Box Boy Considers Suing CNN
Of course, I doubt if he really will; it's far more likely that this is just another excuse to rattle the cup for donations:
Support AE911Truth's exploration into direct legal action against CNN. Our attorney has assured us that CNN has clearly stepped over the line in an act of slander, which carries legal ramifications. We need your financial support to hire the experts to enter into the exploratory stages of a lawsuit. This case could very well become the best opportunity yet to place the WTC evidence into the legal record through the discovery process and yield a dramatic win for 9/11 Truth over the entire mainstream media.If your attorney has assured you that it was slander, why do you need to hire experts to enter into the exploratory stages of a lawsuit?
posted by Pat @ 10:08 AM
81 comments
81 Comments:
AE911truth's attorney is probably not an expert in slander, thus consultation with experts is necessary. Also there are complicated questions about jurisdiction and strategy and malice.
Since truth is a defense to charges of libel or slander, a lawsuit could result in a trial on the question of whether AE911truth's claims are lies or not--a question that has enormous potential benefits for the group and little risk.
But to check out the unknown unknowns, expert advice is necessary. Have you forgotten the NYCCAN fiasco when the group spent two years gathering signatures for a petition that was not valid under NY State law?
In strategic considerations. expert advice is needed about the relative utility of three different positions:
1) Ae911truth to settle for a cash payment from CNN under a confidential settlement
2) Ae911truth to settle for a public cash payment with no acknowledgement of wrongdoing from CNN
3) Ae911Truth to settle for a public cash payment with a public apology from CNN
4) Ae911Truth to demand damages and punitive damages and a trial.
Evaluating the relative merits of these various positions (plus probably some others I am to ignorant to imagine) requires the advice of experienced experts.
Private cash settlement plus public CNN apology is a fifth option.
See? It's complicated!
AE911Troof need to prove - in a court of law - that they're right.
To prove slander they must show how the CNN piece damaged their reputation.
All CNN's lawyer needs to do is bring a parade of FDNY personnel, and Port Authority Police in their dress uniforms to recount 9-11, and the days following as they searched for the bodies of their friends. Then I'd ask if they were complicit
in a cover-up to hide the truth about 9-11, and then let Gage's lawyer try to dig himself out of that one.
No they don't. They only need to show that the claim that they lie is not factual.
Look, guy, I did farm labor for a long time because I needed the work and because I wanted to humble myself. You seem to have missed the humbling lesson. You think you know stuff that you don't know.
CNN's claim that ae911truth spreads lies damaged the architects' reputation.
I would love to see your parade of FDNY personnel and PAPD police. I'd love to see FDNY and PAPD come forward to tell what they know. Please, after all these years, speak out!
Maybe we should organize a fund to provide for the futures of them and their families, and then they could speak out freely.
Your parade of witnesses does not exist except in your own fantasies. FDNY and PAPD personnel were not even willing to speak out against the blatant and shameful lies of your buddy Willie Rodriguez.
"CNN's claim that ae911truth spreads lies damaged the architects' reputation. "
Not as much as BEING in AE911Troof has damaged their reputation.
"I would love to see your parade of FDNY personnel and PAPD police. I'd love to see FDNY and PAPD come forward to tell what they know. Please, after all these years, speak out! "
They do...every September 11th...many have written books too..
"Your parade of witnesses does not exist except in your own fantasies. FDNY and PAPD personnel were not even willing to speak out against the blatant and shameful lies of your buddy Willie Rodriguez."
So - in your world - guys who were actually there are not credible, yet you, who were not in NYC on 9-11-2001 know more than they do. Willie was there, he has done a lot of good for the undocumented workers at the WTC, and surrounding buildings effected by the attack.
To prove liable you have to demonstrate financial loss directly related to the CNN piece. It's 2014, not many people watch CNN anymore anyway.
"Look, guy, I did farm labor for a long time because I needed the work and because I wanted to humble myself. You seem to have missed the humbling lesson. You think you know stuff that you don't know."
How does farm labor qualify you as a lawyer, or physicist?
You have no idea what you're talking about snugTwoofer. Liars Harrit tried to sue some Danish journalists for the same thing and was laughed out of the court room. This is a prime example of 911 twoofers trying to block free speech. 911 twoofers can slander the govt. and NIST but oh no! No one can slander 911 twoofers! Why? Because they have truth in their name!
They still claim WTC came down in 7 seconds, which is an easy to prove lie, to name just one.
Ae911truth will destroy itself of they really go to court with this
@mgf, CNN is only liable for its slander. It is not liable for the actions of the architects.
Please identify these FDNY and PAPD witnesses you claim. FDNY and PAPD personnel were not even willing to speak out against the blatant and shameful lies of your buddy Willie Rodriguez. Where is Willie, by the way? He ran away screaming and crying after I showed that his hero story was a lie. How come those "fabulous" pictures of Willie hobnobbing with famous scumbags weren't picked up by 911truth, ae911truth, 911blogger, or 911Visibility? Why was SLC uniquely blessed?
Willy was there; other men died and he didn't. And he took the opportunity to steal the glory of the dead and claim it was his own.
Farm labor doesn't qualify me as a lawyer or a physicist. I never said it did. I am qualified by my education and experience to opine on Newtonian physics and to opine that the issues in a slander suit are more complicated than Pat seems to believe they are.
There are some parts of the country where you have to take the work that you can get, as I'm sure you well know, and when your car breaks down you're pretty much stuck with working at the farm down the road.
@ctcole, journalism carries certain responsibilities, and among these are the responsibility not to slander people. If they say something that is not true, they are supposed to issue a correction. If they refuse to correct their lies, they are subject to a lawsuit to force the issue.
@truth hurts, 7 seconds collapse time for WTC7 is a supportable opinion, not a lie. Would you care to take another shot at naming a lie in the pamphlet?
@truth hurts, 7 seconds collapse time for WTC7 is a supportable opinion, not a lie. Would you care to take another shot at naming a lie in the pamphlet?
Brian, directly observable events are not open to opinion. I am sure you are a purveyor of all kinds of post-modern BS, but if you can count, you can see the 7 sec collapse time is BS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xrzeN-wvHD4
teaching equirvvi
What's BS about the 7 second collapse time? If demolitionists brought the towers down in 7 seconds because they didn't know how to bring it down in a more convincing manner, then surely they would have tried to do something to try to make it look like a natural collapse.
Best would be if they made the east end of the interior fall through the east wall, but they didn't dare try that because it would have made the behavior of the rest of the structure unpredictable.
