Tuesday, May 06, 2014

Raising Money--Pretty Good. Gathering Signatures? Not So Much.

Gotta love the clowns at the High Rise Safety Initiative (aka investigoogle Building 7).  They actually succeeded in getting the Truther Kooks to donate $135,000 to hire petition gatherers to get their cranky crap on the ballot.  How's it going?

Our petition drive kicked off on May 1st thanks to the generosity of more than 1,000 supporters who together contributed over $135,000. Through Sunday we've gathered over 1,000 signatures.
 Wow, in four days, they managed to get 1,000 signatures!  That's 250 per day! An impressive achievement, until you look at what they have to do:

$135,000 will fund our petition teams through the first week of June, but to complete the first round of petitioning and submit 70,000+ signatures on July 3rd we must reach $185,000 by June 1st.
 To submit 70,0000 signatures on July 3, starting on May 1, they have to average over 1,000 signatures a day.  Oh, and by the way, that's valid signatures, with valid home addresses, from registered voters, etc.  D. Duck and M. Mouse are probably going to get thrown out.  The Troofers ran into that problem in 2009, but the city decided to say, okay, even if your signatures were valid, the referendum was illegal anyway.

But even if they get the signatures and get the measure on the ballot and get the investigation of Building 7 they claim to want, you know what is going to happen, right?  Just another report that will validate NIST's conclusions.  Remember, the working definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

58 Comments:

At 06 May, 2014 05:27, Blogger Ian said...

Do the troofers even care about WTC 1 & 2 any longer, where, you know, 2700 people died? It seems everything today is about an obscure building whose collapse killed nobody (because everyone knew the collapse was coming hours before it did).

 
At 06 May, 2014 13:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the reason for the focus on WTC7 is that even though most structural engineers were very surprised when the towers fell, reasonable people have to admit that they are not experts on 110-story buildings and they can not rule out the possibility that the airplane strikes and the towers brought the buildings down.

NIST did a terrible job of making their case--their investigation was shoddy and incomplete and ignored the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise, but we still don't know what brought the towers down because we have not had a legitimate investigation.

WTC7 was not just surprising to engineers, it was baffling. Early hypotheses about massive structural damage and massive diesel-fuel fires turned out to be unsupportable. It took NIST 7 years to cobble together some kind of answer--and that answer depends on inaccurate calculations and the removal of essential structural features such as shear studs and girder stiffener plates to make their theory seem plausible.






 
At 06 May, 2014 15:21, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for that explanation, Brian. So despite you being a pathetic ignoramus and lunatic who doesn't understand the first thing about 9/11, you still are aware on some level that the plane impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for WTC 1 & 2 collapsing. You thus need WTC 7 as a black hole to project your delusions about magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives.

 
At 06 May, 2014 15:23, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, the last thread was vintage Brian: endless hysterical squealspam for our entertainment. Let's keep it going!

Originally posted by pathetic lunatic who lives with his parents and can't afford a decent haircut:


To recap unanswered questions in this thread:

To ConsDemo: Where did Bannon claim that the President of his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans?

Why do you conflate criticism of a demonstrably corrupt and incomplete investigation with "claiming the President his party committed mass murder of 3k Americans' ?

To Lyin' Ian: Where did Bannon criticize the conclusions of the official investigations?

To Pat: Where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory?

What is the reasoning justifying that belief?

To Ian: Where do you get the idea that Condi Rice ordered invisible elevator repairmen to do anything?

Why do you think that my (hind-sight) expectation that Dr. Rice would ignore the warnings conflicts with condemning her for meeting that expectation?

Where do you get the idea that I can't mop floors correctly?

Why do you lie so blatantly about the widows' questions? What is wrong with you? And what is wrong with the others on this board who by their silence condone your vicious and flagrant lies?

To Richard Gage's Testicles: Under what reasoning can no coherent narrative contain both the element of ignoring the warnings and an inside job?

