said "consistent" -- you fucking liar.
9.23 seconds is not "consistent" with "11 seconds" -- you Goddamned lying dunce.
You lie just to keep in practice, liar.
I didn't say 9.23 seconds is "consistent" with "11 seconds", liar.
I don't have a theory, fool. I have a fact that 100% of the core steel that NIST tested showed heating of less than 480 F.
You seem to have major problems with comprehension. Give it up. Fix your motorcycle instead.
The lying liar continues to lies, "...I didn't say 9.23 seconds is "consistent" with "11 seconds", liar."
False. Here's what you wrote, liar:
"...Dr. Sunder was NIST's lead investigator, and yes, what he said on NOVA and has never corrected is NIST's official position. It is also CONSISTENT with the report's statement in section 6.14.4 that the building came down 'essentially in free fall'." -- "snug.bug," lying his ass off at time stamp 05 May, 2013 13:37
Again dunce, 9.23 seconds is NOT "consistent" with 11 seconds. There's a 1.77 second difference, liar.
"11 seconds" can never be "free fall" from 417 meters -- weasel words like "essentially" notwithstanding. Nor did the buildings fall at anything approaching "free fall." The south tower collapsed in 14.75 - 15.28 seconds and the North tower collapsed in 22.02 seconds, liar.
See? You lie while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I don't have a theory, fool. I have a fact that 100% of the core steel that NIST tested showed heating of less than 480 F."
False.
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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 continue to lie while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
Liar.
I never said 9.23 seconds was "consistent" with 11 seconds. You seem to be struggling with basic mental competence. Maybe it's time to lose the 'tude, dude.
Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Who should I believe--NIST's lead investigator, or a lying anonymous internet poster?
I don't have a theory. I based the fact that NIST has no core steel samples showing heating over 480F on 100% of the core steel samples they tested.
You just keep posting the same non-sequiturs. Isn't it time for you to go beat your wife?
The lying liar lies, "...Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds."
I don't care what he said, liar. "11 seconds" will never equal 9.23 seconds. Nor can you, or Dr. Sunder, show me one scintilla of real evidence to support the "essentially in free fall" assertion.
The south tower collapsed in 14.75 - 15.28 seconds and the North tower collapsed in 22.02 seconds.
As usual, I cite video evidence in support of my claims, and you cite yourself as an authority or take a quote out of context.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I don't have a theory. I based the fact that NIST has no core steel samples showing heating over 480F on 100% of the core steel samples they tested."
False.
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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 continue to lie while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
You just keep blathering the same blather, fool. It has nothing to do with what I said. It's totally non sequitur.
That's right, liar, continue to lie while I provide the hyperlinks and direct quotes that prove you're a liar.
You'd lie to your mother, wouldn't you, liar?
I have nothing to hide, and you...well, you're a PROVEN compulsive liar, liar.
You don't prove anything, fool. Your cognitive incompetence is proof of nothing but your cognitive incompetence.
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
Anything but provide evidence to support your idiotic assertions, right liar?
The evidence to support the claim that you're a liar is clear and unambiguous, liar.
You're a waste of skin, liar.
I already supported the fact that you relied on the 424,000 tons figure for your calculations, ButtGale.
When you talk out your ass like you do, you can't remember one day to the next what you said.
And you still haven't the faintest clue as to why that number is absurd--that's because you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.
Your claim that I lied is based on your interpretation that is dishinest or incompetent or both.
Tye lying idiot whines, "...I already supported the fact that you relied on the 424,000 tons figure for your calculations, ButtGale...[blah][blah[[blah]."
Wrong thread, liar.
Getting flustered, liar? After all, today I've caught you lying on six occasions alone.
Sucks to be you, liar.
You haven't caught me lying about anything, fool. So on Planet ButtGoo if I debunk his claim on one thread, and then I point out on a different thread that I debunked his claim, then I'm lying.
More girly tactics from Planet ButtGoo.
You haven't "debunked" anything, liar.
Stuffing words in my mouth and attacking the words YOU stuffed in my mouth is intellectually dishonest, liar. A straw man argument.
My claim that you're a liar, on the other hand, is supported by the hyperlinks I present as evidence against you, liar. As I stated up thread, the evidence to support the claim that you're a liar is clear and unambiguous, liar.
I can sit here all day and debunk your lies, liar.
I didn't lie, fool. 100% of the samples NIST tested is 100% of the samples NIST tested. You're incompetent.
The lying liar lies, "...I didn't lie, fool. 100% of the samples NIST tested is 100% of the samples NIST tested. You're incompetent."
No, you're incompetent. After all, you based your idiotic "theory" on less than 1 % of the data. That's academic FRAUD.
Furthermore, you didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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 I stated up thread, the evidence to support the claim that you're a liar is clear and unambiguous, liar.
Now continue to lie, liar, while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
snug.bug said...
“All right, Len, I give up. I will stop trying to make sense of PM's claim. It's a stooopid stooopid book, and there's no point in trying to make sense of it.”
Translation, “I was caught misquoting the book and am unable to defend my claim or my dishonesty”
“Collectively, the 1900 architects and engineers for truth are leading truthers, even if most of them stay in the background.”
Ah, no especially since only a small fraction of them have RELEVANT qualifications
“AE911Truth has 50 structural engineers, 40 high-rise architects, 40 PhD engineers, 11 Stanford engineers.”
The only relevant experts are SEs with mid or highrise expertise/experience a PhD in electrical or biomedical engineering does qualify one as an expert regarding the collapses nor does being an architect of KFCs and school gyms.
“How about you name to me one PhD SE free of professional ties to NIST who is willing to trash his professional reputation by publicly endorsing NIST's collapse sequence?”
Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Le and Seffen to name just a few. How about you name to me one PhD SE who has read the NIST report and rejects it.
UtterFool, perhaps it would clarify issues if you would articulate the "theory" that you delusionally believe I hold.
I base my fact, that NIST has no core steel samples showing heating above 480 F, on 100% of the core steel samples they tested.
Len, I didn't misquote the book. All of the AE911Truth engineers have relevant training in the laws of physics and the fundamentals of engineering--which training you apparently lack or you would recognize its relevance.
How about you name me one SE who has read the NIST report. There's no need to read the NIST report. All you need to know is that they admitted they can not explain the total collapses, and even claim they did not analyze the collapses, and they rejected their computer models of the collapses because the results were not to their liking. New investigations are necessary on that basis alone.
When did Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Le and Seffen publicly express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence?
The lying liar lies, "...perhaps it would clarify issues if you would articulate the "theory" that you delusionally [SIC]believe I hold."
How many times have I given you the link to your lies in this thread, liar? And now you demand the link?