So they had to settle for what they could do: blow up the floors at the 45th floor level so the E. Penthouse fell down, simulating an interior collapse. That was their only option.
What evidence have you of the alleged interior collapse? You have no audio evidence. You have no witness evidence. NIST's own computer models show that an interior collapse would have resulted in the the perimeter folding up like a wet paper bag. Obviously it did not fold up like a wet paper bag. It fell down straight and level as if it still had its stiffener floors intact.
"What's BS about the 7 second collapse time? If demolitionists brought the towers down in 7 seconds because they didn't know how to bring it down in a more convincing manner, then surely they would have tried to do something to try to make it look like a natural collapse. "
That's the problem: there's no such thing as a natural collapse. Why take down WTC7 in the first place? And if that was part of the plan then why not bring it down with WTC1?...you know...so it wouldn't attract attention...
If there's no such thing as a natural collapse, then what made the building collapse? You make no sense.
Did it never occur to you that maybe WTC7 was supposed to come down when it was hidden by the dust from WTC1's collapse? Did it never occur to you that maybe some patriot sabotaged the detonators so they had to be done over?
You guys just leap to simple conclusions.
Brian's lying again
You have no audio evidence.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2gJsOjXUU8#t=23s
It fell down straight and level as if it still had its stiffener floors intact.
"straight and level" must have different meanings in the magical land of twoof.
http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/WTC7StraightDown.png
See, Brian? This is why no one takes you seriously. Tends to happen when you are detached from reality. See above for examples.
Did it never occur to you that maybe WTC7 was supposed to come down when it was hidden by the dust from WTC1's collapse? Did it never occur to you that maybe some patriot sabotaged the detonators so they had to be done over?
I love how Brian screams and cries when evidence to the contrary proves his delusions wrong, but he can just trot out his speculation and everyone should take it seriously.
"Did it never occur to you that maybe some patriot sabotaged the detonators so they had to be done over?"
Unfortunately it was a mute patriot with no hands, so he hasn't been able to tell anyone about the dastardly plot.
Oh come on, Wabble. If there was a plot, those involved may very well may have surmised beforehand that they were going to be killed after the job was done.
If there was a plot and someone sabotaged it, don't you think the suspects would have been waterboarded until they confessed to sabotage, and then killed?
Get real.
GMS, your video does not show what you claim. No surprise there.
You can see the video and see that WTC7 fell straight and level--until the final stages of the collapse, when the effect of the open atrium in the lowest floors finally caused it to tilt to the south, which anyone conversant in engineering issues would not find surprising in the least.
Tilting the tower to the south so it topples toward already-destroyed WTC structures is also to be expected from a professional demolition op, as they would wish to avoid damage to other neighboring structures that might inspire messy and uncontrollable insurance investigations.
Your attempt to litigate on the semantical point of straight and level is silly. You might as well argue that a pine tree is not symmetrical because it has 114 branches on one side and 116 branches on the other. You might as well argue that a car is not symmetrical because it has a steering wheel and side mirror on one side and not on the other, and a dent on the front denfner on one side. Thank you for being so silly.
Where's your hero Willie Rodriguez, anyway? I called him out as a liar and a fraud and he ran away screaming and crying. It's not like he's busy or anything. He was left out of last fall's DC conference, he hasn't had a gig since Juarez, his "fabulous" photos with scumbag Clintons are not even featured on his own website, and the most recent event listed on his website is 11/7/07 in Seattle.
I mean, really, Wabble. Your idea that black op covert demolitions killing thousands can be undertaken and then their participants can be allowed to go around writing tell-all books and appearing on Oprah is just really, really, silly.
No surprise Brian handwaves and simply repeats his debunked nonsensr
Thank you for being so silly, GMS.
You can see the video and see that WTC7 fell straight and level--until the final stages of the collapse
Goal post move noted.
when the effect of the open atrium in the lowest floors finally caused it to tilt to the south, which anyone conversant in engineering issues would not find surprising in the least.
Or some clown just making it up as he goes. And here Brian pretends his word is good enough.
Tilting the tower to the south so it topples toward already-destroyed WTC structures is also to be expected from a professional demolition op, as they would wish to avoid damage to other neighboring structures that might inspire messy and uncontrollable insurance investigations.
Another evidence free claim from out expert janitor.
Your attempt to litigate on the semantical point of straight and level is silly.
No, it's using what those words actually mean to evaluate your farcical claims, which it does not stand up to.
You might as well argue that a pine tree is not symmetrical because it has 114 branches on one side and 116 branches on the other. You might as well argue that a car is not symmetrical because it has a steering wheel and side mirror on one side and not on the other, and a dent on the front denfner on one side. Thank you for being so silly.
Already addressed this in another thread. The one where you failed so bad that you're just crying.
Where's your hero Willie Rodriguez, anyway? = FOR THE LOVE OF GOD CHANGE THE SUBJECT!!!
^Another attempt by Brian to change the subject b/c reality is not working out for his delusions. I imagine he has better things to do than entertain some irrelevant who makes it up as he goes and claims to be willing to debate anytime anywhere and when a place and time is decided you chicken out. Go ahead Brian, say it ain't so. I more than happy to quote you to prove you are a liar, again.
Oh come on, Wabble. If there was a plot, those involved may very well may have surmised beforehand that they were going to be killed after the job was done.
If there was a plot and someone sabotaged it, don't you think the suspects would have been waterboarded until they confessed to sabotage, and then killed?
Reading Brian's ramblings on this matter remind me of a scene in the Terminator.
Great stuff. I could make a career out of this guy.
See how clever it is? It doesn't require a shred of proof.
Most paranoid delusions are intricate, but this is brilliant.
GMS, when I am responding to people who make lying claims that I am a college dropout and there are no widows, I sometimes respond in a less than nuanced fashion.
Of course I'm a fool to expect you to understand that.
Thank you for being so silly, GMS.
And Brian still hasn't shown us why his baseless claims should be believed. It's ok Brian, the last few days have been quite embarrassing for you.
Don't worry Brian, we will take your word when it comes to the best was to scrub urinals.
Your baseless claims that my claims are baseless are silly, GMS.
I warned y'all years ago that your tolerance for Ian's silly lies was going to corrode your minds, and it sure looks lie it did.
@brian: collapse time is not a matter of opinion. It is a verifiable fact.
Speaking of other lies:
Rapid onset of collapse -> not true, the fact the building would collapse was concluded by the firechief hours prior to the collapse, based on the condition of the building.