What is incompatible about ignoring warnings and inside job?

How do you know ignored warnings are LIHOP? And how are they incompatible with MIHOP if they are?

For Axxman: Which of the widows' 273 questions about 9/11 "had nothing to do with 9-11" and which ones are anti-American?

Upon what basis do you opine that the ten unexplained mysteries of the towers' demise are not "important information"?

For mgferris: Who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? Did you just make that up? Did someone at JREF tell you that? And so what if WTC7 had been collapsing for an hour? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics?

What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State in warning against hijackings? Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, the CIA, and the State Department?

Where do you get the idea that none of the witnesses to molten or melted steel stand by their claims today? What do they say today?

 
At 06 May, 2014 15:24, Blogger Ian said...

So Brian, whose questions do you think will be answered first, yours, or your so-called widows'?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 06 May, 2014 16:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your reading comprehension remains at the "Hop on Pop" level.
I didn't say that the plane impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for WTC 1 & 2 collapsing. I said nothing close to that. I don't know what caused WTC 1 and 2 to collapse. I do know that NIST didn't even try to explain it. In fact they claim they did not analyze the collapses and admit that they can not fully explain them. Your belief that you know what caused the towers to collapse it thus very unintelligent.

Your belief that if I don't have a $80 haircut therefore I can;t afford one is as ludicrous as the belief that if I don't have a Ferrari it's because I can't afford one. You live in a world of illusion bounded by your own silly assumptions.

For you to brag about my unanswered questions is very silly. The failure of all of you to answer simple questions about the assumptions underlying yout beliefs shows the unjustified nature of those beliefs.





 
At 06 May, 2014 17:38, Blogger Pat said...

If only NIST had put together some crude drawings and claimed that the implications of rakeonrake were obvious, you would have accepted their reasoning, right Brian?

Which calculations do you disagree with?

 
At 06 May, 2014 18:38, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't say that the plane impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for WTC 1 & 2 collapsing. I said nothing close to that. I don't know what caused WTC 1 and 2 to collapse.

Nobody cares what you think happened to WTC 1 and 2. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

I do know that NIST didn't even try to explain it. In fact they claim they did not analyze the collapses and admit that they can not fully explain them. Your belief that you know what caused the towers to collapse it thus very unintelligent.

False, false, and false. You're 0 for 3 tonight, Brian.

Your belief that if I don't have a $80 haircut therefore I can;t afford one is as ludicrous as the belief that if I don't have a Ferrari it's because I can't afford one. You live in a world of illusion bounded by your own silly assumptions.

Poor Brian. He's humiliated because he looks like a homeless lunatic and I keep mocking him for it.

If you got a job, Brian, you might be able to afford to look less pathetic, but given that you're too mentally incompetent to mop floors, there aren't many jobs that you're qualified for.

For you to brag about my unanswered questions is very silly. The failure of all of you to answer simple questions about the assumptions underlying yout beliefs shows the unjustified nature of those beliefs.

Or maybe we just don't care about the questions of some nobody who was banned from the truth movement for being a liar and a lunatic and a sex stalker.

 
At 06 May, 2014 18:40, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, as much as I mock your hideous haircut and your ridiculous clothes, it would still be better for you to have a photo of yourself as an avatar rather than your Willie Rodriguez jerk-off fantasy photo. Maybe you'd think about changing photos?

 
At 07 May, 2014 00:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, NIST implied that the collapse was obvious, and didn't even bother to make any crude diagrams. But then later they said that they could not fully explain the total collapses. and claimed that they did not analyze them.

And where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and inside job are mutually contradictory? After all, if they'd heeded the warnings and deported the 19 Muslims that the Mossad warned them about, then an hypothetical inside job could hardly go forward, could it? So ignoring the warnings would be an essential part of any inside job.

Youse guys are so anxious to close the books, you don't care if your formulations make any sense or not.









 
At 07 May, 2014 04:59, Blogger Ian said...