As I stated up thread, the evidence to support the claim that you're a liar is clear and unambiguous, liar.
Now tell me you can't find the links, liar.
Idiot.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...I base my fact, that NIST has no core steel samples showing heating above 480 F, on 100% of the core steel samples they tested."
That's right, liar, continue to repeat yourself like a broken record while you utterly fail to support your argument with anything other than citing yourself as an authority.
Then again, lies can't be substantiated, so you MUST cite yourself as an authority.
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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
Cretin.
Now continue to lie, liar, while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
Well, I see Brian has been completely humiliated again, and hasn't even addressed the fact that Richard Gage managed to raise a whole $15 last week. That's just like how Brian won't even address the fact that the widows still have 273 unanswered questions. He just pretends that there are no widows.
No, he'd rather post spam about that "strutting, bragging, lying, hot sexy hunk of Latin manhood" who graces Brian's avatar photo.
snug.bug said...
”Len, I didn't misquote the book. “
Brian you are a tiring dishonest fool. You wrote:
‘it claims that the "conspiracy theorists" have no "background in engineering, construction, or related fields.’’’
But the actual quote was;
“not one of the LEADING conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields."
You omitted the word ‘leading’ to fit the quote into your strawman. ‘Debating’ you is a pointless exercise, even truthers think you’re an asshole. I’m done regarding this lie of yours.
”All of the AE911Truth engineers have relevant training in the laws of physics and the fundamentals of engineering--which training you apparently lack or you would recognize its relevance. “
Sorry Charlie chemical, biomedical and electrical engineers etc. don’t have relevant expertise this is more complex than high school physics.
”When did Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Le and Seffen publicly express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence? “
In their papers
ButtGoo, you've never given me a link to my lies on this thread--because I didn't lie. I cited 100% of the evidence. Your attempt to say I didn't cite 100% of the evidence is a lie.
Do you deny the verifiable fact that 100% of the core steel samples NIST tested show heating to less than 480 F? I doubt that even you is that stupid. Instead you must spam dishonest spin on that fact, and use it dishonestly to claim that I'm lying when I'm not. You also claim that I have a theory when I don't.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...you've never given me a link to my lies on this thread--because I didn't lie. I cited 100% of the evidence. Your attempt to say I didn't cite 100% of the evidence is a lie."
That's right, liar, look right at the links and claim I never gave you the links.
As I stated up thread, the evidence to support the claim that you're a liar is clear and unambiguous, liar.
Now lie again, liar.
The lying liar continues to lie, "...Do you deny the verifiable fact that 100% of the core steel samples NIST tested show heating to less...[blah][blah][blah]."
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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 continue to lie, liar, while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
Len, the contortions you go into to try to play "gotcha" are a real hoot!
So you think that PM inserted a word you consider important, "leading", into their sentence because they wanted to restrict the universe of "conspiracy theorists" to "leading conspiracy theorists" and thus make their sentence meaningless?
Do you think they wanted people to infer from that sentence that several hundred of those calling for new investigations who DO have relevant background are not leading truthers, or not conspiracy theorists?
Or do you think that they dishonestly wanted people to infer from that sentence that all truthers are conspiracy theorists and none of them have relevant background?
Since the rest of the book is so dishonest (starting from the first paragraph of its forward), I think the assumption of PM's dishonesty is appropriate. And apparently you agree with me, because under your interpretation, PM deliberately slipped a weasel qualification into a declarative sentence to make an impression that was not true--and was meaningless if it was true.
So what if none of the leading conspiracy theorists have engineering background? Who are the leading conspiracy theorists anyway, and who cares who they are? Who cares if none of the leading truthers have an engineering background? When they have available to them the expertise of truthers who DO have an engineering background, the point is moot.
And finally, note that by August, 2011 when the second edition was published, Richard Gage certainly was a leading truther. By then he had already made dozens or even hundreds of appearances and toured Europe, Australia, Japan, and Canada.
So by your interpretation, PM's lie was not a lie because they expect the reader to infer that Richard Gage is not a conspiracy theorist.
Where in their papers did Bazant, Zhou, Verdure, Le and Seffen publicly express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence?
Hilarious! The lying liar is absolutely hysterical.
See what happens when you live by the lie, liar?
Nah, you'll never learn, will you, Pinocchio?
You're as pathetic as you are insane.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Utterfail, what did I lie about? You make empty, irrational, faith-based claims citing yourself as an authority.
UtterFool, what you think is clear and ambiguous often ain't so. Are you in frequent communcation with spirits and angels and god?
You seem to believe that I don't understand your argument, and that if you keep repeating it, that will change. I understand your stoooopid argument just fine. It's stooooppid.
I can't base a non-existent theory on anything, fool. Please advise as to what you think my theory is.
I based my claim that NIST's core steel samples do not show heating above 480F on the fact that 100% of NIST's core steel samples do not show heating above 480F. You're trying to spin a fact so that it becomes a lie. It's a lie all right--your lie.
I didn't lie about anything. NIST is dishonestly putting a spin on its own evidence. The government investigators deliberately selected pieces of steel they wanted for their investigation.
When they tested them, they found that the core samples did not show heating above 480F. So they decided to make the dishonest claim that the pieces they collected (which did not support their theory) were not representative, implying that the pieces they didn't collect did support their theory.
So how was it that the investigators were able to collect all the wrong steel and let all the right steel go to the scrapper? Please explain. And don't claim, as Dr. Sunder did, that it was because of the rescue operations. Rescue operations were terminated after a week.
The lying liar continues to lies, "...I based my claim that NIST's core steel samples do not show heating above 480F on the fact that 100% of NIST's core steel samples do not show heating above 480F."
False. It's your "theory" idiot, because NIST didn't arrive at a conclusion, YOU ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION AND TRIED TO PASS YOUR CONCLUSION OFF AS NIST'S CONCLUSION. And the links I provide PROVE IT, LIAR.
You can play dumb and lie until you're blue in the face, liar. The links and the evidence I provide PROVE YOU'RE LYING.
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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 I stated up thread, the evidence to support the claim that you're a liar is clear and unambiguous, liar.
Now continue to lie, liar, while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
My answer will NOT change because there is no need to change the TRUTH. And your weaseling and lying will change NOTHING. Got it, liar?
Contrary to your claims, NIST did arrive at a conclusion that none of the core steel samples show heating above 480F.
What is my theory? You claim to know what it is.
I understand your claims just fine. How can I pass of my theory as NIST's theory when I don't have a theory?
You obviously are very confused and have no credibility at all. Do you get message from God very often? Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your lord and savior?
Oh, and where's you buddy Willie Rodriguez? How does it feel to get scammed by an unemployed janitor?
