Wednesday, May 01, 2013

Happy Birthday To Us

It was 7 years ago today when Pat made the first post here on our humble blog.  I never thought it would go on this far, but it has been interesting.  Who knows how long we will keep it up, as the Truthers have been pretty uneventful lately, and barring some sudden change in their fortunes will most likely continue to be. Who knows?  Maybe Larry Silverstein will peel off his mask and reveal himself to be Dick Cheney or something?  You never know...

169 Comments:

At 01 May, 2013 22:55, Blogger Pat said...

Has it only been seven years? Seems like forever!

 
At 02 May, 2013 06:22, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

That's because you spend all your time running away from meaningful questions, Pat. Of course it seems like forever to you and your fellow stundiebunkers.

 
At 02 May, 2013 07:59, Blogger mother said...

happy birthday

 
At 02 May, 2013 09:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Cool, we're throwing a party at the Debunker HQ on our new redwood deck and bar-b-q. Then when the sun goes down we'll light thermite and have our holographic 767s dogfight.

Party.

 
At 02 May, 2013 10:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

While you're reminiscing:

"The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation." -Pat Curley

What's your source for this "explanation", Curley?

woop woop woop woop!

 
At 02 May, 2013 10:42, Blogger James B. said...

Sorry, can't make the BBQ. Too busy setting up patsies and infiltrating Ae 911 truth. Can't believe it was so easy getting the keys to Richard Gage's office.

 
At 02 May, 2013 14:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

A sincere "thank you" to Pat and James for their continued work on this blog. The 9/11 Truth Movement is less a political movement and more a religious cult these days. But even though it's in decline, that doesn't mean it should go unchallenged.

 
At 02 May, 2013 14:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Cool, we're throwing a party at the Debunker HQ on our new redwood deck and bar-b-q.

Better bring a bag of weed in case some Truthers show up. And get your jacuzzi session in beforehand. Those guys shower like once a week.

 
At 02 May, 2013 23:31, Blogger Exu said...

Brilliant blog guys. Keep it up.

 
At 03 May, 2013 12:59, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Yeah guys, keep it up: your pathetic, stumbling stundiebunking is proof that there's a lot more to 9/11 than we've been told.

All your feigned ignorance and pseudoskepticism does nothing to refute that. Congrats on 7 years of proving that the truth movement has legitimate questions.

 
At 03 May, 2013 15:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ali the Arab child molester lies, "...All your feigned ignorance and pseudoskepticism [SIC] does nothing to refute that. Congrats on 7 years of proving that the truth movement has legitimate questions."

Still trying to pass off your loaded questions as "evidence," liar?

Should we expect less from a lying, Holocaust denying, Jew hating, radical "muslim" pederast who operates out of the east London mosque? 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!

 
At 03 May, 2013 19:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Still trying to pass off your loaded questions as "evidence," liar?

I dunno, man... they got Barry Mead on their team now. Talk about a game changer.

 
At 03 May, 2013 19:43, Blogger Len said...

WTF is Barry Mead?

 
At 04 May, 2013 07:57, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Funny how the Twoofers say they'r fighting for the 9/11 Families and yet those retards always manage to yell obscenities at them evdery 9/11 Anniversary.

Watch this coming Anniversary when the Twoofers submit proof yet again on YouTube that they just yell obscenities at the Families.

 
At 04 May, 2013 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 May, 2013 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

TAW, any idiot can dress up in a 9/11 T-Shirt and go out and yell at the families, and if he's an idiot like you or Ian, he probably thinks it's clever to do so.

Speaking of obscenity and the families, where's your pet hero, Old Jigglecheeks? He stole his glory from dead heroes and goes around begging for money with a fraudulent story.

 
At 04 May, 2013 11:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...any idiot can dress up in a 9/11 T-Shirt and go out and yell at the families, and if he's an idiot...[blah][blah][blah]."

That's right, liar, don't compose a sincere reply to TAW, resort to baseless smears and innuendo, and, in the process, puke out another variation of the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy.

Should we expect anything less than smears, lies and logical fallacies 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!

 
At 04 May, 2013 11:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I self-critique constantly, RGT. That's why I'm never wrong." -- snug.bug

Arrogant, dishonest to the core and a droolin' cretin. What a charming combination.

**********

Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

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

Somebody should formulate a "misapplication of fallacy fallacy", because I see such stupidity from you frequently.

When I say "I don't believe you because you won't back up your claims" that's not an argument from incredulity.

When I slam your pet hero Willie Rodriguez as a lying con artist that's not an ad hominem attack.

When I cite an expert, that is a fallacious argument from authority only if the expert is wrong.

When anonymous personages engage in behavior that discredits the truth movement and have no known affiliation with the truth, to associate those personages with the truth movement is illegitimate.

I do self-critique constantly. I can't remember a time you have ever shown me to be wrong. I've shown you to be wrong many many times.

You still can't tell us why the NRDC's estimate of 424,000 tons of concrete pulverized is absurd. That's because you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.















 
At 04 May, 2013 11:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and where's your pet hero, Old Jigglecheeks? He ran away screaming and crying after I showed that he stole his glory from dead heroes and goes around begging for money with a fraudulent story.

He hasn't been back.

 
At 04 May, 2013 11:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You still can't tell us why the NRDC's estimate of 424,000 tons of concrete pulverized is absurd. That's because you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC."

That's right, liar, when your back is against the wall, make the same, tired old false claims you've made over-and-over again.

The World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 780,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).

See? I'm a real engineer with a real education. You, on the other hand, are a PROVEN compulsive liar and a science illiterate jerkoff who doesn't understand high school-level concepts like ΔT.

And notice your futile attempts to change the subject to your homosexual infatuation for William Rodriguez. Your desperation is palpable, liar. Do you honestly think you're fooling anyone with this nonsense, 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!

 
At 04 May, 2013 12:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

WTF is Barry Mead?

He has redefined the 9/11 Truth Movement with his razor-sharp commentary on the important questions. His insight and pristine reasoning will tip the planet. I am being deadly serious.