Pat, NIST implied that the collapse was obvious, and didn't even bother to make any crude diagrams. But then later they said that they could not fully explain the total collapses. and claimed that they did not analyze them.

False.

And where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and inside job are mutually contradictory? After all, if they'd heeded the warnings and deported the 19 Muslims that the Mossad warned them about, then an hypothetical inside job could hardly go forward, could it? So ignoring the warnings would be an essential part of any inside job.

Of course the inside job could go forward, Muslims or not. Remember, Brian, the clearest evidence points to micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons being the cause of the towers collapse. Did the Mossad warn us about modified attack baboons? No, of course not. They had no idea either.

You're not very bright, are you?

 
At 07 May, 2014 07:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're a liar. But then you know that.

No Ian, an inside job could not go forward with no Muslims. The Towers and the Pentagon couldn't just blow up by themselves. Even people like you would notice, and there would be no excuse to take over Afghanistan and invade Iraq.

There is no clear evidence pointing to micro-nukes or baboons.

 
At 07 May, 2014 09:03, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he's been banned from the truth movement for so long that he doesn't know the prevailing theories about modified attack baboons and micro-nukes.

You really should pay better attention to the work of serious researchers like Bill Deagle, Jim Fetzer, and Judy Wood. That way, you wouldn't make such as ass of yourself with your ignorant comments.

 
At 07 May, 2014 14:50, OpenID mgferris said...

$135,000 would be better spent on private investigators, or lab work on WTC dust.

You know, actually investigating things.

Just another sign this is all a scam.

 
At 07 May, 2014 15:17, Blogger Ian said...

No Ian, an inside job could not go forward with no Muslims. The Towers and the Pentagon couldn't just blow up by themselves. Even people like you would notice, and there would be no excuse to take over Afghanistan and invade Iraq.

So on Planet Petgoat, the Bush administration couldn't just put bombs in the towers like was done the LAST time they tried to blow up the WTC, in 1993. No, what was needed was to make things exponentially more complicated by flying planes into the buildings.

Brian, can you explain to me why the Bush administration was so scared of just bombing the buildings, especially since they were using newfangled technology like invisible, silent explosives and spray-on thermite? They should have known that no investigation would have found the demolition devices, unless they were trying to confuse intrepid investigators like you....

 
At 07 May, 2014 16:20, OpenID mgferris said...

A steel bridge under construction did what after a fire?

http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-bridge-fire-20140507-story.html

But steel is impervious to fire...

 
At 07 May, 2014 16:45, OpenID mgferris said...

This is how grow-ups and non-lunatics dispute NIST:

http://www.ctbuh.org/Portals/0/People/WorkingGroups/Fire&Safety/CTBUH_NISTwtc7_%20DraftReport.pdf

First, they actually read the report, and have people who actually design tall buildings read it too, not pool cleaners, and hacks like Gage.

Then they point out where they disagree using fact-based suppositions, and not magical elf-thermite.

 
At 07 May, 2014 17:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, yes, I can explain why inside-jobby-job operatives needed the airplanes, and blowing up the towers with bombs would not be effective.

Not only can I explain, I already have explained that a half dozen times or so here, and I see no need to repeat myself.

 
At 07 May, 2014 17:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

mgf, nobody said steel was impervious to fire. What was said was that NIST's core steel samples show no signs of heating above 480 F, and that's not hot enough to weaken it.

Mr. Gage is not a pool cleaner. He has designed many steel-frame structures. The bonus features DVD that comes with the "Experts Speak Out" DVD has pictures of many of them.

There are many fact-based disagreements with NIST, such as pointing out the fact that they dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses, and omitted key structural features from their analysis in the girder-walk-off theory.

Who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? Did you just make that up? Did someone at JREF tell you that? And so what if WTC7 had been collapsing for an hour? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics?

What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State in warning against hijackings? Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, the CIA, and the State Department?