You keep spamming the same nonsense, based on the erroneous belief that I have a theory that you seem to object to, though what exactly this putative theory is you won't say.
Have you burned any witches lately, genius?
The lying liar continues to lie, "...Contrary to your claims, NIST did arrive at a conclusion that none of the core steel samples show heating above 480F."
That's not NIST's conclusion. it's YOUR conclusion.
This, FOR ONE THOUSANDTH GODDAMNED TIME, LIAR, is NIST's conclusion:
"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 ARRIVED AT THE EXACT CONCLUSION NIST WARNED "CANNOT BE CONSIDERED REPRESENTATIVE OF GENERAL CONDITIONS IN THE CORE." AND YOU TRIED TO PASS OFF YOUR LIE AS NIST'S CONCLUSION WHEN YOU USED THE WORDS--AND I QUOTE: "...NIST says"
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Now continue to lie, liar, while the evidence against you stares you straight in your ferret face.
NIST did NOT conclude that none of its tested core samples showed heating above 480F? Then why did its report say that none of its tested core samples showed heating above 480F?
You keep spamming their spin on it, but that doesn't change the fact. You are very confused. Sorry about that motorcycle accident. Your mama warned you. Maybe you should take up basketball. I understand that physical activity involving motor skills can help with dementia.
I never said the samples were representative of the core. I said the samples were representative of 100% of the samples.
I didn't lie, and it doesn't matter how long you stand there stamping your little pig feet--it won't make it so.
You keep spamming the same nonsense, based on the erroneous belief that I have a theory that you seem to object to, though what exactly this putative theory is you won't say.
Have you burned any witches lately, genius?
The lying liar lies, "...NIST did NOT conclude that none of its tested core samples showed heating above 480F? Then why did its report say that none of its tested core samples showed heating above 480F?"
That's not NIST's conclusion. That's your conclusion, and your conclusion IS A HALF TRUTH.
This is NIST's conclusion, 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
A lie by omission (ie., cherry picking) is still a LIE, liar.
Furthermore, there's no point in "debate" with a moron WHO DOESN'T BOTHER TO READ THE REPLIES TO HIS LIES AND BILGE.
I may as well piss into the wind as try to "debate" a LIAR and an IDIOT who doesn't bother to read the replies.
Get out of here, liar.
That's not a conclusion, that's spin. NIST's report clearly concludes that 100% of the core steel samples they tested were not heated above 480 F.
NIST's progress report of June 30, 2004 clearly says that they considered their
"236 pieces of steel" to be "adequate for purposes of determining the quality and properties of steel for the investigation."
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=860567
It was only after the results of the temperature tests were not to their liking that they decided that the samples were not representative.
You're just getting scammed right and left, aren't you UtterFool! By NIST and by an unemployed janitor both!
I said END OF "DEBATE" -- YOU GODDAMNED RETARD.
You're such a lying CRETIN that you don't bother to read the replies to your goddamned lies and propaganda.
It's no wonder that you can't be "educated." You're not interested in "truth." Hell, you won't even bother to click on the hyperlinks I provide. And I know this is true because I gave you a link to The New York STATE LIBRARY, and you replied, "You don't have a credible engineering source for your 425,000 yard figure?"
THE STATE OF NEW YORK ISN'T A "CREDIBLE SOURCE" -- YOU GODDAMNED LIAR? THE STATE OF NEW YORK, THROUGHT THE PORT AUTHORITY, APPROVED THE ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THE WORLD TRADE CENTER -- YOU GODDAMNED LIAR.
YOU'RE NOTHING BUT A GODDAMNED TROLL.
"STATE LIBRARY" should read STATE MUSEUM.
This comment has been removed by the author.
That's not a conclusion, that's spin. NIST's report clearly concludes that 100% of the core steel samples they tested were not heated above 480 F.
NIST's progress report of June 30, 2004 clearly says that they considered their "236 pieces of steel" to be "adequate for purposes of determining the quality and properties of steel for the investigation."
It went on to say "The collection of steel from the WTC towers is adequate for purposes of NIST’s investigation (i.e.,chemical, metallurgical, and mechanical property analyses as well as a substantial damage assessment and
failure mode examination) to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed following the impact of the aircraft and ensuing fires."
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=860567
It was only after the results of the temperature tests were not to their liking that they decided that the samples were not representative. For you to believe NIST's claim you have to believe that the people who collected the steel for study somehow missed the core columns that were heat-damaged, and collected only the core columns that weren't heat-damaged.
You're just getting scammed right and left, aren't you UtterFool! By NIST and by an unemployed janitor both!
I said, END OF "DEBATE," liar.
Besides, your link is broken, liar.
And if you think I'm falling for the quotes you've deliberately taken out of context, you're out of your mind, liar.
No functioning link, no cigar, liar.
FAIL
Poor baby can't find "NIST's progress report of June 30, 2004" unless somebody puts in his his squeaky little beak with an eyedropper.
In 2004 they thought their steel samples were adequate "to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed".
After the fire temp data were not to their liking, they decided that the samples were not representative.
Later of course they admitted that they could not explain the total collapses.
UtterFool, you're GulliBill!
Your quote mined nonsense doesn't prove a thing, liar.
This is NIST's conclusion, not the crap you quote mined:
"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 didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
That conclusion was made only after the temperature studies showed that their core samples were only heated to 480F.
Before that they claimed that their steel samples were adequate "to examine why and how WTC 1 and WTC 2 collapsed".
I don't have a theory, GulliBile. Why won't you state what you believe it is?
I based my fact on 100% of the steel samples that they tested.
You just go on stamping your little pig feet as if you'll be less ridiculous the fifteenth time than you were the first.
And where's your piggy friend, Willie Fraudriguez? He ran away squealing and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie.
How does it feel to get scammed by an unemployed janitor, genius?
That's right, liar, when your back is against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT TO YOUR HOMOSEXUAL OBSESSION FOR WILLIAM RODRIGUEZ.
You're nothing but a shameless liar. You just butchered another passage from the NIST Report in service to your never ending steam of lies -- you quote mining liar.
Keep reading it, liar:
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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 run from the truth, liar, but you can't hide.
And all the quote mining in the world won't save you, liar.
Where do you get the idea that I have a homosexual obsession with a saggy, jiggly old ***** like Willie?
It's not changing the subject at all, GulliBile. You believed Willie and you believe NIST. The subject is your suckerhood. It doesn't matter how much you stamp your little pig feet, you're a sucker.
NIST only decided the samples weren't representative after they found out the temperature results. Before that, they thought the samples were perfectly adequate to answer why and how the buildings came down.
Why won't you tell me what is the theory that you delusionally believe I hold?