Sounds of explosions -> there are no sounds of expliosions.
Symmetrical structural failure -> not the case, the collapse started in the eastern part of the building. The structure didn't fail all at once.
Free-fall acceleration through the path of what was greatest resistance - also not the case. The only proven acceleration was 2.X seconds of the facade collapsing at a moment the inner structure was gone.
Imploded, collapsing completely, landing almost in its own footprint -> doesn't mean it has to be a controlled demolition.
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds -> the clouds aren't pyroclastic. Not in any way. Also, the clouds are caused by the collapse itself, not by the demolition charges..
Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional -> who believed he saw on the news that wtc7 was one of the buildings that was blown up after 911.
Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY -> which proves that it wasn't a rapid onset of collapse. Or is ae911truth accusing the FDNY of being part of the inside job?
And then there are these statements:
FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples -> found in the ruble, of which we know had very high temperatures for a long period. Also, demolition charges don't do intergranular melting of the steel.
Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses -> Demolition charges don't produce tons of molten metal.
Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples -> thermite isn't used in demolitions and even don't produce sound of explosions, which ae911truth stated earlier. Also, thermite doesn't produce tons of molten metal..
Therefore all bogus arguments.
And of course there are these arguments:
Slow onset with large visible deformations -> As stated earlier, the firechief concluded that wtc7 would collapse based on the conditions of the structure. Also, a fireman says on tape that wtc7 was leaning.
ae911truth ignores these facts and even accuses the FDNY of being part of the plot to cover up the inside job.
Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires) -> and that is exactly what happened, the building collapsed on the inside, most damaged by the fire, starting on the eastern part.
Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel -> They claim steel was softened, corroded and that there were tons of molten metal.
So they acknowledge that the fire in the building was hot enough to melt metals and to soften steel. Regardless if those fires came from office furniture or thermite.
High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed -> A bogus argument. Not all buildings are build in the same way. Some buildings last forever, while others collapse all by itself due to structural flaws..
This one is also funny:
As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
They use a picture that shows how most of the debris is being ejected outside of the buildings, falling faster than the building collapsing..
They expect their audience to be blind or stupid..
And on top of that, they state this:
Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
So first they argue that the debris falls to the path of greatest resistance, and later on they argue that the debris is ejected laterally, following the path of least resistance...
And of course, both are prove of a controlled demolition :o)
Can you explain why the Fitterman Hall was demolished after 911?
Pray tell, truth hurts, how can you verify that the collapse of WTC7 took longer than 6.5 seconds?
"Rapid onset of collapse" is applied to the towers' collapses, not to WTC7's.
118 first responders reported sounds of explosions or flashes of light.
WTC7 came down in almost perfect symmetry, as anyone who looks at the videos can see. The only exceptions to this are that the e. penthouse fell first, and in the last seconds of collapse the building leaned slightly toward the south.
Contrary to your claim, the pamphlet says nothing about pyroclastic clouds. The clouds were described as pyroclastic by a PhD geophysicist at Cambridge, Dr. Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics and Director of the Institute of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge. He wrote:
"Aside from natural events, a very tragic example of a pyroclastic flow is what happened on the 11th of September, 2001."
http://plus.maths.org/content/going-flow
The pamphlet says nothing about expert corroboration.
The pamphlet says nothing about foreknowledge of the media.
"118 first responders reported sounds of explosions or flashes of light."
sounds OR flashes...
So they saw flashes without sound and heard sounds without seeing flashes..
Very strong argument Brian :o)
Anyway, they speak of a controlled demolition. Every video of controlled demolitions contain series of flashes and sounds of explosions. None of the videos of the collapse of WTC7 show any flashes or have any sounds of explosion sequences on them.
None.
And you know that, that is why you come up with those 118 first responders....
"WTC7 came down in almost perfect symmetry, as anyone who looks at the videos can see. "
Anyone can see how the Penthouse fell into wtc7 , meaning that the building was already collapsing on the inside before it became visible on video.
"The only exceptions to this are that the e. penthouse fell first, and in the last seconds of collapse the building leaned slightly toward the south. "
So you admit that the building didn't come down symmetry.
Also, the penthouse didn't fall first. It is the first visible sign on video of the collapse. But as you acknowledge that it fell into the building, that means that the inner structure of the eastern part of the building was already gone.
The only thing symmetrical about the collapse is the fall of the North Facade, which came down when most of the inner structure had collapsed.
"Contrary to your claim, the pamphlet says nothing about pyroclastic clouds. "
I'm not quoting a pamphlet, but the front page of the ae911truth website.
Further more, there was nothing pyro nor clastic about that dust cloud. And controlled demolitions don't produce pyroclastic clouds either. So the whole point is bogus..
truth hurts, how can you verify that the collapse of WTC7 took longer than 6.5 seconds?
Simple, by counting the collapse time.
6.5 seconds the time it took for the facade to dissapear behind other buildings.
Anyone with more than one brain cell can figure out that when the collapse dissapeares behind the Fitterman Hall, you don't stop counting.
Also, you acknowledged that the collapse started with the fall of the penthouse. So you should take that as a start point.
You will get 15 seconds when you take that into account.
but as you agreed, the penthouse fell into the building. Meaning that the inner structure was already gone. So the collapse started even earlier than the fall of the penthouse.
So you can only conclude that you can't pin point an exact collapse time for wtc7, just looking at videos that don't show the complete collapse.
But there is also the seismic data.
And that shows a collapse sequence of 18 seconds.
the fun about ae911truth is that they proudly mention that their Chandler made NIST admit that he was right about the 2.2 seconds of free fall acceleration.
But at the same time, those guys at ae911truth keep on insisting that the whole collapse of wtc7 was at free fall acceleration during 6.5 seconds...
911 is like a candy store vs a young child, they cannot choose. They want it all..
"Oh come on, Wabble. If there was a plot, those involved may very well may have surmised beforehand that they were going to be killed after the job was done."
Yeah, and any "patriots" among them would blow the whistle before it got to that point.
WTC7 came down in almost perfect symmetry, as anyone who looks at the videos can see. The only exceptions to this are that the e. penthouse fell first, and in the last seconds of collapse the building leaned slightly toward the south.
So it was almost perfect except for when it wasn't, but it was almost perfect anyway! Just like it was "level".
http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTC7StraightDown.png.html?sort=3&o=39
"Rapid onset of collapse" is applied to the towers' collapses, not to WTC7's
Yes Brian, in the magic demolition when A is true it is a sign of explosives, but even when A is false it is still a sign of explosives.