 
At 04 May, 2013 13:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

There you go again trying to confuse the issue to cover up your mistakes and your ignorance.

On March 19, 2011 at 13:44 you wrote

"The Natural Resources Defense Council wrote, '...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th.' -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

"In addition, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that 424,000 tons of concrete was 'destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan.'"

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/03/it-may-be-hug-truther-week.html

You challenged me to disprove it, maybe because maybe that figure was the basis for your estimate that there were 56,000 tons of iron microspheres in the concrete. Just what your point was is difficult to determine because of your aggressive data-spamming of the thread.

In any case, yes, you did claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized, and yes, you still haven't a clue as to why that estimate is absurd--because you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

 
At 04 May, 2013 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and where's your fraudulent buddy Willie R? he ran away screaming and crying after I exposed him as a con artist. Where did he go?

 
At 04 May, 2013 13:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yawn.

That's right, liar, make 100% fact-free assertions and proceed to provide not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate your idiotic argument.

As always, I do the math and provide the facts, and you cite yourself as an authority while you utterly fail to substantiate your argument.

Who do you think you're foolin' liar?

Oh that's right! You're trying to change the subject and divert attention away from your latest humiliating defeat wherein I proved beyond a doubt that you're -- in the words of your fellow troofer, "Snowcrash" -- a "shameless liar."

I guess that's the way it goes when you're a science-illiterate moron and a shameless liar.

Right, liar?

**********

Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

 
At 04 May, 2013 13:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...you still haven't a clue as to why"

I know for a fact that you don't debate. You hurl logical fallacies and lies in an effort to reduce the "debate" to explaining what I did NOT say.

But that's hardly surprising because as a proven compulsive liar, you lie first, last and always.

**********

Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 04 May, 2013 13:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Len wrote, "...WTF is Barry Mead?"

One of Brian Good's (aka., "snug.bug") sock puppets.

**********

Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 04 May, 2013 14:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

None of your desperate red-herring math is necessary, ButtGale. Your ignorance of the reason that your claim is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero only shows that you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

Where's your pet hero, Wizzie LiedRugAs?

 
At 04 May, 2013 14:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More empty, 100% fact-free blather, liar?

Get back to me when you have something of substance to say, 'tard. Oh, that's right! You're a liar and an idiot.

Sorry, liar. My bad.

**********

Brian Good's (aka, "snug.bug") Insane Homeless Mullet for sex predators. (Credit to Mike Rosefierce).

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

 
At 04 May, 2013 17:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's nothing fact-free about it, ButtGale.

Your ignorance of the reason that your claim is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero only shows that you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

Where's your pet hero, Wizzie LiedRugAs?

 
At 04 May, 2013 18:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, liar, cite yourself as an authority while you utterly fail to substantiate your argument with anything other than your customary pack of lies and 100% fact-free bilge.

Not to worry, liar, because I'm 100% certain that you can't do the simple math to show there was more than enough energy released during the collapse to pulverize half the Towers' concrete. So continue to behave like a deranged liar and spew another 100% fact-free argument from incredulity.

Should we expect 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!

 
At 04 May, 2013 18:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo liar, perhaps for your "encore" you can do your bullshit "path of greatest resistance" routine?

Should we expect less from a PROVEN compulsive liar and a physics-illiterate fruit cake? 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!

 
At 04 May, 2013 20:21, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Funny how Brian can't even go to the media and have his moment in the spotlight to say shit about his garbage theories surrounding 9/11.

 
At 05 May, 2013 07:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor GUtterBall's ignorance of the reason that his claim is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero only shows that he doesn't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC.

And where's his pet hero, Wizzie LiedRugAs? Wizzie ran away screaming and crying when I showed that his hero story was a lie and showed that Der Spiegel said he was trying to pass off a $1 bill as a $20.

 
At 05 May, 2013 07:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2013 07:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh there was certainly "more than enough energy released during the collapse to pulverize half the Towers' concrete." If there hadn't been, the towers would still be standing and the concrete would not be pulverized.

The question is, was the potential energy of the towers' mass enough, or were energy supplements in the form of incendiaries or explosives required?

It was NIST's job to do the "simple math" to fulfill their objective of explaining "why and how" the towers collapsed. I suspect that in fact they did the "simple math", but they're keeping it secret because they didn't like what the math told them. NIST claims that they did not analyze the towers' collapses. I suspect that's a lie. Dr. Gross's PhD thesis was on the subject of progressive collapse.

 
At 05 May, 2013 09:24, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian, the day you die is the realization that you've been wrong about 9/11. And no, you won't get your 72 virgins either, they'll be 72 gay virgin guys.

 
At 05 May, 2013 09:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat, what the Hell is wrong with the blog? Why is it deleting my comments?

 
At 05 May, 2013 10:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Maybe it has something to do with your libelous coda spam, ButtGale. What is your real name and what is the name of your legal counsel?

 
At 05 May, 2013 10:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...Poor GUtterBall's ignorance of the reason that his claim is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero only shows that he doesn't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC."

That's right, liar, continue to make 100% fact-free assertions without offering a scintilla of evidence to support your argument.

When will you learn, liar? Your 100% fact-free assertions are NOT "facts." 100% fact-free assertions from a PROVEN compulsive liar are bilge, not "facts."

FAIL

The lying liar continues to lie, "...The question is, was the potential energy of the towers' mass enough, or were energy supplements in the form of incendiaries or explosives required?"

Bullshit.

Another 100% fact-free assertion, liar?

Where's your math to support your argument? Oh, that's right! You won't do math because you're an incompetent liar who KNOWS DAMNED WELL THAT IF YOU MAKE ONE MISTAKE I'LL CRUSH YOU AND YOUR BOGUS "MATH."

FAIL

 
At 05 May, 2013 10:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2013 10:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...Maybe it has something to do with your libelous coda spam, ButtGale. What is your real name and what is the name of your legal counsel?"

Pick a park in Palo Alto, faggot. I'll bring the "information" you require, and I'll also bring some "payback" for the perverted shit you said about my daughters, coward.