The lying liar lies, "...NIST only decided the samples weren't representative after they found out the temperature results. Before that, they thought the samples were perfectly adequate to answer why and how the buildings came down."
False.
The opinion of a PROVEN compulsive liar isn't worth a hill of dog excrement.
This is the thuth:
You didn't base your idiotic "theory" on 100% of anything, liar. You based your idiotic "theory" on "less than one percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region" and then tried to pass off that pack of lies as "100% of the core samples." Then you tried to pass off your idiotic "theory" as NIST's theory.
Keep reading it, liar, until you get it through your thick skull:
"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
NIST's conclusion will never change, liar. And all the quote mining and misrepresentation of NIST's position in the world will NEVER save you.
You keep posting non-sequiturs, UtterFool.
Why won't you tell me what is the theory that you delusionally believe I hold?
I understand your mis-shapen and delusional point just fine. There's no need to repeat it. I've shown a dozen times that you're wrong.
Do you get your rhetorical tips from angels? Risky business. That way lies madness and you with your little pig feet are nearly there.
The lying liar lies, "...I've shown a dozen times that you're wrong."
You keep telling yourself that, liar.
In fact, I just caught you lying through your terracotta teeth again, liar.
That's 7 lies you've told in just TWO days, liar.
Yeah, and 57 Communists in the State Department, right? You haven't the intellectual competence to tell lies from truth (and you're not honest enough to do it if you did)--which is why you're GulliBile!
How's your hero buddy Willie Rodriguez? How does it feel to know you've been scammed by an unemployed janitor?
The lying liar lies, "...Yeah, and 57 Communists in the State Department, right?"
What are you babbling about now, liar?
I caught you lying about the weight of the Tower's concrete. The only component of the Towers that weighted in at 180,00 metric tons was the STRUCTURAL STEEL, not the concrete.
See? You're either a liar or an idiot who knows nothing about the construction of the World Trade Center Towers.
Take your pick, liar.
"180,00 metric tons" should read 180,000 metric tons
That's typical ButtGoo logic for you: A bicycle has two wheels, and therefore a motorcycle must have 1-1/2 wheels.
No surprise that your IT career has gone to Mumbai, eh? Poor little ButtGoo.
Maybe you could join your buddy Willie's disaster consultancy firm. Disaster should be something you're well familiar with, though it seems you have a hard time learning from anything.
What's the matter liar, trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of LieSpam, liar?
Sucks to be you, liar.
Tell us, liar, how does it feel to have ZERO credibility?
snug.bug said...
“Len, the contortions you go into to try to play "gotcha" are a real hoot!
So you think that PM inserted a word you consider important, "leading", into their sentence because they wanted to restrict the universe of "conspiracy theorists" to "leading conspiracy theorists" and thus make their sentence meaningless?”
I said wasn’t going to reply any further on this topic but the above is too stupendously stupid to go without a response. PM did NOT “insert” the word ‘leading’ you dishonestly deleted it from your misquote.
You’re dishonest and an ass which is why even in the truth movement you are an outcast, I asked you numerous times to name a single truther who respects you and you always refused to reply, no one following this has any doubts as to why.
This comment has been removed by the author.
PM didn't insert the adjective "leading"? Then how did it get there? Did you put it there?
Why did they use the word at all? Did they want to imply that obscure conspiracy theorists did have engineering background? Besides, it was still a lie in 2011 when the second edition was published, because Richard Gage was certainly a leading 9/11 activist. So did they mean the reader to infer that Gage was not a conspiracy theorist?
You're just trying desperately to play "gotcha" and failing miserably. And the PM book is still a joke, right from the irrational and untrue first pargraph of its silly introduction by James Meiggs.
I mean, Jeez. Did he take one too many turns on a ride-em mower, or what?
What's the matter, liar, are you still whining because I caught you lying about the weight of the Tower's concrete? The only component of the Towers that weighed in at 180,000 metric tons was the STRUCTURAL STEEL, not the concrete.
Why do constantly lie, liar?
The lying liar lies, "...PM didn't insert the adjective...[blah][blah][blah]."
Can't you see that Len doesn't want to discuss the issue with you, liar?
After all, who wants to "debate" a PROVEN compulsive liar?
You didn't catch me lying about anything, UtterFool.
Is aggressive attitude the only cover you can mount for your inability to support your claim that 424,000 tons of concrete as pulverized? What pulverized the extra 242,000 tons, UtterFool? Why can't you explain it?
Maybe you should consult your pet hero for some lifeline advice?
The insane liar lies, "...Is aggressive attitude the only cover you can mount for your inability to support your claim that 424,000 tons of concrete as pulverized?"
Wrong thread again, liar. That's three times in one day that you've posted your reply to the wrong thread...
tick...
tick...
tick...
t - 10 seconds and counting
t - 9 seconds and counting
t - 8 seconds and counting
t - 7 seconds and counting
t - 6 seconds and counting
t - 5 seconds and counting
t - 4 seconds and counting
t - 3 seconds and counting
t - 2 seconds and counting
t - 1 second and counting
MELTDOWN!!!
So when do you plan to call me a girl? Oh that's right, you already did that in the other thread...
LOL!
Liar
What is this thing about "the wrong thread"? Are you flipping, trying to project your non sequiturs on me?
Your analysis of the 1% issue with NIST is incompetent. I refered to 100% of the steel sample that NIST tested.
You're just trying to cover your humiliation over in spam, as usual.
And how does it feel to be scammed by an unemployed janitor, genius?
Yawn...anyone can see you're a liar.
Bravado and bullshit are no substitute for facts, liar.
In your dreams. Saying it doesn't make it so, fool.
The lying liar lies, "...In your dreams. Saying it doesn't make it so, fool."
The following links prove you're a liar, liar. E.g.,
Nah, you didn't lie about the concrete, did you, liar?
And you wouldn't lie and claim I said "all" and THEN UTTERLY FAIL TO PRODUCE A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR BALD FACED LIE, would you, liar?
"...When you said '424,000 tons' you said 'all the 424,000 tons'." -- snug.bug, lying his ass off in James B.'s "Happy Birthday To Us" thread at time stamp 05 May, 2013 14:38.
Would you like me to continue, liar?
Insane and a compulsive liar. What a charming combination.
Now lie, and claim the links prove nothing. Right, liar?
Brian,
I suggest you look up the meaning of the word - insert.
Don't encourage him, Len. The last time someone said "insert" to Brian...well, let's just say SF's Castro District is still recovering from the crime spree.
Gratuitous and meaningless and misleading adjectives are almost always inserted, Len.
At least Brian is finally admitting that he's an unemployed janitor. It explains why he can spend all day on a weekday posting dumbspam on this blog. Other people have jobs.