Your baseless claims that my claims are baseless are silly, GMS.
LOL! Meanwhile Brian has concocted some mysterious patriot and how he was killed to keep silent out of whole cloth.
See Brian? That's what we call evidence.
The clouds were described as pyroclastic by a PhD geophysicist at Cambridge, Dr. Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics and Director of the Institute of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge. He wrote:
'Aside from natural events, a very tragic example of a pyroclastic flow is what happened on the 11th of September, 2001.'
http://plus.maths.org/content/going-flow
Except Brian, what AE911Truth likes to pretend is that the flows on 9/11 are a result of hot gases.
Pyroclastic-like, rapidly expanding dust clouds after the destruction of the Towers can also be explained only by the expansion of hot gases.
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/347-high-temperatures-persistent-heat-a-molten-steel-at-wtc-site-challenge-official-story.html
Sadly for da twoof, Huppert never said anything about hot gases on 9/11 driving the flow. In fact he says,
If the concentration of ash particles is sufficiently high, the result is a ground-hugging gravity current, called a pyroclastic flow. Pyroclastic flows can be at temperatures as high as 8000C, and the biggest ones can travel as fast as 1,000 kilometres an hour.
If demolitionists brought the towers down in 7 seconds because they didn't know how to bring it down in a more convincing manner, then surely they would have tried to do something to try to make it look like a natural collapse.
^Baseless claim. Nothing more than speculation by a janitor.
Best would be if they made the east end of the interior fall through the east wall, but they didn't dare try that because it would have made the behavior of the rest of the structure unpredictable.
So they had to settle for what they could do: blow up the floors at the 45th floor level so the E. Penthouse fell down, simulating an interior collapse. That was their only option.
^Baseless claim. Nothing more than speculation by a janitor.
when the effect of the open atrium in the lowest floors finally caused it to tilt to the south, which anyone conversant in engineering issues would not find surprising in the least.
Tilting the tower to the south so it topples toward already-destroyed WTC structures is also to be expected from a professional demolition op, as they would wish to avoid damage to other neighboring structures that might inspire messy and uncontrollable insurance investigations.
^Baseless claim. Nothing more than speculation by a janitor.
Your baseless claims that my claims are baseless are silly, GMS.
^LOL!
truth hurts, your comparison of a covert demolition that is meant to look like a fire induced collapse to a standard demolition that is meant to create a spectacle and impress on everyone the great skill and daring of the demolitions is silly.
Your belief that the Penthouse falling in necessarily means the building was collapsing is a real hoot.
WTC7 came down in symmetry. The west wall and the east wall fall at the same time and the same speed. Given the lack of symmetry of the structural framing, the near-perfect symmetry of the collapse is astounding--a work of art.
You provide no evidence that the interior of the building collapsed. No audio evidence. No distortion to the perimeter structure. Nothing except the shed on the top falling through the roof. Meanwhile, NIST's computer models show that a 47-story building suffering an internal collapse would fold up like a wet paper bag.
The dust clouds were described as pyroclastic by a PhD geophysicist at Cambridge, Dr. Herbert Huppert, Professor of Theoretical Geophysics and Director of the Institute of Theoretical Geophysics at the University of Cambridge. He wrote:
"Aside from natural events, a very tragic example of a pyroclastic flow is what happened on the 11th of September, 2001."
http://plus.maths.org/content/going-flow
Your belief that it took six seconds to fall behind Fiterman Hall is another real hoot. Did you go the Dingleberries Myths school of internet research?
I never acknowledged that the building began collapsing with the fall of the penthouse. Maybe you should try responding to my actual posts instead of responding to your fantasies of what they say.
There is no contradiction between claiming a 6.5 second collapse time and noting that NIST acknowledges a 2.25-second freefall period.
Wabble, you seem overly impressed with your psychic powers. How do you know that a patriot involved in the op would be given enough knowledge and enough time and enough freedom to blow the whistle?
You guys seem to think that black ops people are all a bunch of Monica Lewinskys who are free to go around writing books and appearing on Oprah and Rosie and Dr. Phil.
Wabble, you seem overly impressed with your psychic powers. How do you know that a patriot involved in the op would be given enough knowledge and enough time and enough freedom to blow the whistle?
Indeed! Only Brian can make up fact free scenarios from whole cloth!
GMS, the demolition of buildings is a fairly common human endeavor. There is nothing fact-free about it.
It was Wabble who was creating a fact-free scenario out of whole cloth--one in which covert operatives are given knowledge, time, freedom, and media access to engage in whistleblowing. I simply pointed out how ridiculous that scenario was.
Do you think that covert agencies have not developed techniques over the years for identifying potential whistleblowers and frustrating them and containing the damage that they can do? It appears that's what the Wab thinks. Do you share his fact-free opinion is justified?
meant to look like a fire induced collapse to a standard demolition that is meant to create a spectacle and impress on everyone the great skill and daring of the demolitions
^baseless claim by a janitor.
Your belief that the Penthouse falling in necessarily means the building was collapsing is a real hoot.
Yes! Why would anyone think the Penthouse and what was below it was part of the actual building?! Insanity I say!
WTC7 came down in symmetry.
Liar.
http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTC7StraightDown.png.html?sort=3&o=41
The west wall and the east wall fall at the same time and the same speed.
Which means any other lack of symmetry does not exist!
Given the lack of symmetry of the structural framing, the near-perfect symmetry of the collapse is astounding--a work of art.
If you ignore all the facts to the contrary.
You provide no evidence that the interior of the building collapsed. No audio evidence.
Liar. Here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2gJsOjXUU8
No distortion to the perimeter structure.
Liar.
Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors
http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html
This was explained to Brian 3 years ago. And here he is still avoiding reality.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/06/am-i-only-one.html#c4165895755322583838
The dust clouds were described as pyroclastic by a PhD geophysicist at Cambridge, Dr. Herbert Huppert,
And only rubes think its evidence of magical explosives or incendiaries.
Your belief that it took six seconds to fall behind Fiterman Hall is another real hoot. Did you go the Dingleberries Myths school of internet research?
^Hand waving
I never acknowledged that the building began collapsing with the fall of the penthouse.
Because that would mean addressing reality.
Maybe you should try responding to my actual posts instead of responding to your fantasies of what they say.
Does it really matter? When you do say something and it contradicts reality you dance around like a loon.
There is no contradiction between claiming a 6.5 second collapse time, and noting that NIST acknowledges a 2.25-second freefall period.
Not inherently contradictory. Just not what happened.