Feeling lucky, cocksucker?

 
At 05 May, 2013 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

In other words, you refuse to provide me with your name and you refuse to identify your legal counsel, coward.

What perverted things did I say about your daughters? I don't remember that.



 
At 05 May, 2013 11:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I see you refuse to pick a park in Palo Alto. Why is that, liar?

I also see you refuse to back up your idiotic theories with math. So where's your "math," Mr. bogus "scientific reputation"?

I guess as a PROVEN compulsive liar, it's impossible to support your lies by any other method than citing yourself as an authority.

Brian Good -- a liar, a cretin and a pansy. What a charming combination.

 
At 05 May, 2013 11:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGirl, I'm a blood donor, and you'd probably bite me, I don't want to get your blood on me.

I don't need math to point out that NIST did not do the calculations you want me to do (or, more likely, they did them and decided to leave them out of the report because the results were not to their liking).

I didn't lie about anything. Your pretense that I have is either a flat out lie or a mistaken belief based on your logical incompetence.

I'm not surprised that you're charmed by cretins and pansys. It's pretty easy to see why you get on so poorly with the rest of humanity.



 
At 05 May, 2013 11:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and what perverted things did I say about your daughters? You're lying again!

 
At 05 May, 2013 11:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...I don't need math to point out that NIST did not do the calculations...[blah[blah][blah]."

NIST isn't required to answer your loaded questions. Nor is NIST compelled to prove or disprove your idiotic theories. That burden rests on your puny shoulders and your puny shoulders alone, liar.

You won't do the calculations to prove your theory because you're incapable of doing the simple math that's required to substantiate your nonsense.

You're a transparent fraud and a PROVEN compulsive liar.

You couldn't think your way out of a wet paper bag, faggot.

Any more logical fallacies for us, liar?

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Oh, and what perverted things did I say about your daughters? You're lying again!"

Right here, liar:

"...Are you refusing to answer whether you molested your daughters yet today? -- Brian Good, risking his worthless life in James B's Ground Zero Construction thread on 28 July 2012.

Thus, we have more proof that you're a PROVEN compulsive liar, not to mention a pedophile.

So when do you plan to pick a park in Palo Alto, coward?

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

It was your question, not mine, BullGasser. I don't have a theory. I have facts. NIST's investigation is not complete--that's irrefutable.

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

How long does it take you to get your hair do that poufy Wayne Newton thing, GutterBall? Do you really think that looks good?

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to shift the burden of proof, liar?

NIST isn't required to answer your loaded questions. Nor is NIST compelled to prove or disprove your idiotic theories. That burden rests on your puny shoulders and your puny shoulders alone, liar.

So where are your calculations in support of your idiotic [cough] "theory", liar?

And when do you plan to pick a park in Palo Alto, CA?

The lying faggot lies, "...I'm a blood donor...[blah][blah][blah]."

Since when do they accept blood donations from infected homosexual males?

See? You lie first, last and always.

A PROVEN compulsive liar and a coward. What a charming combination.

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:09, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I hope the Government gets Brian for welfare fraud. I mean he can clearly work and probably get a job behind a desk typing on the computer.

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, and I see you have nothing to say in your defense for the perverted shit you said about my daughters.

And now I have more proof that you're a PROVEN compulsive liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about anything. How long does it take to tease your hair up like that? Inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 05 May, 2013 12:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You lie constantly, liar.

Where's your "math," liar?

You couldn't support your idiotic "theory" with meaningful and accurate calculations to save your worthless, infected ass.

 
At 05 May, 2013 13:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't have a theory, and I don't need any math. I stick to established facts--unlike you, who lives in a fantasy world and still can't figure out after all these years why your claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized.

 
At 05 May, 2013 13:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, liar, lie and continue to refuse to substantiate your idiotic argument.

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

You made the assertion without providing evidence to support your 100% fact-free nonsense, liar.

Prove it, liar.

And show your work, liar.

You couldn't support your idiotic "theory" with accurate and meaningful calculations to save your life, liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 13:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your inability to learn that I don't have a theory shows your irrationality, UtterFail.

It is impossible that all 424,000 tons of concrete at Ground Zero was pulverized when the towers collapsed, fool. That is a fact, and it's obvious to anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC (which you obviously don't).

 
At 05 May, 2013 13:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...It is impossible that all 424,000 tons of concrete at Ground Zero was pulverized when the towers collapsed, fool. That is a fact...[blah][blah][blah]."

I never said "all", nor was 424,000 tons of concrete "all" the concrete on site.

Now pay attention, liar.

Again, the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 780,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).

Now insist that the Towers consisted on no more than 424,000 tons of concrete while you provide zero evidence to support your lies and bilge.

Liar

 
At 05 May, 2013 14:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

You did say all. That was your basis for estimate of the number of tons of microspheres you thought should be present in the dust.

You provide no source for your figures, and since you lie so much there is no reason to believe anything you say.

On March 16, 2011 you claimed
" It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th."

You then claimed:

"Oh goat molester. Tell us, what's 16% of 424,000 TONS? The answer is 67,840 TONS."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/03/hug-truther.html

You go on to claim that the 68 ktons are fly ash.

Now you're trying to cover over the fact that what you spammed compulsively 2 years ago was not true. You're just squirting stinky ink, ButtGale.




 
At 05 May, 2013 14:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

Oh and where's your pet hero, Willie Fraudriguez? How does it feel to get scammed by a janitor, genius?

 
At 05 May, 2013 14:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You did say all."

That's right, liar, claim I used the word "all," and then in the next breath source a quote where the word "all" never appears.

LOL!

See? "SnowCrash" was right! You're nothing but a "shameless liar."

Now we have more proof that you're a compulsive liar. I'll just add another link to this pack of lies to my database. Okay, liar?

You know, liar, when you find yourself in a hole, it's a good idea top stop digging. But you're too stooooopid to grasp that simple idea. Aren't you, liar?

 
At 05 May, 2013 14:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's no need for you to say "all of the 424,000 tons". It was sufficient that you say "424,000 tons".

When you said "424,000 tons" you said "all the 424,000 tons".