And the fact that Brian has no friends or family explains why he can post dumbspam all night at this blog. Other people have loved ones to spend time with.
UtterFail, you just keep repeating the same silly and erroneous claims as if repetition could make them true when they're not. You're just demonstrating your stoooooopidity, dudie.
Hey where's your buddy Willie Fraudriguez? He ran away screaming and crying after I exposed him for a lying con artist.
Ian muppet-nads, Willie is the unemployed janitor. Too bad you're not smart enough to figure stuff out. I didn't scam anybody.
The lying liar lies, "...you just keep repeating...[blah][blah][blah]."
Translation from homosexual LieSpeak: My lies can't be substantiated, so I'm reduced to babbling incoherently. If that idiotic tactic fails (they all fail), I'll resort to screeching, hysterical 100% fact-free non-denial denials. Pathetic, but in my diseased mind, effective.
You don't just keep repeating the same nonsense?
You don't know what a lie is. I bet that's because you were never taught anything but "truth". You had faith-based instruction when you were young, and vocational instruction when you're older. No critical thinking.
I mean, when they teach you "Here's how COBOL works" that's the absolute truth, right? No need to think, just absorb and regurgitate.
Poor guy, it's not my fault that your intellectual development ceased at the third-grade level.
Translation from homosexual LieSpeak: My lies can't be substantiated, so I'm reduced to smear tactics, innuendo and, of course, babbling incoherently. Since I can't actually prove anything without resorting to lies and deliberate deception, I'll continue to resort to screeching, hysterical 100% fact-free non-denial denials. Pathetic, but in my diseased mind, effective.
Poor Brian. He's humiliated because he admitted to being an unemployed janitor. He also admitted to being petgoat, and to failing out of San Jose State, and he squeals just as hysterically when you remind him of this too.
Brian also told us "there are no widows", which shows just how sick he is.
The lying liar lies, "...You don't know what a lie is. I bet that's because you were never taught anything but "truth". You had faith-based instruction when you were young, and vocational instruction when you're older. No critical thinking."
Yeah, that's why I do the calculations and you STONEWALL and fall flat on your face when challenged to substantiate your idiotic assertions, liar.
As always, I provide the links to substantiate my argument, and you offer nothing more than your 100% fact-free LieSpam.
FAIL
UtterFail, I'm not smearing anything. You are, with your links that don't prove what you claim.
Lian, you lie and lie and lie.
The two of you have driven serious posters away and made a joke of this site.
Also, UtterFail, when did you become an expert in homosexual lie-speak? Is that something you learned from authority figures when you were young?
Such expertise is a very peculiar thing to claim.
That's right, liar, squeal, spew another non-denial denial and utterly fail to provide evidence to support your idiotic argument.
By the way -- you liver-spotted liar -- is it not time for old faggots to go to bed? After all, lying 24x7x365 requires rest. Right, liar?
Hysterical, aren't you, liar? That's why you're up at 1:00 PM pounding < cntrl - F5 > on your semen-encrusted keyboard like a monkey hooked on methamphetamine. Right, liar?
I'll bet you sat there, with your thumb up your infected ass, for the last 3 hours pounding < cntl - F5 > all night waiting for me to reply to your lies and nonsense, didn't you -- you paranoid liar? Your desperation is palpable, liar.
You are truly pathetic, liar.
If you would provide an argument instead of a link that does not prove what you say it proves, then I could defeat your argument, fool.
I can't defeat an argument that's not an argument. Nobody can.
All you have is squirted ButtGale.
See what I mean?
You're hysterical.
UtterFail, I'm not smearing anything. You are, with your links that don't prove what you claim.
Lian, you lie and lie and lie.
The two of you have driven serious posters away and made a joke of this site.
My, such squealing!
Poor Brian. He's a mentally ill unemployed janitor who has no friends and lives with his parents. He was banned from the truth movement for being a sex stalker and a liar. All he has left to do with his worthless life is post spam on this blog.
And thus, I will continue to humiliate him until he finally runs away squealing and crying from me, much as he ran away squealing and crying from Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke.
Also, Brian claimed that there are no widows, when rational people know the widows have 273 unanswered questions.
Why do you mock the widows' pain, Brian? What's wrong with you?
Brian I can see why most commenters here mercissly insult you, trying to discuss things with you in a more intelligent manner is futile.
But still waiting for you name a single truther who respects you, why can't you even name one name?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jets of moist ButtGale are not intelligent discussions, Len.
Your belief that my refusal to identify my friends to a gang of anonymous internet posters means I can't identify any friends shows your essential irrationality and thus the uselessness of putting time into discussion with you.
I don't try to have discussions here. All I do is counter obvious lies.
Speaking of obvious lies, how come none of you nimrods were able to see through the blatant fraudulence of Willie Rodriguez's story? Or were you just pretending, for rhetorical purposes, that you couldn't?
Stupid or dishonest? Or both?
The lying liar lies, All I do is counter obvious lies."
False.
All you do is spew specious non denial denials. And they're as unconvincing as everything else you scribble to this blog.
Your hysteria gives you away, liar.
"...The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- William Shakespeare.
The hysteria is yours. I'm not the one spritzing ButtGale all over the place.
How come you weren't able to see through the blatant fraudulence of Willie Rodriguez's story?
Right, that's why you sat up all night with your thumb up your ass pounding the < cntrl-F5 > key for three hours+ in order to reply to me with more of your 100% fact-free non denial denials.
Your desperation is palpable, liar.
Your belief, based on no evidence whatsoever, that I was up all night is just more typical ButtGalery.
A real poot-hoot.
The lying liar lies, "...Your belief, based on no evidence whatsoever, that I was up all night is just more typical ButtGalery"
I have plenty of evidence, liar.
My last post to this thread, before going to dinner, was at 06 May, 2013 18:53.
My next reply to your lies was almost 6 hrs later at 07 May, 2013 00:40.
You replied to my post at time stamp 07 May, 2013 00:40 at 07 May, 2013 00:41.
THAT'S ONE MINUTE OR LESS BETWEEN MY POST AT TIME STAMP 07 May, 2013 00:40 AND YOUR REPLY.
ONE MINUTE.
That's right, ONE MINUTE.
AND THE LINKS I PROVIDE PROVE MY POINT.
Your desperation is palpable, liar.
Now deny the obvious, weasel, and spew another stream of specious non denial denials.
Bwa-HA-HA-HA! A lot of what's obvious to you just ain't so.
Last night I posted at 00:39 in the "Happy Birthday" thread a response to your post made almost 6 hours before.
Then I came to this thread and responded to your post of 00:40 at 00:41.