GMS, the demolition of buildings is a fairly common human endeavor. There is nothing fact-free about it.
No one said it was. Your baseless speculation is what is being challenged.
It was Wabble who was creating a fact-free scenario out of whole cloth--one in which covert operatives are given knowledge, time, freedom, and media access to engage in whistleblowing. I simply pointed out how ridiculous that scenario was.
Your the dumbass who created this "patriot" and his subsequent demise.
Do you think that covert agencies have not developed techniques over the years for identifying potential whistleblowers and frustrating them and containing the damage that they can do? It appears that's what the Wab thinks. Do you share his fact-free opinion is justified?
I think they probably have techniques. But being covert does not grant free reign on speculation to janitors or ex janitors.
You do realize you don't get to just make shit up and everyone should believe it, right?
GMS, where do you get your information that I am a janitor? And so what if I were? It would not affect the validity of my observations, none of which require esoteric technical expertise, but only a familiarity with Newton's laws. The ad hominem is the argument of last resort for those who can not argue the facts.
Upon what basis do you believe that controlled demolitions are not presented as spectacles? You have not seen very many, I take it.
Your inference from the fall of the Penthouse that the building failed 35 stories below is not justified when the building could have far more plausibly failed at the 45th floor.
WTC7 came down in almost perfect symmetry, as can be seen in the videos. Your quibbling on this issue is silly. Given its asymmetric framing and the atrium on the south side, the symmetry exhibited in the collapse is quite astounding.
Your youtube provides no audio evidence of an invisible interior 47-story collapse. Why did this collapse make no noise and why did it not blow out the windows as the tower collapses did? Why no squibs from air forced down elevator shafts?
Do you deny the asymmetry of the structural framing of WTC7? On what basis?
The west wall and the east wall fall at the same time and the same speed. ..
You don't know that, since there is no footage of the east or West side of the building during the collapse.
I did point out evidence that the inner structure collapsed first and do did you, brian. You yourself stated that the penthouses fell into the building.
That can only have happened if the inner structure was gone at that point.
On the other hand, you didn't provide any evidence for your statement that the complete structure came down in one pièce.
WTC7 came down in almost perfect symmetry, as can be seen in the videos.
Nope, as you have admitted yourself, the collapse started in the eastern part of the building.
Only the last stage of the collapse, the fall of the north facade, was symmetrical.
You didn't provide any evidence for your claim that the rest of the building came down symmetrical.
"Your youtube provides no audio evidence of an invisible interior 47-story collapse. Why did this collapse make no noise and why did it not blow out the windows as the tower collapses did? Why no squibs from air forced down elevator shafts? "
Well, what you don't realize is that you have just disproven your controlled demolition theory.
No sound of explosions, no damaged Windows caused by explosions...
So we can rule out the controlleddemolition theory.
The inner collapse is proved by the falling penthouses and the seismic data.
I know you desperate try to disprove that, but You failed.
There is no contradiction between claiming a 6.5 second collapse time, and noting that NIST acknowledges a 2.25-second freefall period"
As usual you are missing the point.
Chandler stated that only during 2,5 seconds, there was a free fall acceleration.
Not before that moment and not after that.
So there was no free fall of 6.5 seconds.
Anyone with half a brain can see that...
GMS, where do you get your information that I am a janitor? And so what if I were? It would not affect the validity of my observations, none of which require esoteric technical expertise, but only a familiarity with Newton's laws. The ad hominem is the argument of last resort for those who can not argue the facts.
LOL! Brian throwing words around again. I never made ad hom. But, being a moron, you seem to think you can just put forth claims with no validation. Sorry Brian, but even experts in fields have to back up their claims.
Upon what basis do you believe that controlled demolitions are not presented as spectacles? You have not seen very many, I take it.
Never said they weren't good job failing again.
Your inference from the fall of the Penthouse that the building failed 35 stories below is not justified when the building could have far more plausibly failed at the 45th floor.
Another baseless claim from a janitor. See Brian? Again you make a claim and don't back up. Since you fail to back it up and consider your knowledge good enough on the subject to just make assertions that would be appeal to authority.
WTC7 came down in almost perfect symmetry, as can be seen in the videos. Your quibbling on this issue is silly. Given its asymmetric framing and the atrium on the south side, the symmetry exhibited in the collapse is quite astounding.
LOL! I love how you claim it was symmetrical then come up with excuses why it's not, as if that makes it symmetrical. What a dumb ass.
Your youtube provides no audio evidence of an invisible interior 47-story collapse. Why did this collapse make no noise and why did it not blow out the windows as the tower collapses did? Why no squibs from air forced down elevator shafts?
You tell me dumb ass the "squibs"( Brian continues to use words incorrectly) are your cult's BS criteria for magic explosives.
The video shows the sound. You're just a dumb ass who repeats moronic claims regardless of what reality shows. Funny enough Brian, even the other kooks for truth know a sound is there. Of course they also think the sound is hush boom explosives.
In another clip, a low frequency explosion can be heard just before the East penthouse of WTC Building 7 falls.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus
(Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, 11/6/10)
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/401-little-known-911-truth-organization-strikes-gold.html
So are we all lying, Brian? Or are you just a temper tantrum throwing rube who hates it when facts are inconvenient?
Do you deny the asymmetry of the structural framing of WTC7? On what basis?
You're the dumb ass running around saying it collapsed symmetrically when it didn't, as I have proven repeatedly.
http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTC7StraightDown.png.html?sort=3&o=41
truth hurts, the videos show the east wall and the west wall falling. Do you think that the north wall somehow invisible disconnected from them and stood with no distortion?
The Penthouse could have fallen if the floor beams on the 45th floor were cut by incendiaries.
If there is no sound of 47 concrete floors crashing down, then the alleged absence of sound of explosives is meaningless.
The fact that the building failed to fold up as the model demanded shows that the floors were intact, stiffening the outer walls.
The videos show the building coming down in near-perfect symmetry--especially when you consider the asymmetric framing of the floors and NIST's alleged asymmetric collapse.
GMS, when you dimiss my opinions as the opinions of a janitor, you are engaging in ad hominem attack. Your denial of this fact puts your posts down at the level of Lyin Ianinny's Lyin Iananity.
Your desperate denial is obvious.
"I mean, really, Wabble. Your idea that black op covert demolitions killing thousands can be undertaken and then their participants can be allowed to go around writing tell-all books and appearing on Oprah is just really, really, silly."
Please show me a Tier-1 operator who'd sign up for this 9-11 operation in the first place.