SnowCrash suffered a total meltdown and said a lot of really stupid things before he disappeared.

 
At 05 May, 2013 14:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...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.

And that's proof positive that you're not only a shameless liar, you're delusional (ie., insane).

Should we expect less from a PROVEN compulsive liar. Probably not.

 
At 05 May, 2013 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

So show us that you really meant "part of the 424,000 tons".

You said that the 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized.

The problem with talking about stuff you know nothing about is that you can't remember what you said, and then you get caught in embarrassing lies trying to cover up the stupid things you said.

Either a) you have no idea why your claim that the 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized was absurd or b) you've figured it out, which is why you're now trying to deny that you said it.




 
At 05 May, 2013 15:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and where's your pet con artist, Willie Fraudriguez? How does it feel to get scammed by an unemployed janitor?

 
At 05 May, 2013 15:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...So show us that you really meant "part of the 424,000 tons"."

It's not incumbent on me to substantiate your 100% fact-free assertions, liar. That burden falls on your puny shoulders and your puny shoulders alone. And your utter failure to provide a quote wherein I used the word "all" proves that you're a shameless liar.

That's four times in ONE day I've caught you lying, liar.

LOL!

Now stop trying to shift the burden of proof, liar, and either support your idiotic "theory" with real and accurate calculations, or Shut the Fuck Up, liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 15:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about anything. Of course you said all the 424,000 tons was pulverized, that's what the NRDC said, and you kept going on and on about what a great source they were.

You never said part of the 424,000 tons was pulverized until you tried to shift the issue to 424,000 yards instead of tons to try to cover over your idiocy.

On March 16, 2011 you claimed
" It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th."

You then claimed:

"Oh goat molester. Tell us, what's 16% of 424,000 TONS? The answer is 67,840 TONS."

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/03/hug-truther.html

You go on to claim that the 68 ktons are fly ash.

 
At 05 May, 2013 15:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You never said part of the 424,000 tons was pulverized until you tried to shift the issue to 424,000 yards instead of tons to try to cover over your idiocy."

See? Now you're in straw man argument mode. You're DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRETING MY ARGUMENT in order to reduce the thread to correcting your deliberate misstatements, just as I stated up thread.

You always conform to my expectations. You're as predictable as you are dishonest.

Again, the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 80,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).

You claim it's "impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero." Thus, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, liar.

So where are the calculations to support your argument, liar?

Now stop trying to shift the burden of proof, liar, and either support your idiotic "theory" with real and accurate calculations, or Shut the Fuck Up, liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 15:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You never said part of the 424,000 tons was pulverized until you tried to shift the issue to 424,000 yards instead of tons to try to cover over your idiocy. "

I never said "424,000 yards" -- you fucking liar.

I said "425,000 cubic yards of concrete."

BUSTED LYING AGAIN, you foul, lying old homosexual.

Who do you think you're foolin', liar?

That's five times that I've caught you lying in ONE day, liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 16:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

quibble quibble, as ButtGoo dribbles

424,00, 425,000. Big Woop.

You claimed that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized. You cited the NRDC for that. Now you're trying to pretend you never said anything so stupid, and trying to sow confusion.

 
At 05 May, 2013 16:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...You claimed that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized."

Lying again, liar?

I never claimed that "all" the concrete was pulverized -- you Goddamned liar.

Read it again -- you stooopid cunt:

"The World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 80,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons)."

424,000 tons of concrete out of a total of 860,000 tons of concrete is 49.30% of the total amount of concrete used to construct the Towers.

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

You made the assertion without providing evidence to support your 100% fact-free nonsense, liar.

Prove it, liar.

Now stop trying to shift the burden of proof, liar, and either support your idiotic "theory" with real and accurate calculations, or Shut the Fuck Up, liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 16:51, Blogger James Franklin said...

Free Social Media Marketing where Every thing will be Free, Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Re-Tweets, Twitter Favorites, Google Plus Followers, StumbleUpon Followers, Youtube Views, Youtube Likes, Youtube Subsribes, Pinterest Followers, Pinterest Likes, Pinterest PinIt, Free Website Visitors.
Just Join now and Free Increase your Social Media Networks.
GetLikeFast.com

 
At 05 May, 2013 17:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

You cited the NRDC report's figure of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete as your source for other calculations, liar. 424,000 tons is all the concrete.

Now you're just trying to sow confusion because you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong.

How does it feel to get scammed by the unemployed janitor, your buddy William Rodriguez?

 
At 05 May, 2013 17:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You cited the NRDC report's figure of 424,000 tons of pulverized concrete as your source for other calculations, liar. 424,000 tons is all the concrete."

You claim "424,000 tons is all the concrete."

That assertion is a blatant lie.

Read it again -- you stooopid cunt:

"The World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 80,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons)." -- GuitarBill

As I stated above, 424,000 tons of concrete out of a total of 860,000 tons of concrete is 49.30% of the total amount of concrete.

Now, either prove that the total weight of the Towers' concrete was "424,000 tons" or STFU, liar.

Fuckin' stooooopid, aren't you, liar?

 
At 05 May, 2013 18:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

You continue to try to sow confusion, UtterFail, to try to cover up the fact that you don't know what you[re talking about.

On March 16, 2011, you were all het up about 424,000 TONS of concrete was destroyed, and you were repeat-spamming that point just as compulsively and desperately as you spam your lies today.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/03/hug-truther.html


You really are a silly, person, you know? How long does it take to pouf your hair like that? How long does it last? Do you really think it makes you look good?

 
At 05 May, 2013 18:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More empty nonsense, liar? You're the one who's trying to sow confusion, liar. That's why you're in straw man mode. And your deliberate and obvious misinterpretation of my argument proves you're a liar, liar.

Again, I don't see the word "all" you promised to produce, liar. Clearly, you lied when you claimed that I used the word "all."

And as long as you fail to produce the word "all" you stand exposed as a shameless liar.

As I stated above, 424,000 tons of concrete out of a total of 860,000 tons of concrete is 49.30% of the total amount of concrete.