Where do you get the idea that none of the witnesses to molten or melted steel stand by their claims today? What do they say today?

 
At 07 May, 2014 17:44, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, yes, I can explain why inside-jobby-job operatives needed the airplanes, and blowing up the towers with bombs would not be effective.

Please do. Let me just get some popcorn made first, since this is going to be a wildly entertaining look into your malfunctioning mind.

Not only can I explain, I already have explained that a half dozen times or so here, and I see no need to repeat myself.

Oh well. Brian might not be smart enough to mop floors, but he appears to react to classical conditioning, and after 5 years of me mercilessly mocking and humiliating him, he doesn't want to talk about magic thermite elves anymore.

 
At 07 May, 2014 17:47, Blogger Ian said...

mgf, nobody said steel was impervious to fire. What was said was that NIST's core steel samples show no signs of heating above 480 F, and that's not hot enough to weaken it.

False.

Mr. Gage is not a pool cleaner. He has designed many steel-frame structures. The bonus features DVD that comes with the "Experts Speak Out" DVD has pictures of many of them.

Nobody cares.

There are many fact-based disagreements with NIST, such as pointing out the fact that they dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses, and omitted key structural features from their analysis in the girder-walk-off theory.

Nobody cares what you think is an "essential mystery". After all, a spider monkey would probably find a smartphone mysterious, but that is just a reflection of the spider monkey's intelligence and understanding of how the world works.

Actually, it's insulting to the spider monkey to compare him to you, given that you're so stupid and ignorant that you can't even hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 07 May, 2014 17:49, Blogger Ian said...

Who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm? Did you just make that up? Did someone at JREF tell you that? And so what if WTC7 had been collapsing for an hour? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics?

See what I mean about your stupidity and ignorance?

What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State in warning against hijackings? Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, the CIA, and the State Department?

So it wasn't an inside job?

Where do you get the idea that none of the witnesses to molten or melted steel stand by their claims today? What do they say today?

Poor Brian. He really is this stupid.

 
At 07 May, 2014 17:50, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!

 
At 07 May, 2014 18:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see Ian is doing his clown act to try to spam over Pat's repeated refusal to answer a simple question about his unjustified assumptions.

To Pat: Where do you get the idea that ignoring the warnings and an inside job are mutually contradictory?

What is the reasoning justifying that belief?


 
At 07 May, 2014 18:26, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because nobody cares about his idiotic questions.

If it makes you feel better, nobody cares about the widows idiotic questions either. You're not alone.

 
At 07 May, 2014 23:41, Blogger truth hurts said...

@brian: can you explain why the US needed 19 real terrorist hijackers to perform the inside job?
Why couldn't the US come with 19 actors that would do the job?

Also, why was flying planes into landmarks in the US not enough?

Why did they have to blow up 3 sky scrapers as well?

And why wtc7? What did blowing up that sky scraper add to the effect of 911?

 
At 08 May, 2014 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

truth hurts, do you think recruiting 19 actors for suicide missions is a practical idea?

Flying planes into buildings without their total collapse would not have the terrorizing effect of the collapses. If the buildings stood, they would have been monuments of strength and endurance with their christ-like wounds, and the story of the day would have been tales of survival and daring rescues instead of death and destruction.

I don't know why WTC7 would have been part of an hypothetical demolition op. Perhaps some people stood to gain from the disruption introduced into operations of the IRS, CIA, or SEC offices that were destroyed, or from the destruction of Giuliani's emergency operations center. Perhaps it would have been an effort to make high rise building collapses seem more normal and less unprecedented than they were. Perhaps it was anticipated that it would be many years before the towers could be replaced, and it was wished to have an opportunity to rebuild something less ambitious to symbolize swift recovery. The new WTC7 opened in 2006.

 
At 08 May, 2014 15:10, Blogger Ian said...

Or perhaps you're just a paranoid lunatic babbling incoherently, Brian.

 
At 08 May, 2014 16:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Or perhaps your posts are written by monkeys that flew out of someone's butt, Ian.