So I guess on Planet ButtGoo, after sitting here all evening waiting for you to post I pre-emptively posted at 00:39, knowing you were going to post at 00:40.
You're so full of goo you can't even see.
And how does it feel to have been scammed by the unemployed janitor Willie R., eh genius?
Was it as good for you as it was for him?
The lying liar lies, "...Last night I posted at 00:39 in the "Happy Birthday" thread a response to your post made almost 6 hours before...Then I came to this thread and responded to your post of 00:40 at 00:41."
That nonsense proves nothing. In fact, it proves my point, liar.
You were lording over the blog's comment section trying to salvage what's left of your non-existent "credibility" while pounding < cntl-F5 > and desperately waiting for me to reply to your lies.
Unlike you, the time stamps don't lie:
My last post to this thread, before going to dinner, was at 06 May, 2013 18:53.
My next reply to your lies was almost 6 hrs later at 07 May, 2013 00:40.
You replied to my post at time stamp 07 May, 2013 00:40 at 07 May, 2013 00:41.
THAT'S ONE MINUTE OR LESS BETWEEN MY POST AT TIME STAMP 07 May, 2013 00:40 AND YOUR REPLY.
ONE MINUTE.
That's right, ONE MINUTE.
AND THE LINKS I PROVIDE PROVE MY POINT.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Your desperation is palpable, liar.
You don't know proof when it pokes your eye, fool.
My post at 00:39 shows that I was here in the other thread BEFORE you made your post at 00:40. Thus my response at 00:41 to your 00:40 post was just coincidence. There's no evidence that I was sitting there waiting for six hours for you to post.
Your repeated demonstrations of irrationality go a long way to explain why you're so confused about 9/11. You're a very silly person. Have you considered taking up tatting? Everybody's good for something, and clearly you just haven't found your niche yet.
And how does it feel to get scammed by the unemployed janitor William Rodriguez? Was it as good for you as it was for him?
The lying liar lies, "...My post at 00:39 shows that I was here in the other thread BEFORE you made your post at 00:40. Thus my response at 00:41 to your 00:40 post was just coincidence."
That doesn't prove "coincidence," either, liar.
You were lording over the blog's comment section trying to salvage what's left of your non-existent "credibility."
You're so desperate to salvage your non-existent "credibility" that you won't leave the blog's comment section FOR ONE WAKING SECOND. In fact, you lord over the blog's comment section 24x7x365.
As I wrote up thread, unlike you, time stamps don't lie:
My last post to this thread, before going to dinner, was at 06 May, 2013 18:53.
My next reply to your lies was almost 6 hrs later at 07 May, 2013 00:40.
You replied to my post at time stamp 07 May, 2013 00:40 at 07 May, 2013 00:41.
THAT'S ONE MINUTE OR LESS BETWEEN MY POST AT TIME STAMP 07 May, 2013 00:40 AND YOUR REPLY.
ONE MINUTE.
That's right, ONE MINUTE.
AND THE LINKS I PROVIDE PROVE MY POINT.
Your desperation is palpable, liar.
If you're lying it's a really dumb lie because it makes you look stupid. So maybe you're just too dumb to lie.
So on Planet ButtGoo, though I was sitting here for 6 hours f5ing and f5ing and waiting for a chance to respond, I let your post sit unresponded to for six hours while I was desperately waiting for something to respond to.
Real shrewd theory, dud!
You're embarrassing yourself. You really ought to find something you can do.
Also, how does it feel to get scammed by the unemployed janitor William Rodriguez? Was it as good for you as it was for him?
Yeah, it's a "coincidence" that you lord over the blog 24x7x365.
It's also a "coincidence" that, after I left the board for six hours, you respond to my post IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, in less than 1 MINUTE.
Yeah, that's a "coincidence."
And I'm the Easter Bunny.
My last post to this thread, before going to dinner, was at 06 May, 2013 18:53.
My next reply to your lies was almost 6 hrs later at 07 May, 2013 00:40.
You replied to my post at time stamp 07 May, 2013 00:40 at 07 May, 2013 00:41.
THAT'S ONE MINUTE OR LESS BETWEEN MY POST AT TIME STAMP 07 May, 2013 00:40 AND YOUR REPLY.
ONE MINUTE.
That's right, ONE MINUTE.
AND THE LINKS I PROVIDE PROVE MY POINT.
Your desperation is palpable, liar.
Dud, you get all hung up on the wrong thing!
You're like some clown repeating "But I gave you a nickle! I GAVE you a nickle!" and the other guy says "But you owe me five DOLLARS!"
It doesn't matter how loing you keep yammering about the nickle.
You're wacked. I warned you that tolerating Ian's nonsense would degrade your grasp on reality.
Yeah, I'm whacked.
This coming from the obsessive liar who lords of the blog 24x7x365.
Yeah, it's a "coincidence" that you lord over the blog 24x7x365.
It's also a "coincidence" that, after I left the board for six hours, you respond to my post IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT, in less than 1 MINUTE.
Yeah, that's a "coincidence."
You're a liar, as the time stamps prove:
My last post to this thread, before going to dinner, was at 06 May, 2013 18:53.
My next reply to your lies was almost 6 hrs later at 07 May, 2013 00:40.
You replied to my post at time stamp 07 May, 2013 00:40 at 07 May, 2013 00:41.
THAT'S ONE MINUTE OR LESS BETWEEN MY POST AT TIME STAMP 07 May, 2013 00:40 AND YOUR REPLY.
ONE MINUTE.
That's right, ONE MINUTE.
AND THE LINKS I PROVIDE PROVE MY POINT.
Your desperation is palpable, liar.
But I gave you a nickle!
I gave you a nickle!
I gave you a nickle!
I gave you a nickle!
I gave you a nickle!
You are just totally wacked, Dud.
Since I did not respond to your 18:53 post until 0:39, obviously I wasn't there until 0:38 or so. Then I went to the other thread and responded to your 0:40 at 0:41.
I was there for all of three minutes, and you think you've got proof that I was there all night.
Your incompetence and irrationality show clearly why you're so confused about 9/11 and so angry and unemployable.
Now stand there stamping your little pig feet anmd squealing "But I gave you a nickle! I gave you a nickle! I gave you a nickle! I gave you a nickle! I gave you a nickle!"
Related to GB's point I too have noticed that Brian often replies to me in minutes it's worth noting that of the 152 posts in this thread (153 with this one) Brian made 67 i.e. 44%
"Related to GB's point I too have noticed that Brian often replies to me in minutes it's worth noting that of the 152 posts in this thread (153 with this one) Brian made 67 i.e. 44%"
He's a lonely, lonely man.