Now, either prove that the total weight of the Towers' concrete was "424,000 tons" or STFU, liar.

Now continue to sow confusion with your idiotic straw man arguments, liar.

 
At 05 May, 2013 21:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

On March 16, 2011 you said, quoting NRDC, "It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete . . . were destroyed."

Now instead of addressing the substantive issue, which is your ignorance about why your claim is absurd, you want to change the tons to yards--to confuse the issue and hide your ignorance. You also seek to obfuscate by converting the numbers to metric tons. Your dishonesty is transparent.

The above-grade floors of the towers only weighed 180,000 tons.

I note you provide no authority for your claim that 425,000 yards of concrete was employed.



Now you're just trying to sow confusion because you're not man enough to admit when you're wrong.

How does it feel to get scammed by the unemployed janitor, your buddy William Rodriguez?

 
At 05 May, 2013 23:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...On March 16, 2011 you said, quoting NRDC, 'It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete . . . were destroyed.'"

That's TRUE, liar. What you've utterly failed to prove is that the Towers were composed of only "424,000 tons of concrete." They were not.

Again, where is the evidence to support YOUR claim that the Towers only consisted of 424,000 tons of concrete?

The lying liar lies, "...The above-grade floors of the towers only weighed 180,000 tons."

False. Another unsupported assertion, liar? Citing yourself as an authority isn't "evidence," liar, it's intellectual dishonesty.

The lying liar lies, "...I note you provide no authority for your claim that 425,000 yards of concrete was employed."

Right here, liar:

From the New York State Museum

The World Trade Center -- Facts

"...425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex" -- The New York State Museum.

Here's another source:

World Trade Center History

Any more arguments from incredulity for us, liar?

So when do you plan to provide the calculations to support your idiotic "theory", liar?

You're nothing but an insane liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 04:49, Blogger Ian said...

I see Brian spent another lonely weekend posting hysterical spam here. I guess he's trying to hide the fact that the widows have 273 unanswered questions that Brian won't work to get answered because he doesn't care about them. Pathetic.

 
At 06 May, 2013 08:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2013 09:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

The above-grade floors were 180,000 tons of concrete. That leaves 244,000 tons of concrete for the rest of the structure.

Upon what basis do you claim that there was more than 424,000 tons in the structure?

Even if there was more than 424,000 tons in the structure, where do you get 244,000 tons of concrete pulverized that was not in the towers' above-grade floors? How does that happen, genius?

 
At 06 May, 2013 09:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...Upon what basis do you claim that there was more than 424,000 tons in the structure?"

I JUST GAVE YOU THE GODDAMNED ANSWER -- YOU FUCKING MORON.

From the New York State Museum

The World Trade Center -- Facts

"...425,000 cubic yards of concrete used in the construction of the World Trade Center complex" -- The New York State Museum.

Here's another source:

World Trade Center History

CLEARLY, YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ MY REPLY AT TIME STAMP MAY 5, 23:25.

What's the point of trying to "debate" with a jackass and a LIAR who doesn't even BOTHER TO READ YOUR REPLY?

You're a waste of skin, liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 09:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

You don't have a credible engineering source for your 425,000 yard figure? What does the NIST report say?

Why should I "read" your repetitive and loony spleen-spam, that "reads" like the "RELIGIOUS TRACT" some wacko would pass out on the street?

Praise the Lord!

Where do you get 424,000 tons of concrete pulverized? The towers' above-grade floors were only 180,000 tons. What pulverized the other 244,000 tons of concrete?


 
At 06 May, 2013 09:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

End of "debate," idiot.

YOU DON'T EVEN BOTHER TO READ THE REPLIES TO YOUR IDIOTIC LIES.

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.

 
At 06 May, 2013 10:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2013 10:19, Blogger snug.bug said...



IOW, you don't have a credible source for your 425,000 yards figure, or for your 424,000 tons pulverized figure, and you can't explain why the 424,000 tons figure is absurd.

Thanks for making that clear, UtterFail!

Where's your pet hero, Willie Fraudriguez? How does it feel to get scammed by an unemployed janitor, genius?

 
At 06 May, 2013 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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.

 
At 06 May, 2013 10:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"STATE LIBRARY" should read STATE MUSEUM.

 
At 06 May, 2013 11:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

IOW, you don't have an engineering source for your claim that there were 425,000 yards of concrete. Thanks for making that clear.

Where do you get 424,000 tons of concrete pulverized? The towers' above-grade floors were only 180,000 tons. What pulverized the other 244,000 tons of concrete?

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I SAID END OF DEBATE, liar.

The state of New York IS THE AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE -- you FUCKING RETARD.

You know damned well that I got the 242,000 number from the NRDC, liar.

What's the point of "debate" with an intellectually dishonest and lazy liar of your ilk? You're such a retard that you refuse the read the evidence that proves you're wrong.

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"242,000" should read 424,000.

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

From the NRDC, liar:

"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th. 37 At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history. -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

And, unlike your "links," mine actually work.

Any more lies for us, liar?

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So answer the question, liar: Where are the calculations to support your theory, liar?

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Prove it, liar.;

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor GulliBile 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.

Where did the NRDC get their figure for 424,000 tons pulverized? The towers' above-grade floors were only 180,000 tons. What pulverized the other 244,000 tons of concrete?

Maybe you should ask your pet hero, William Rodriguez? Don't take his answer too seriously, though. Like you, he's a liar.




 
At 06 May, 2013 12:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Post to the wrong thread again, liar?

Flustered much, liar?

Your desperation is palpable, liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I asked you a question, liar, ANSWER IT:

Where are the calculations to support your theory, liar?

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Prove it, liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor GulliBile stamping his little pig feet.

 
At 06 May, 2013 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I asked you a question, liar, ANSWER IT:

Where are the calculations to support your theory, liar?

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Prove it, liar.

You couldn't do the calculations to support your lies and bullshit to save your worthless life, liar. Then again, lies and bullshit can't be substantiated, AND THAT'S WHY STONEWALL.

You're pathetic.