 
At 08 May, 2014 17:01, Blogger Ian said...

Or perhaps your posts are written by monkeys that flew out of someone's butt, Ian.

Yup, this is the kind of hysterical squealing I expect from Brian after I've pwn3d him.

Hey Brian, you know how else you've been pwn3d? You STILL haven't gotten a SINGLE question from the widows answered.

Not one.

Pathetic.

 
At 08 May, 2014 19:08, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Haven't heard much about the original producers of Loose Change in awhile, but if this video is correct (at about 3:40), apparently Dylan Avery is having second thoughts about da twoof.

 
At 08 May, 2014 19:09, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Sorry, forgot the URL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A5l1LkhlVXY&list=PLfrlsC1yJ2dRo-AV0ty-QWoOQhvLkTLB5

 
At 08 May, 2014 22:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, youse guys at SLC never have second thoughts.

If you don't have second thoughts, third thought, and fourth thoughts, you don't have any thoughts at all.

 
At 09 May, 2014 05:05, Blogger Ian said...

Right, youse guys at SLC never have second thoughts.

If you don't have second thoughts, third thought, and fourth thoughts, you don't have any thoughts at all.


Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, 9/11 was 13 years ago. If you want us to have 2nd thoughts about it, come up with something that wasn't debunked 10 years ago. All you do is repeat the same spam over and over and over again.

We get it, you don't understand 9/11 because you're too stupid and insane to understand it, and thus you think there are "essential mysteries" about it. I can assure you, the normal adults here and in the scientific community don't find anything mysterious about it.

Go watch your Barney the Dinosaur DVDs and leave this stuff to the adults, OK?

 
At 09 May, 2014 05:07, Blogger Ian said...

Also, I'd like to remind you that last night was yet another night in which the widows didn't have their questions answered.

Sorry.

 
At 09 May, 2014 09:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, 9/11 was 13 years ago and essential questions about how it happened and even what happened have not been answered.

The official investigations were 12 years ago, 9 years ago, and 6 years ago--and examination of the investigations only more and more reveals their inadequacy. The closer you look, the worse they look.

Your challenge to "come up with something that wasn't debunked 10 years ago" only shows your ignorance. Ten years ago the 9/11 Commission report had not been completed, Dr. Griffin had yet to publish his first 9/11 book, and Richard Gage was still a clueless Reagan Republican concerned only with maximizing his personal net worth.

Where do you get the idea that I don't understand 9/11? I don't need to stand on assumptions I'm unable, as youse guys are unable, to justify.

There are ten essential mysteries about the collapses of the towers that NIST declined to address. Your denial of this fact is delusional. The New York Times called the vaporized steel "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
Your claim that no one finds this mysterious is ludicrous.

 
At 09 May, 2014 10:20, Blogger Ian said...

I get the idea that you don't understand 9/11 from idiotic posts like this one, in which you babble about "essential mysteries". You make it clear that you don't understand anything about 9/11.

That's OK, as we have seasoned professionals who do understand it. We don't need failed janitors who live with their parents to understand it. You can go back to your Barney the Dinosaur videos.

 
At 09 May, 2014 10:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

More Lyananity from Lyin Ian.

Name a seasoned professional who has explained the ten essential mysteries of the towers' collapses.

NIST has admitted that they can not fully explain the collapses, and has even denied that they analyzed the collapses.

 
At 09 May, 2014 11:07, Blogger Ian said...

We've been over this many times. The essential mysteries are the delusions of a paranoid lunatic failed janitor. The only seasoned professional who should be explaining them is a psychiatrist, and you refuse to seek professional help.

 
At 10 May, 2014 07:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, please identify one of the 10 essential mysteries of the collapses that you feel is delusional and explain why you feel it's delusional.

Please identify one of the seasoned professionals who you believe "understand" 9/11, and clarify how he or she communicates his or her understanding to you.