"...Can you say 'widely hated homosexual outcast,' children? I knew you could." -- Mister Rogers
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'm on the net anyway, and it doesn't take long to stop in now and then and slap down the lies you clowns post.
I forgot to count the 6 posts he deleted so he'd made 73 of 152 posts or 48%. LOL it seems 'Lonely Boy' just happens to be on the Net 24/7
If you guys spent half as much time studying 9/11 as you spend studying me, you might not be so confused about the day that changed the world.
I keep the computer on when I'm watching TV and when the commercials are on I stop by to check my emails and see what's shaking.
You guys are very quick to jump to unjustified conclusions.
Brian it only takes a minute to count your posts with Chrome. Perhaps if your weren't monitoring this blog 24/7 you'd understand not only 9/11 but the world a little better.
What better way to understand 9/11 than by carefully monitoring all the cutting-edge debunking going on here, and learning at the knee of all you expert scientists and researchers, Len?
"If you guys spent half as much time studying 9/11 as you spend studying me, you might not be so confused about the day that changed the world."
Oh, you mean like all of the weeks and months you've spent in NYC and DC conducting interviews, filing FOIA petitions for important documents,constructing computer & physical models, running experiments, reviewing data, submitting data for academic review, traveling to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, Pakistan, and Afhanistan, and flight simulator time?
That kind of research?
Because if you haven't done at least five of those things you're just an internet hack, and you sure as fuck have not done any "research".
This comment has been removed by the author.
I don't need to go to NYC to conduct interviews, MGF. I need only read the oral histories from the first responders--the ones the NYT had to sue so we could read them. I've read 2/3 of them and need to read the rest.
How many of them have you read, Mr. debunker expert scientist and researcher?.
Also0, MGF, why don't you conduct your own independent research on Willie Rodriguez? How about you verify his claims of 15 single-handed rescues, for starters, before you tackle "This key saved hundreds of lives"?
Why doesn't Kevin Barrett and Willie Rodriguez just get it done and over with and sue Brian?
He'd have no money for the internet and he wouldn't be able to do anything for quite some time.
They don't sue me because truth is a defense against charges of libel. I can prove that Barrett is a liar and a bigot, and I can prove that Willie Jigglecheeks's hero story is a lie, and they know it. The court case would only bring publicity to the facts, and they don't want that.
Brave words for someone who continues to avoid our offer to debate Willie live on our site.
Gawd, I wonder sometimes how old you guys are.... You sound like little children having tantrums.
@Guitar Bill. Snug Bug is right about the 100% of the samples NIST had tested, but that 100% was less than 1% percent of the core columns located in the fire-exposed region.
lets make it clear with an example. Say there were 300 core columns located in the fire-exposed region, and only 2 were recovered for testing. Those 2 didn't show any signs off being heated to over 480 degrees(So 100% off the samples NIST had), but since we don't know how hot the other 298 columns got in the fire, the results were useless.
Just because Snug Bug might be an idiot truther, it doesn't mean he is always lying.
Brave words for someone who continues to avoid our offer to debate Willie live on our site.
-Pathos Whorely
and cowardly words from Torchboy the stundiebunker who can't seem to back up any of his idiotic claims. Why don't you start by telling us exactly what's 'pathetic' about the AE911 evidence, Pat?
Or will you run away again?
Here's an idea: call them 'kooks'. That will defeat them AND solidify your credibility with scientists. No really.
Pat, here I am; here Willie is not. I have debated him on this site. I proved that his claims of hundreds saved are a lie. I showed that he appropriated the rescue story of the true (and deceased) hero Pablo Ortiz. I showed that Der Spiegel characterized his schtick as one of trying to pass off a $1 bill as a $20 bill.
He ran away squealing and crying and he hasn't been back since. I debated him. I kicked his jiggly ass so bad I lost my shoe in the pulp. I have irrefutably proven that he is a con artist--which is why he has been afraid to show his fat face in the Bay Area since 2007.
Jay, thanks for some objective analysis. You are pointing out clearly the distinction that ButtGale incompetently or dishonestly (or both) attempted to obscure to give the false impression that his stinky attitudes had some substance.
There's a second level of analysis, though. In citing the FACT that 100% of the core steel samples NIST tested for temperature exposure did not show heating sufficient to weaken them, my purpose was NOT, as ButtGale claims, to try to claim that fire did not weaken the tower's steel. My purpose was to show that NIST's theory was not supported by physical evidence.
ButtGale's kneejerk reactionary pootery only shows him to be irrational and dishonest.
Why don't you start by telling us exactly what's 'pathetic' about the AE911 evidence, Pat?
AE911Truth's evidence is facially absurd. No explanation or source is required. Still waiting for somebody to persuasively argue its validity.
Would you care to be more specific about exactly what evidence you think is absurd and why you think it's absurd?
Would you care to be more specific about exactly what evidence you think is absurd and why you think it's absurd?
That would be like denying fairies to a person who believes in fairies. I cannot make you see something that your mind cannot grasp.
A normally-functioning adult recognizes AE911Truth's evidence as absurd. That's why AE911Truth lacks credibility.
Run, torchboy! RUUUN!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
In what way would providing specifics to support your opinion be like denying fairies? Do you know any PhD engineers who believe in fairies?
All you've done is repeat and amplify your opinion which, without specific substantiation, is meaningless.
What exactly is absurd about AE911Truth's evidence? So are you claiming that the 1900 architects and engineers for truth are subnormally-functioning? Do you have any actual evidence to support this opinion?
In what way would providing specifics to support your opinion be like denying fairies?
I already told you. A faith-based belief, even an absurd one, is immune to factual specifics. And you already know the facts. You simply have little skill at discerning absurd from plausible.
So are you claiming that the 1900 architects and engineers for truth are subnormally-functioning?
They exercise abnormal judgment. An absurd belief remains absurd, regardless of believer credentials or numbers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Where do you get the idea that the 40 PhD engineers for truth and the 50 structural engineers for truth have a faith-based belief in anything?
What is absurd about the evidence?
What is absurd about the engineers' belief that the official reports are inadequate?
Do you consider a report adequate when NIST admits they did not explain the total collapses and for which NIST claims they did no analysis of the collapses?
Where do you get the idea that the 40 PhD engineers for truth and the 50 structural engineers for truth have a faith-based belief in anything?
From reading their AE911Truth statements. They tend to conclude that intentional demolition occurred, despite superior evidence to the contrary.
Your failure to perceive absurdity leaves us at an impasse. One either sees the absurdity of the controlled demolition hypothesis or one doesn't, and you apparently don't.
RGT, I don't believe that you read 90 AE911Truth statements.