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"AND THAT'S WHY STONEWALL" should read AND THAT'S WHY YOU STONEWALL.

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ummm, you mean 424,000 tons minus 180,000 tons is 244,000 tons? Those are the calculations that are hanging you up?

Can you explain what 244,000 tons were pulverized?

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and where's your pet hero, Old Jigglecheeks? He ran away squealing and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie.

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Ummm, you mean 424,000 tons minus 180,000 tons is 244,000 tons? "

That doesn't prove a thing, liar.

The World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 780,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).

See? You can't get the simplest thing right without making huge errors, liar.

Now enough of your idiotic red herrings, liar.

I asked you a question, liar, ANSWER IT:

Where are the calculations to support your theory, liar?

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Prove it, liar.

You couldn't do the calculations to support your lies and bullshit to save your worthless life, liar. Then again, lies and bullshit can't be substantiated, AND THAT'S WHY YOU STONEWALL.

You're pathetic.

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The only component of the Towers that weight 180,000 tons was the STUCTURAL STEEL, not the concrete -- you fucking liar.

"...In all, the two towers required over 180,000 metric tons of structural steel." -- from the University of Southern California (USC), Why The World Trade Center Towers Collapsed

"...More than 200,000 tons (180,000 metric tons) of structural steel was used in the construction of the World Trade Center Towers." -- from "Collapse!: The Science of Structural Engineering Failures", Google Books

LOL!

Liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at him stamping his little pig feet!

It must suck to be unemployable and get scammed by a janitor!

 
At 06 May, 2013 13:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, liar? That's the 7th time in TWO DAYS I've caught you lying, liar.

LOL!

Now enough of your lies, liar.

I asked you a question, liar, ANSWER IT:

Where are the calculations to support your theory, liar?

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Prove it, liar.

You couldn't do the calculations to support your lies and bullshit to save your worthless life, liar. Then again, lies and bullshit can't be substantiated, AND THAT'S WHY YOU STONEWALL.

You're pathetic.

 
At 06 May, 2013 14:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 May, 2013 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

How can I provide calculations for a theory I don't have when you won't tell me what the theory is, GulliBill?

Show how it's possible to pulverize 424,000 tons of concrete. The above-ground floors only had 180,000 tons of concrete! What pulverized the other 244,000 tons?

Your belief that if there was 180,000 tons of steel, therefore there could not be 180,000 tons of concrete is your typical--here's a radish, so there are no cucumbers-UtterFail-style logic.

 
At 06 May, 2013 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I gave you your "theory" when I quoted you directly, idiot.

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Those are your words, liar.

Prove it, liar.


 
At 06 May, 2013 15:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar continues to lie, "...The above-ground floors only had 180,000 tons of concrete!"

That's a blatant lie, liar.

I just proved that the only component of the Towers that weighed in at 180,000 tons was the STRUCTURAL STEEL, NOT THE CONCRETE -- YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

"...In all, the two towers required over 180,000 metric tons of structural steel." -- from the University of Southern California (USC), Why The World Trade Center Towers Collapsed

"...More than 200,000 tons (180,000 metric tons) of structural steel was used in the construction of the World Trade Center Towers." -- from "Collapse!: The Science of Structural Engineering Failures", Google Books

See? You're compulsive liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 15:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

The pulverization of the concrete has nothing to do with the temperature tests, UtterFail. Your dementia is catching up with you, old man,

You haven't proved anything, fool. "I've proved there's an apple, and therefore there's no orange!"

You make me laugh, fool.

 
At 06 May, 2013 15:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The pulverization of the concrete has nothing to do with the temperature tests, UtterFail. Your dementia is catching up with you, old man,"

Babbling incoherently now, liar?

Do you always talk out of your ass when you're proven to be a liar, liar?

I just proved that the only component of the Towers that weighed in at 180,000 tons was the STRUCTURAL STEEL, NOT THE CONCRETE -- YOU FUCKING IDIOT.

"...In all, the two towers required over 180,000 metric tons of structural steel." -- from the University of Southern California (USC), Why The World Trade Center Towers Collapsed

"...More than 200,000 tons (180,000 metric tons) of structural steel was used in the construction of the World Trade Center Towers." -- from "Collapse!: The Science of Structural Engineering Failures", Google Books

That's two [2] sources that PROVE you lied about the alleged "180,000 tons of concrete," liar.

Now babble again, liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

You didn't prove anything, fool. Even if it's true that there was 180,000 tons of steel, that doesn't mean there wasn't 180,000 tons of concrete too.

"Look, there's a Ford" does not prove "Look, there's no Chevy".

You're incompetent.

 
At 06 May, 2013 16:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Even if it's true that there was 180,000 tons of steel"

There's no "if", liar. It's a fact.

The lying liar lies, "...that doesn't mean there wasn't 180,000 tons of concrete too."

Trying to move the goal post again WHILE YOU DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRET MY ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO REDUCE THE THREAD TO FORCING ME TO CORRECT WHAT I DIDN'T SAY, liar?

You don't "debate," you're a troll.

Now, how many times have I told you, jackass? The towers were constructed with 860,000 tons of concrete.

Again liar, the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 780,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).


"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th. 37 At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

So why are you surprised that approximately 49% of the Towers' concrete was crushed as the result of a COMPLETE progressive collapse?

Oh, that's right! You're an idiot and a liar.

Now enough of your lies, liar.

I asked you this question at least two dozens times in this thread alone, but you won't answer it, liar. Why is that, liar?

I asked you a question, liar, ANSWER IT:

Where are the calculations to support your theory, liar?

You claim it "is impossible that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized at Ground Zero."

Those are your words, liar.

Prove it, liar.

You couldn't do the calculations to support your lies and bullshit to save your worthless life, liar. Then again, lies and bullshit can't be substantiated, AND THAT'S WHY YOU STONEWALL.

You're pathetic.

 
At 06 May, 2013 16:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're babbling, ButtGale, squirting stinky smoke, trying to cover over the fact that you've been embarrassing yourself all day by spewing desperate nonsense.