 
At 10 May, 2014 10:03, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, please identify one of the 10 essential mysteries of the collapses that you feel is delusional and explain why you feel it's delusional.

All of them are-self evidently delusional.

Please identify one of the seasoned professionals who you believe "understand" 9/11, and clarify how he or she communicates his or her understanding to you.

Uncle Steve has told me his understanding of 9/11, but you wouldn't understand. Your mind is too feeble to hold down a job mopping floors, which is why you live with your parents and are on disability.

 
At 10 May, 2014 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, when you refuse to explain why any one of the ten essential mysteries is delusional, you create the impression that you can not justify your opinion that they are delusional.

Coupled with Pat and RGT's refusal to explain why they think LIHOP and MIHOP are mutually exclusive, a strong impression is made that y'all can not explain the rational basis for your opinions.

Because you lie so often, there is no more reason to believe anything you say about your Uncle Steve than there is to believe the lies you tell about me.

For you to make light of these issues dishonors the 9/11 dead and their families.


 
At 10 May, 2014 12:22, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian. I've pwn3d him again.

 
At 10 May, 2014 17:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

You pwn yourself, and you're not smart enough to know it.

 
At 10 May, 2014 20:58, OpenID mgferris said...

"Who says that WTC7 had been collapsing for over an hour before 5:20 pm?"

Everyone working Ground Zero after WTC-1 went down.

"Did you just make that up?"

Nope, it's in the oral histories.


"Did someone at JREF tell you that?"

Why does JREF scare you so much? Could it be the basic standards of evidence we require?


" And so what if WTC7 had been collapsing for an hour? How does that exempt the remaining structure from the first law of thermodynamics?"

Doesn't apply, slug. The heating was a factor, but the bigger factor was the COOLING. You don't need hot fire to weaken steel with good cooling. The wind speed picked up in the afternoon with gusts up to 14mph. Not a big mystery.

"What significance do you ascribe to the actions of State in warning against hijackings?"

You mean other than they thought something was up? That they knew a plane might be hijacked, but not where? They did their job.


"Do you think that changes the fact that nothing was done to protect the public or the Pentagon despite warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, the CIA, and the State Department?"


Vague warnings, that's all they had. They didn't have targets to protect. Have you read any of those warnings? Not one of those 13 countries has come forward to spell out what their warnings were, nor were the World Trade, or DC mentioned directly. Those targets were delivered by courier directly to the hijackers. Only a handful of AQ leadership knew what the plans and targets were.

Al Qaeda reps gave interviews in July, 2001 stating they were planning a strike on the U.S. so what did YOU do to stop it?

 
At 11 May, 2014 09:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your empty and erroneous assertions are little better than Ian's outright lies.

A claim like "everyone says so" is a red flag. "Everyone" is not a witness. Name a witness.

Who in the oral histories documents that the building was collapsing for over an hour before 5:20? I've read about half the oral histories statements, and I never ran across that,

JREF doesn't scare me. JREF is a mutual admiration society of people who think they're smart and think they're witty--and are neither. Waste of time.

Your belief that the first law of thermodynamics does not apply to a collapsing building shows your woeful misunderstanding of the laws of physics. You must have been out picking strawberries during physics and chemistry classes. Hint: the issue is not heat. It's energy.

How do you know the State didn't know where the hijackings would be? Two known al Qaeda agents, known by both the FBI and the CIA to be inside the USA, bought 10 airline tickets dated 9/11/01. All the State had to do was take the names the Mossad gave them, follow those guys around and see when they went to the airport.

The warnings were hardly vague. The Minneapolis office warned that Moussaoui was the kind of guy that might fly an airliner into the WTC. They wanted to search his computer, and their supervisor sabotaged their FISA request.

Another FBI office wrote a memo called "Kamikaze Pilots" after warnings from an ex-Iranian intel officer. Vladimir Putin warned of suicide pilots training for attacks.