I read the first eight of the 40 PhD engineers: Mojahid, Keller, Singh, Oskoorvouchi, Carr, Hoffman, Schaefer, Kolev.
Dr. Mojahid seems to believe it was controlled demolition.
Dr. Keller believes WTC7 was blown up; he doesn't say about the towers.
Dr. Singh says nothing about controlled demolition.
Dr. Oskoorvouchi says nothing about controlled demolition.
Dr. Carr says nothing about controlled demolition.
Dr. Hoffman concludes only that "the official explanation fails to explain the events of 9/11."
Dr. Schaeffer says nothing about controlled demolition.
Dr. Kolev says nothing about controlled demolition.
So out of 8 I get 5 who say nothing about controlled demolition, 2 who seem to believe at least one building was controlled demolition, and 1 who makes no conclusion but seems to believe explosive nanothermite was found in the dust.
That's hardly a case where they "tend to conclude that intentional demolition occurred".
What exactly is absurd about the controlled demolition hypothesis? I'm by no means convinced by it, but what's absurd about it?
Do you consider a report adequate when NIST admits they did not explain the total collapses and for which NIST claims they did no analysis of the collapses?
Oh, and where's your buddy Willie Fraudriguez? He ran away squealing and crying after I showed that his hero story was a lie.
How does it feel to get scammed by an unemployed janitor?
@Snug.bug
Yes, NIST did an adequate job. You do realize that trying to model the total collapse is impossible right? You have millions of factors to consider in your model. You need to know where evey nut, bolt, desk, chairs, whatever else is situated inside the building to get a perfect match as to what happened. Everything can affect the way it collapses. And if it doesn't collapse exactly the way it is shown in reallity, you truthers are gonna complain again, as can be seen by the way truthers reacted to the way NIST tied to get a decent model of the collapse of WTC7.
So yes they did an adequate job.
Brian, you are a failed janitor. Do you really think you are in a position to criticize the engineers who did the NIST reports, which you cannot understand?
Do you really think you're in the position to criticize the engineers who criticize the NIST reports, tubbybunker?
How does their refusal to disclose their model inputs fit with your impression of the scientific method, Patty?
When you said 'any book has mistakes', where do you think the mistakes are in the NIST reports, stundiebunky?
You and James are mumbling, stumbling, cowardly idiots, Pat. I just wish that you didn't confirm that with everything you post. Try and prove me wrong for once. ...and don't forget your sources, "researcher".
Jay, if modeling the total collapse is impossible, then why did NIST try?
And even if it WAS impossible in 2005, what makes you think it's impossible in 2013?
By 2020, every engineering school in the world will have the computer power to model the collapse. No need for a "perfect match". That's just willful know-nothingism.
Pat, where do you get the idea that I'm a failed janitor? I warned all of you that your tolerance of Ian's blatant lies was going to degrade your mental powers.
I worked as a part-time janitor for a while when I was in college. It was a good opportunity. The pay was impressive and once I'd done the deep cleaning the maintenance was pretty minimal--keep fresh toilet rolls and paper towels in the bathroom, pick up the paper clips and three-hole punch scraps off the rug, water the ferns, and I was done in less than an hour.
I can criticize the NIST reports because they are incomplete and failed to fulfill their number one objective of explaining "why and how" the buildings collapsed. Catherine Fletcher admitted that they can not explain the total collapses, and she even claims (I think she's lying) that they did not analyze the collapses.
Their failed computer models show that they tried to analyze the collapses, and they did not get the results that they wanted.
What exactly is absurd about the controlled demolition hypothesis?
The magical properties of the supposed destructive material and the magical secrecy still surrounding the supposed operation, for starters. These ideas rely on pseudoskepticism and pseudoscience. The general public is remarkably good at recognizing bullshit, which is why 9/11 Truth fails to take hold.
You and James are mumbling, stumbling, cowardly idiots, Pat.
Are you going to John-Michael's wedding, Cowardly? I already sent a low-calorie cookbook for the bride. Still trying to score some methadone for the groom's mother.
@Sbug.Bug.
They tried to model it to shut truthers up, but they failed in that respect. And because it isn't a perfect match, truthers are still crying wolf Snug Bug.......... There are video's on Youtube comparing the actual collapse with the NIST video. So it has to be perfect, else truthers won't believe it.
And NIST did exactly what was asked of them. According to the National Construction Safety Team Act :
"(2) DUTIES.—A Team shall—
(A) establish the likely technical cause or causes of the building failure;"
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/upload/hr46871.pdf
You see, it doesn't mention that they have to research the complete collapse.
Its like researching a Plane crash. They don't need to research the way the plane behaved while it was crashing(Same as with the buildings, they needed to know how the collapse initiated, not how it went down in the end), they only need to research how it crashed.
@Sbug.Bug.
Why don't you ask AE911, if they can model the collapse of WTC7. They have loads of information, but they aren't doing anything with it.
They received ANSYS data.
http://cryptome.org/wtc-nist-wtc7-no.pdf
They received drawings.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/611-wtc-7-blueprints-exposed-via-foia-request.html
They got more engineers in their club, than the number of engineers working on the WTC collapse at NIST, so it shouldn't be a problem for AE911 to get a decent research going on.
So why don't you go over there and ask them why they aren't using all that data they got to get a new independent research going on. That's what they have been asking for years after all.
RGT, what is magical about the destructive powers of thermite? They are very well demonstrated in the 5-minute Youtube "Incendiary Experiments".
What is magical about a demolitions op on the four vacant floors of WTC7 -- 14,15,16, and 17?
What is magical about a demolitions op in the 15 miles of elevator shafts in the WTC?
Well, I took a sick day from work, which means I have the opportunity to humiliate Brian today.
FACT: On November 8th, 2012 at 7:18, Brian wrote: "There are no questions! There are no widows! Brian dresses funny!"
Now, while it is true that Brian wears women's underwear and his wardrobe is stolen from the dumpster at Goodwill, his disgusting claims that there are no widows or questions just demonstrate his irrational depravity.
Also, remember that Brian has no job, and was banned from every truther site for being a liar and lunatic and sex predator, which is why he's constantly at this blog. It's the only place where his spam is still accepted.
@Snug.Bug.
What are you saying Snug Bug? Didnt they have to blow up every floor to get the building to collapse?
And about the WTC towers. The cores from both buildings survived longer than the rest during the collapse. There were also survivors rescued from the cores after the buildings had collapsed. They never mention explosives going off. Care to explain that away?
Oh woopee, skidmark's back--giving Pat and RGT a chance to reflect on the warnings I gave them years ago that the cognitive dissonance involved in tolerating his blatant lies (not to mention those of Willie R) would degrade their intellectual capacities.
Post a Comment
<< Home