 
At 06 May, 2013 16:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yawn...that explains why I caught you lying 7 times in TWO DAYS.

Liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 16:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

You didn't catch me lying, liar. You are dishonestly or incompetently (or both) misconstruing what I said and what the facts are.

 
At 06 May, 2013 16:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

And where's your pet hero, Willie Fraudriguez? How does it feel to be scammed by a janitor, genius?

 
At 06 May, 2013 17:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, liar? Whining and lying again, cretin?

Oh, that's right! You were caught lying on 7 separate occasions and now that you're in MELTDOWN it's time for you to vent your homosexual rage toward William Rodriguez. I guess you're still pissed because Willie refused your sick, perverted sexual advances.

Poor liar. 'Hell hath no fury like a homo scorned.'

 
At 06 May, 2013 17:48, Blogger Ian said...

I will once again remind everyone that the widows have 273 unanswered questions, and all Brian can do is pretend that there are no widows.

 
At 06 May, 2013 17:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you live in fantasyland. You invent your facts, and then call me liar when I fail to conform to them.


 
At 06 May, 2013 17:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's nothing homosexual about disgust with a strutting,bragging, lying blob of latin manboob who steals his glory from dead heroes.

 
At 06 May, 2013 18:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...you live in fantasyland. You invent your facts, and then call me liar when I fail to conform to them."

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight.

You keep telling yourself that, liar.

That's why I have the links to prove you're a liar. And that's just a sample of what I have in store for you, liar.

Just keep digging that hole, liar.

 
At 06 May, 2013 18:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oooh, he's got links! I bet he's got words, and even sentences, too! Wow! That proves it!

UtterFail, you have been deceiving yourself for so long that you have no idea what truth is or how to find it.

That's why you were so easily deceived by the your fraudster friend, Willie R.

After all, he's got a key! The Key of Hope that saved hundreds!

You and he are two peas in a pod. And a saggy, jiggly, pathetic pod it is, too. You clowns should do a 69 number on each others' triple chins.

 
At 06 May, 2013 18:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another pathetic 100% fact-free non-denial denial, liar?

Stooooopid and dishonest to the core. What a charming combination.

 
At 07 May, 2013 00:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

You lie about your lies. I didn't lie about anything. You're only trying to fool the idiots who are dumb enough (how dumb are they?) dumb enough to believe Willie Rodriguez's phony hero story.

Where is your buddy Willie, anyway? He ran away screaming and crying after I exposed his hero story for a lie, and he hasn't been back since.

 
At 07 May, 2013 01:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2013 02:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non denial denial, liar?

Why is it that I can provide the links to substantiate my argument, while you STONEWALL and fall flat on your face when challenged to substantiate your idiotic assertions, liar?

You're hysterical, aren't you, liar? That's why you're up at 12:30 AM pounding < cntrl - F5 > on your semen-encrusted keyboard like a monkey hooked on methamphetamine> -- and you're almost as coherent as the monkey. Right, liar? I'll bet you sat there in your mommy's apartment for the last 3-1/2 hours pounding < cntl - F5 > all night waiting for me to reply to your lies, bilge, flapdoodle and balderdash, didn't you -- you paranoid liar?

You're pathetic.

 
At 07 May, 2013 04:53, Blogger Ian said...

I will once again remind everyone that the widows have 273 unanswered questions, and all Brian can do is pretend that there are no widows. His only interest is posting dumbspam here.

 
At 07 May, 2013 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2013 09:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, your links don't substantiate your argument.

And your belief that I sit around scanning for new postings is given the lie by the fact that I didn't answer your 6:30 post until 6 hours later.

You are a very silly person.

You seem to believe that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized. The above-grade floors were only 180,000 tons. Please tell us where and how the other 242,000 tons were pulverized. Why can't you do that, oh all-knowing one?

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...You seem to believe that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized. The above-grade floors were only 180,000 tons. Please tell us where and how the other 242,000 tons were pulverized. Why can't you do that, oh all-knowing one?"

No, that's not what I believe, liar. That's what YOU believe, liar.

But we can count on you to DELIBERATELY MISINTERPRET YOUR ACCUSERS ARGUMENT IN ORDER TO FORCE YOUR ACCUSER TO EXPLAIN WHAT HE NEVER SAID.

THAT'S HOW YOU END THE "DEBATE."

You're nothing but a rank liar who can't provide one scintilla of evidence in your defense. All you can do is lie, obfuscate and cite yourself as an authority, liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, liar, ignore the bold font, which underscores your lie, and then yammer about something else.

You're an idiot and a compulsive liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you don't believe that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized, then why did you obsessively post that quote from the NRDC, and why did you use it as a basis for your estimate of the tons of iron microspheres you thought should be present?

Are you willing to admit that I'm right in having no expectation that you will make sense?

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

READ THE BOLD FONT -- YOU FUCKING LIAR.

The lying liar lies, "...The above-grade floors were only 180,000 tons."

The concrete ALONE weighed in at 860,000 tons -- you fucking liar. The STRUCTURAL STEEL weighed in at 180,000 metric tons, so OBVIOUSLY THE TOWERS WEIGHED MORE THAN 180,000 TONS, liar.

You lie first, last and always.

Liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get your information that the above-grade floors did not contain 180,000 tons of concrete?

Oh right! On Planet ButtGoo, if the steel was 180,000 tons, the concrete can not possibly be 180,000 tons! Yes, that's impeccable ButtGoo logic. My wheelbarrow is red, so therefore my car can't possibly be red.


It's no wonder that Willie Fraudriguez conned you so easily.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's what I believe: The towers weighed 1,500,000 tons.

Now stuff my mouth with your words and tell me what I believe, liar.

All you have are straw man arguments, lies and obfuscation.

 
At 07 May, 2013 10:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...Where do you get your information that the above-grade floors did not contain 180,000 tons of concrete?"

That's right, liar, pull shit out of your ass and claim I said something I never said.

Either provide QUOTES and DIRECT LINK to what you claim I said, or STFU, liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, you didn't say there was not 180,000 tons of concrete in the tower floors?