The targets of al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot had been known since 1995: Pentagon, WTC, Sears Tower, TransAmerica Pyramid. You make stuff up, whistling lies in the dark.

You didn't answer the question: Where do you get the idea that none of the witnesses to molten or melted steel stand by their claims today? What do they say today?






















 
At 11 May, 2014 16:08, OpenID mgferris said...

"I've read about half the oral histories statements, and I never ran across that,"

And that is why you fail. You've got a new nick-name: Half Ass Good. Read them all and get back to me.

"JREF doesn't scare me. JREF is a mutual admiration society of people who think they're smart and think they're witty--and are neither. Waste of time."

Translation: The JREF guys kicked my ass in 9 seconds. Waah.

"How do you know the State didn't know where the hijackings would be?"

Because they would have said where the hijackings would be. DOS has a solid track record of accurate travel warnings. They were also out of the FBI/CIA loop, so they were, and still are a reliable resource as they have their own intelligence resources, and receive NSA data through their own channels.

"Hint: the issue is not heat. It's energy"

The collapse was due to fire. Fire is hot. WTC7 is a closed system that was contained between the roof and the sub-basement. The energy of the collapse was contained within the system. Once again you half-ass the problem


"All the State had to do was take the names the Mossad gave them, follow those guys around and see when they went to the airport."

The state? This isn't Stalanist Russia, you dolt. Going to the airport is not against the law in the United States.

"
Another FBI office wrote a memo called "Kamikaze Pilots" after warnings from an ex-Iranian intel officer. Vladimir Putin warned of suicide pilots training for attacks."

We're believing the KGB now, or just you?

"The targets of al Qaeda's Project Bojinka plot had been known since 1995: Pentagon, WTC, Sears Tower, TransAmerica Pyramid. You make stuff up, whistling lies in the dark. "

And the guy behind Bojinka was in custody. Once again you half-ass the information. Bojinka was a plot to blow up jetliners over the Pacific Ocean. NYC is where?

Keep it up, Half Ass



 
At 11 May, 2014 19:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

How many of the oral histories have you read? Which ones claim that WTC7 was collapsing for an hour before it finally fell?

I don't read JREF and never posted there. The few postings that are worth anything are buried under pages of juvenile wise-cracking.

What makes you believe that the State would confess, after the fact, that they knew where the hijackings would be? Condi lied under oath to try to cover up the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo. (Maybe Condi was put in charge of State precisely to keep a lid on special knowledge that DoS had. Thanks for the tip.)

The towers were designed to survive the fires from a plane crash. The chief engineer, John Skilling, said so.

Yes, the energy of the collapse of WTC7 was contained in the system. But a free fall collapse is impossible under normal conditions, as Dr. Sunder acknowledged, because free fall means that all structural support simply vanished. The vanishing of all structural support can not be explained by the fire-induced collapse hypothesis.

Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi were known al Qaeda agents inside the United States. It would hardly be a matter of Stalinist surveillance to notice when they bought ten airline tickets dated 9/11/01, and to follow them around and find out if any of their associates were also flying on that day.

You don't have to "believe the KGB" to check out their warnings--ask how they know, look at their evidence, follow the leads.

Abdul Hakim Murad was hardly "the guy behind Bojinka". He just knew about it. Project Bojinka provided that hijacked airliners would ber flown into landmark buildings in the USA--including the Pentagon and the WTC.

Your attempts to invent facile explanations of the facts do not dispose of the facts, MGF.









 
At 11 May, 2014 20:48, Blogger Ian said...

I like this teammwork here. MGF humiliates Brian by pointing out how much Brian doesn't understand 9/11, while I humiliate Brian by pointing out that he lives with his parents, has a hideous haircut, and believes in invisible widows with "questions".

We make a great team, MGF. And all Brian can do is squeal and cry about it.

 
At 11 May, 2014 23:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lyin Ian, what gives you the idea that MGF humiliated me? You're only demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension when you say that. MGF, like you, humiliates himself with his nonsense.