Then show me the Tier-1 operator who's take the job knowing there's a 90% chance of being executed by his employer afterwards.
Show that guy. Dufus.
the videos show the east wall and the west wall falling.
It doesn't.
And you know it, that is why you state the vollowing:
Do you think that the north wall somehow invisible disconnected from them and stood with no distortion?
So you don't have any video evidence, but you asume that the east and west wall was still in tact.
How about the south wall? can you show any video footage that the south wall was still intact when the north facade came down?
The Penthouse could have fallen if the floor beams on the 45th floor were cut by incendiaries.
45th floor?
Why do you fantasize that they would cut the colomns of the penthouse that high in the building during a controlled demolition?
If there is no sound of 47 concrete floors crashing down, then the alleged absence of sound of explosives is meaningless.
So you state that the collapsing floors would make more noise than the explosions?
Keep in mind that according to AE911truth, the collapse of WTC7 had all the characteristics of a demolition.
That means prior and during the collapse, there would be loud sequences of explosions.
None can be heard, as you acknowledge.
The videos show the building coming down in near-perfect symmetry
Nope, the videos show how the collapse starts inside wtc7 in the eastern part of the building.
Seismic date, which you avoid commenting on, revealed that during the time between the fall of the eastern penthouse and the fall of the north facade, the collapse of the tower continued.
So the only thing that we can see falling allmost symetrical is the facade of the building.
Not the whole building, as you desperatly try to impose...
GMS, when you dimiss my opinions as the opinions of a janitor
He has a point, a janitor is not an expert on the field that we are discussing.
mgf, Blackwater certainly had the clout to float inquiries about personnel for such an op. They had the power to recruit fuckups nobody would miss if they were gone, and they had the power to promise rapid career advancement to confidential operatives.
truth hurts--there is video showing the west wall falling together with the north wall. You need to do your homework.
If the east wall were not intact, the north wall would have folded over to the south instead of maintaining its planar morphology in the presence of a NW wind. You need to do your homework.
If the south wall were not intact and the interior fell down, the other walls would have toppled toward the south from the start.
I said beams, not columns. Your inability to note the distinction is noted.
The video does not show an invisible collapse inside the building. The video shows the penthouse falling down, which causes you to imagine an invisible collapse inside the building. You need to learn to distinguish between your imaginings and your observations.
Actually, I AM an expert on 9/11. Few people know more about it than I do.
You have no evidence that I am a janitor.
If this, if that...
All asumptions, brian.
You don't have any proof and you didn't an expert.
It seems that you lack the wit to recognize that they're your own assumptions, fool.
" Blackwater certainly had the clout to float inquiries about personnel for such an op. They had the power to recruit fuckups nobody would miss if they were gone, and they had the power to promise rapid career advancement to confidential operatives. "
Actually, in 2001, Blackwater was an unknown. There are other security consulting firms that would have been a better choice for your straw man.
Second, Blackwater quickly earned a bad reputation among former Tier-1 operators because they were notorious for hanging their employees out to dry or twist in the wind when things went south.
The only organization involved in 9-11 was Al Qaeda.
No Brian, you are the one stating as a fact that the whole building came down in one piece, while all you have are some assumptions about the state of the structure prior to the collapse.
The Penthouse could have fallen if the floor beams on the 45th floor were cut by incendiaries.
Could have is not evidence. It could have fallen if a team ran around with cut saws, but we have no reason to believe that happened, just like magic incendiaries.
If there is no sound of 47 concrete floors crashing down, then the alleged absence of sound of explosives is meaningless.
Meanwhile the total absence of explosives is apparently no problem. Funny how that works. Meanwhile we have a video of a boom just prior to collapse. Keep dancing.
The fact that the building failed to fold up as the model demanded shows that the floors were intact, stiffening the outer walls.
^Baseless claim of a janitor.
The videos show the building coming down in near-perfect symmetry--especially when you consider the asymmetric framing of the floors and NIST's alleged asymmetric collapse.
Liar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORXIR6r0BW8
GMS, when you dimiss my opinions as the opinions of a janitor, you are engaging in ad hominem attack. Your denial of this fact puts your posts down at the level of Lyin Ianinny's Lyin Iananity.
Great...they are your opinions based on non-expertise. In debate you can defer to actual expert opinion; which you are not. You have provided no evidence your opinions should be taken seriously. Please familiarize yourself with what ad hom is. Or by all means keep parading around your misunderstandings.
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
https://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Appeal_to_authority.html
Your desperate denial is obvious.
Your desperate hand waving is far more obvious.
It seems that you lack the wit to recognize that they're your own assumptions, fool.
Meanwhile Brain parades around his assumptions and baseless claims as evidence.
mgf, Blackwater was unknown to the public in 2001, but it was well known to military and intel types, and thus very well connected.
Being in a position to forecast 9/11 and wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would give them the capability of offering very rapid career advances to confidential operatives.
Upon what basis do you opine that better-known security firms would have been a better choice for a covert op? Blackwater's reputation after 9/11 is of little relevance to its recruiting capabilities before 9/11.
You seem to have some difficulty in distinguishing among assumptions, conclusions, speculations, opinions, and facts.
truth hurts, I never said the building came down in one piece.
I only pointed out that your claim that the north wall was left standing without any support from the east and west walls was absurd.
I don't claim that, i only point out that you don't know the condition of both walls at the time the facade came down.
You alsof seem to forget that the facade came down.
It wasnt left standing.
GMS, you seem to have some confusion about the nature of evidence. The collapse of the east penthouse is an observation that is evidence of a structural failure somewhere in the building. Multiple hypotheses of the nature of the structural failure are possible.
Occam's razor (I know how you guys like that one so well) suggests that use of incendiaries to cut the floor beams under the penthouse and maybe a couple of floors under is the simplest and thus most likely explanation.
Otherwise we have to go with a very convoluted and complex theory requiring the removal of many vital structural elements to make it work. In theory. I'm sure you Occam fans would not want to do that.
Your belief that an absence of explosives explains the silent collapse of the 47 concrete floors is amusing.
Where do you get the idea that I am a janitor? Are your research skills so poor? Is your journalistic integrity so lacking?
Your belief that any element of asymmetry refutes the fact of the striking symmetry of the collapse is like claiming that night is not dark because . . . starlight! street lights! headlights!
My opinions are not based on non-expertise at all. A child has the expertise to observe that the emperor has no clothes, and I have demonstrated that I have the expertise to observe that the NIST reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest.