Well, since all you do is blow farteous stink all over the place and post links that don't prove what you claim they prove, how can you expect anyone to understand what you said? I don't think you know what you said.

 
At 07 May, 2013 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, and where's you buddy, Willie Fraudriguez? He ran away screaming and crying after I proved that his hero story was a lie and he hasn't been back since. How does it feel to get scammed by an unemployed janitor, eh genius?

 
At 07 May, 2013 11:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Oh, you didn't say there was not 180,000 tons of concrete in the tower floors?"

That's right, liar, butcher the English language with double negatives while you stuff my mouth with your words.

Anything but provide direct quotes and links to what you claim I said. Right, liar?

You can't provide the direct quotes and links to the words you claim I wrote because you're a liar.

Any more lies for us, liar?

 
At 07 May, 2013 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sorry you are not competent enough in logic to be unconfused by double negatives, oh exalted one.

Might that not give us a clue as to why your IT career is not prospering?

You've been doing your damndest to try to obscure what you said with a bunch of farteous vapor. I doubt you even know what you said.

A whole lot of contradictory nonsense is what you said.

How does it feel to get scammed by the unemployed janitor William Rodriguez, genius?

 
At 07 May, 2013 11:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, weasel, can't find the links to substantiate your lies, liar?

When will you learn, liar? Lies can't be substantiated. That's why you'll NEVER produce the links to the words you stuffed in my mouth.

Do you honestly think you fool anyone with this childish nonsense, liar?

What are you, 60 going on 7 years old?

Pathetic.

 
At 07 May, 2013 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2013 12:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Above at 10:44 in response to my assertion of the fact that the above-grade floors contained 180,000 tons of concrete you pooted:

"The concrete ALONE weighed in at 860,000 tons"

Your problem is that you lie so much that you can't remember the lies.

How does it feel to get scammed by the unemployed janitor William Rodriguez, genius?

 
At 07 May, 2013 12:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I said PROVIDE THE HYPERLINKS OR NO CIGAR, LIAR.

You won't provide the hyperlinks because you're a PROVEN compulsive liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 12:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Was it as good for you as it was for him?

 
At 07 May, 2013 12:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why should I link your post right upthread from two hours ago?

You're very silly. Did you acquire your fluency in homosexual lie-speak in grade school or not until high school?

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I still don't see any links, liar.

Why is that, liar?

As I wrote up thread: Lies can't be substantiated. That's why you'll NEVER produce the links to the words you stuffed in my mouth.

Your lies reveal your desperation, liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why should I link your post right upthread from two hours ago?

Here's your link, silly:
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=2702886159749320095&page=1&token=1367956601179

see 5-7-13 10:44

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That link is to the top of the comment section, liar. It doesn't point to a specific comment, liar.

Who do you think you're fooling liar?

Well, that's 5 lies you've told in ONE DAY. Guess where the hyperlinks to your lies are going, liar?

Right into my "Brian Good Exposed" database for easy access and retrieval.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor ButtGoo can't find the post at 10:44 this morning in this same thread.

And you said you had a college degree?

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The lying liar lies, "...can't find the post at 10:44 this morning in this same thread."

What's the matter, liar? Are you such a computer illiterate 'tard that you can't figure out how to get an exact link to my 10:44 quote?

Why yes, you are that computer illiterate.

Here's what I wrote at 10:44, sans your constant quote mining, liar:

"...The concrete ALONE weighed in at 860,000 tons -- you fucking liar. The STRUCTURAL STEEL weighed in at 180,000 metric tons, so OBVIOUSLY THE TOWERS WEIGHED MORE THAN 180,000 TONS, liar." -- GuitarBill

What part of that statement is untrue, liar?

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

We were talking about the weight of the concrete in the above-grade floors. You were claiming that the weight of the concrete in the above-grade floors was not 180,000 tons, but 860,000 tons.

Your butt is so full of goo you can't read.

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's lying liar lies, "...You were claiming that the weight of the concrete in the above-grade floors was not 180,000 tons, but 860,000 tons."

That's not what I said, liar.

Show me where I claim the concrete in the above-grade floors was ALL 860,000 tons of concrete.

And I want the link and a direct quote to the word "all."

No direct quote and accompanying link, no cigar, liar.

And guess where the link to your latest lie is going, liar?

You can't provide the link to the word "all"? Then you stand exposed again as a filthy liar. Now go for it, liar.

I'll deal with you when I return from lunch, liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Read it again, fool. We were talking about the weight of the concrete in the above-grade floors.

So is your position now that you DID claim that the weight of the concrete floors above grade was 180,000 tons?

I didn't say you used the word "all". You are wielding bucketloads of manure, dud. You're a waste of time, and you're making this forum a waste of time.

 
At 07 May, 2013 14:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't see any links to the word "all." Why is that, liar?

FAIL.

The answer is simple: You're trying to stuff words in my mouth. Thus, your "argument" is a logical fallacy called straw man argument.

See? All you have are lies, smears, innuendo and logical fallacies.

Once again, you FAIL, liar.

So where are your links to the word "all," liar?

 
At 07 May, 2013 14:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now, ignore my request for a direct quote and continue to stuff words in my mouth, liar.

 
At 07 May, 2013 14:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

There are no links to the word "all" because I didn't say you used the word "all".

"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! I gave you a nickle!"

 
At 07 May, 2013 14:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Crash and burn. The story of your life. Right, pervert?

Another goatfuckerian straw man argument exposed to the light of day.

FAIL

 
At 07 May, 2013 14:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"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, liar, but you can't hide.

LOL!

You lie first, last and always.

 
At 07 May, 2013 14:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

"But I gave you a nickle!"

Your non sequiturs betray your irrationality. You've lost it, Dud.

 
At 07 May, 2013 15:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm still waiting for your direct quotation, liar.

Otherwise, you are BUSTED red-handed trying to pass off a straw man argument as "debate."

Crash and burn, liar. It's the story of your worthless, wasted life.

 
At 07 May, 2013 16:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's your crash and your burn, and your pathetic life, fool.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home