Where do you get the idea that I live with my parents? Have you been stalking me or something?

Why are you so hung up on haircuts? Do you think John Edwards shluld have been president?

 
At 12 May, 2014 04:54, Blogger Ian said...

Lyin Ian, what gives you the idea that MGF humiliated me? You're only demonstrating your lack of reading comprehension when you say that. MGF, like you, humiliates himself with his nonsense.

Where do you get the idea that I live with my parents? Have you been stalking me or something?

Why are you so hung up on haircuts? Do you think John Edwards shluld have been president?


See what I mean? Hysterical, humiliated squealing is Brian's only response.

 
At 12 May, 2014 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Ian comes along like a radio clown to distract with absurd claims of victory and allow the vanquished cowboy to limp out of the ring.

MGF defeats himself with claims like "[WTC7] had been collapsing for over an hour by the time the final collapse occurred. . . . Everyone working Ground Zero after WTC-1 went down [said so] . . . . It's in the oral histories. . . . Read them all and get back to me."

He makes claims he can not back up, making a total fool of himself.

 
At 12 May, 2014 12:13, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, we have won. There will never be a new investigation, your widows will never have their questions answered, and nobody will ever take "meatball on a fork" seriously.

All that's left is your pathetic squealing.

 
At 12 May, 2014 13:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your gloating is absurd. New investigations are inevitable. History will investigate, and history will judge. New computer models are inevitable as computer power increasingly becomes available to engineering schools around the world. The corruption of the 9/11 Commission report and the unscientific nature of NIST's reports will stand as a monument to the laziness and lying and dysfunctionality of the USA at the start of the 21st Century.



 
At 12 May, 2014 14:03, Blogger Ian said...

OK, Brian, whatever you say! While you're waiting for these new investigations that you keep promising, I'm going to go watch "Keeping Up with the Kardashians".

 
At 12 May, 2014 14:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Good idea, Ian--maybe it will improve your mind.

 
At 12 May, 2014 19:46, Blogger Ian said...

Good idea, Ian--maybe it will improve your mind.

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because nobody will take him seriously when he talks about 9/11. Pat hasn't answered your questions. MGF hasn't answered your questions. RGT hasn't answered your questions, etc. etc.

Brian, maybe if you didn't have such a hideous haircut, people would listen to you and care what you think.

 
At 12 May, 2014 21:55, OpenID mgferris said...

"What makes you believe that the State would confess, after the fact, that they knew where the hijackings would be? Condi lied under oath to try to cover up the "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" memo. "

Except that she didn't. The memo was read to the committee, and is now in the public domain. It says nothing about the WTC, or the Pentagon, and more to the point- didn't tell the President anything that wasn't already known about Al Qaeda.

It would be a lie if the memo said "Al Qaeda is planning to hijack multiple jetliners and fly them into the World Trade Center.

Tell me about the other memos outlining threats to the US Dr. Rice briefed the President on that week.

"The towers were designed to survive the fires from a plane crash. The chief engineer, John Skilling, said so."

Yes, but he has never demonstrated exactly how he designed a building to survive a full-speed strike from an aircraft that would not exist for another 30 years.

The Titanic was unsinkable, and isolation foam should not have been able to damage the space shuttle. Guess what? Shit happens.


"I don't read JREF and never posted there. The few postings that are worth anything are buried under pages of juvenile wise-cracking."

Translation: Smart people scare me.

"Abdul Hakim Murad was hardly "the guy behind Bojinka". He just knew about it. Project Bojinka provided that hijacked airliners would ber flown into landmark buildings in the USA--including the Pentagon and the WTC."

Ramzi Yousef was the mastermind behind the Bojinka plot. He was arrested in 1995, convivted in 1997. You'd know this if you didn't half-ass your "research". Moron.

"How many of the oral histories have you read? Which ones claim that WTC7 was collapsing for an hour before it finally fell?"

Read them all. Your turn.





 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home