I know what ad hominem means. It means attacking the person, claiming that he's a janitor, instead of dealing with the argument.
If you believe I have made any baseless claims, then identify them and I will base them.
truth hurts, I know the facade came down. You seem to be very much challenged by simple things.
You claimed that the video does not show the west wall and east walls falling. They must have been falling, because the video does not show them standing, and if they were not present the north wall could not stand in the breeze without lateral support.
GMS, you seem to have some confusion about the nature of evidence. The collapse of the east penthouse is an observation that is evidence of a structural failure somewhere in the building. Multiple hypotheses of the nature of the structural failure are possible.
Save for magical explosive/incendiaries. Fact is an internal collapse happened.
Occam's razor (I know how you guys like that one so well) suggests that use of incendiaries to cut the floor beams under the penthouse and maybe a couple of floors under is the simplest and thus most likely explanation.
LOL! Right...sadly Brian no evidence of these magical incendiaries exist. But only in your delusional world is secretly planted incendiaries is the simplest and most likely explanation.
Otherwise we have to go with a very convoluted and complex theory requiring the removal of many vital structural elements to make it work. In theory. I'm sure you Occam fans would not want to do that.
LOL @ convoluted. Yeah...like ninjas planting incendiaries to produce a classic controlled demolition that only doesn't look like one to throw everyone off. Makes sense.
Your belief that an absence of explosives explains the silent collapse of the 47 concrete floors is amusing.
Never said that. Keep failing.
Where do you get the idea that I am a janitor? Are your research skills so poor? Is your journalistic integrity so lacking?
Ok...ex janitor
Your belief that any element of asymmetry refutes the fact of the striking symmetry of the collapse is like claiming that night is not dark because . . . starlight! street lights! headlights!
Right, no quote from me stating what Brian claims I stated. Why? He is full of shit. Keep lying, Brian.
http://s8.photobucket.com/user/grnadmastershek/media/WTCSymmetryBG_zps9fd92882.png.html?sort=3&o=0
My opinions are not based on non-expertise at all. A child has the expertise to observe that the emperor has no clothes, and I have demonstrated that I have the expertise to observe that the NIST reports are incomplete, unscientific, and dishonest.
Delusional Brian. Fact is your a scientific illiterate (which is constantly proven) who makes baseless claims about engineering, fire science, and demolitions. You simply pretending you know what is and is not is not a compelling reason for anyone to need to refute it. Any idiot can makes claims, and you do regularly.
I know what ad hominem means. It means attacking the person, claiming that he's a janitor, instead of dealing with the argument.
There's nothing to deal with save some baseless claims by a janitor/ex-janitor. I provided a source on ad hom. No surprise you either didn't read it, or didn't understand it.
If you believe I have made any baseless claims, then identify them and I will base them.
Why start now? I point them out regularly. You simply repeating them again will not "base them".
@Brian:
None of the videos show all 3 sides of the building during its collapse.
So you don't know the condition of the other three walls when the north facade came down.
You yourself said this:
your claim that the north wall was left standing without any support from the east and west walls
I never claimed that.
It is also absurd that you think i claimed that, since we both acknowledge that the north facade came down.
You make it look like as if the facade remained standing for a while while the rest of the structure was gone, while no one in this thread has stated such a thing.
I also wonder why 2000+ architects and engineers are unable to provide the resources needed to file a simple lawsuit against CNN.
That is kinda odd. It is not like those architects and engineers don't have any money.
Fact is an internal collapse happened
Brian tries to deny that by stating that cutter charges were placed right under the penthouse...
This comment has been removed by the author.
@truth hurts, collapse video shot from the NE shows the E. wall. Video shot from the NW shows the west wall. Were either of those walls missing, the north wall could not have stood in the wind.
Here's a little experiment for you. Take a piece of plywood out to an open space in a breeze. Stand it long side up perpendicular to the angle of the breeze, and then turn it slightly. This will represent the north wall of WTC7--600 feet tall by 300 feet wide. See if you can make it stand by itself with no support.
Oh, so your claim that we don't know that the east wall and west wall came down at the same time and the same speed was actually an admission that they were attached to the north wall and they did come down at the same time and the same speed. Thanks for making yourself clear.
And your claim that the last stage of the collapse was the collapse of the north wall was not a claim that everything else fell down before the north wall. Thanks for making yourself clear.
Do your homework. Go play with some plywood. When it falls on your head maybe it will knock some sense into you.
Raising money for an effort is a common way of publicizing it. People who give money to a cause tend to pay attention and to talk about it. That's why politicians ask you to contribute your nickles and dimes to their campaigns--even though their corporate owners give both sides all the money they need.
I don't deny that an internal collapse happened. I just point out that NIST found it necessary to cheat and cheat and cheat on the mechanism to make it seem plausible, I point out that a far simpler explanation than theirs better explains the observables, and I point out the paucity of evidence of an internal collapse.
GMS, explosives and incendiaries are not magical. They have been employed for centuries, and we may safely assume that they are under active development by military technologists all over the planet.
Incendiaries secretly planted on the vacant floors (14, 15, 16, and 17) are indeed the most simple explanation for the demise of WTC7. Incendiaries can plausibly achieve what NIST implausibly claims that office fires did.
The collapse of WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko said so.
Your "evidence of a boom" is of poor provenance. Is that what you get when 47 concrete floors slap into each other? One boom?
Where do you get the idea that I am scientifically illiterate? What baseless claims have I made? You are obviously operating in a state of hysteria, dismissing as baseless anything that threatens your world view. And of course now after so many years of defending nonsense your ego is so heavily invested, that you'll never admit you've been wrong all these years.
I bet you're so gullible you think Willie Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives.
I don't need to read your screeds on ad hominem. I know what it means. And you changing your grounds for automatic disqualification from "janitor" to "ex-janitor" does not change the fact that it's an ad homionem attack. I am well qualified to claim everything I claim.
If you believe I make baseless claims, then point one out and I will base it. You make empty, frantic, hysterical claims.
GMS, explosives and incendiaries are not magical. They have been employed for centuries, and we may safely assume that they are under active development by military technologists all over the planet.
Meanwhile yours are magically silent and invisible.
Incendiaries secretly planted on the vacant floors (14, 15, 16, and 17) are indeed the most simple explanation for the demise of WTC7. Incendiaries can plausibly achieve what NIST implausibly claims that office fires did.
Baseless claim of a janitory/ex-janitor.
The collapse of WTC7 looks like a controlled demolition. Danny Jowenko said so.
And he said the Towers were not. Yet I get the feeling you ignore him then.
Your "evidence of a boom" is of poor provenance. Is that what you get when 47 concrete floors slap into each other? One boom?
LOL! Well at least your not still deluding yourself into thinking there is nothing there. Meanwhile Brian believes in magic explosives.
Where do you get the idea that I am scientifically illiterate? What baseless claims have I made? You are obviously operating in a state of hysteria, dismissing as baseless anything that threatens your world view. And of course now after so many years of defending nonsense your ego is so heavily invested, that you'll never admit you've been wrong all these years.
With every post you make. You misuse basic logic and scientific concepts. Along with what others have posted here's an example:
UtterFail, "m/2s" is a velocity.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/08/clown-foot-in-door-gets-mashed.html#c2939893388976232933
GB repeatedly asked for a single example anywhere of anyone anywhere claiming m/2s is a velocity. You provided none and continued to parade around your new clothes. Would you like more examples?
I bet you're so gullible you think Willie Rodriguez saved hundreds of lives.
LOL! I love watching you obsess about Wil Rod. Must piss you off knowing we all watched you tuck tail and run. "Any time, any where right Brian? LOL!
I don't need to read your screeds on ad hominem. I know what it means. And you changing your grounds for automatic disqualification from "janitor" to "ex-janitor" does not change the fact that it's an ad homionem attack.
LOL! I posted links to pages on logic. Poor Brian and never his ending butt hurt.
I am well qualified to claim everything I claim.
Sure Brian, keep telling yourself that while making physics fail after physics fail.
If you believe I make baseless claims, then point one out and I will base it.
I've done it repeatedly. Sadly, you think just repeating yourself is backing it up.
You make empty, frantic, hysterical claims.
My, such squealing!
I just point out that NIST found it necessary to cheat and cheat and cheat on the mechanism to make it seem plausible, I point out that a far simpler explanation than theirs better explains the observables, and I point out the paucity of evidence of an internal collapse.
You've done no such thing. You're a delusional rube who thinks his illiteracy qualifies him to make baseless claim after baseless claim and be free from providing supporting evidence.
July 4th. The day we celebrate The Greatest Country On Earth by reminding Brian Good that his Buschist contempt for democracy hasn't changed anything about 9/11. Freedom has won over lying "widows" with questions and a failed janitor who lives with his parents, wears women's underwear, and can't afford a decent haitcut.
Happy 4th, Brian! I hope you enjoy the hilarious failure that is your life by posting more hysterical spam here. 1st amendment (that you would abolish, of course) still applies to liars and sex stalkers like you.
I particularly love how he pretends he has no life b/c of his "work" with da twoof. Explains why he needs to clutch to his delusions so bad. If he doesn't have them, then what other excuse will he have?
So today, I will go to a ballgame with my fiancee and enjoy a beer.
Today, Laurie Van Auken will sob over the failure of her plan to use mass murder to become rich and famous.
Today, Brian will post spam on the internet because he has no friends, no family, no job, and thus will not be attending any July 4th celebrations.
American, fuck yeah!
GMS, what's magically silent and invisible is NIST's covert 47-story interior collapse. Why didn't it blow massive dust clouds out the windows as the towet collapses did? Why didn't it make noise like the tower collapses did?
Given that silencer devices can quiet gunshots, the proposition that some kind of device could quiet explosive detonations is not unreasonable.
There is nothing baseless about the claim that demolition by incendiaries planted on the four vacant floors of WTC7 is a simpler solution to the destruction of WTC7 than is NIST's convoluted collapse scenario--which after all took NIST 6 years to concoct.
What's baseless is your belief that my part-time employment as a janitor when I was in college somehow disqualifies my observations of facts. I know an ex-janitor who went to law school and became General Counsel of a world-famous high tech company.
I don't ignore Danny Jowenko when he says the towers were not a demolition. Why would I want to do that? Unlike you, I do not ignore evidence and invent bogus reasons to discard it.
The "boom" heard on your video was not even noticed by the firefighters. They only started to comment when the building started to fall. You didn't answer the question. What is the provenance of your video? How do you know that "boom" wasn't inserted by some prankster?
Please identify an example of my misuse of logic and scientific concepts.
Meters per half second is a velocity--just as is feet per second and miles per hour. Either GutterBall was so ignorant he didn't know that or he was disingenuously demanding authority for the concept because he knew it would fool scientific illiterates like you and mgf and Ian.
I'm not obsessed with Willie. I'm thorough. SLC was about the last place in the world that still believed Willie was a hero. It can stand proudly with some hick conference in Juarez as a paragon of gullibility. Can you explain why his "fabulous" pictures with prominent scumbags were not picked up on the internet anywhere except here?
Please identify a physics fail I made. You are deluding yourself.
I am well qualified by education and experience in Newtonian physics. No one has ever refuted me on those grounds, but only put forth argumentum ad hominem and argument-by-giggles.
If you've repeatedly shown my claims to be baseless, you should be able to provide an example. Hint: saying "Your claim is baseless" is not showing anything. It's expressing an opinion.
I used to think you were smart. I warned you that tolerating Ian's blatant lies was going to rot your mind.
GMS, I have repeatedly pointed out NIST's cheating. I don't think you read my posts.
I have pointed out how their alleged termination of the their analysis at the moments the towers began to collapse enabled them to dodge the ten essential mysteries of the collapses.
I have pointed out how they upped their estimates of plane-crash column damage to 6 columns severed to conform with the videos--in other words, they rejected their "reasonable" assumptions of 1 column severed and 3 columns severed because those would not generate a collapse.
I have pointed out that they removed essential structural elements from the column 79/girder a2001 system for their analysis because their WTC7 collapse initiation scenario would not work if those elements were in place.
A "delusion" has a quite specific technical meaning. As I recall the definition (it's been 20 years or so since I checked) it is a rigid belief that is held despite the lack of evidence to support it and in defiance of incontrovertible proof top the contrary.
Rather than misuse psychiatric terminology you clearly don't understand, how about if you show that my beliefs are rigid and I reject proof that they're wrong?
Ian, what makes the USA The Greatest Country on Earth? Great for your psychopathic kind, maybe. If you lie to your customers like you lie to us, you're just another con artist like Willie Rodriguez--which may be why you admire him so--and you're headed for a big fall.
The contempt for democracy is yours--your lying in defense of corrupt authority, your contempt for the widows' frustration, your attempts to marginalize the majority of Americans who think there is something very wrong about 9/11.
Post a Comment
<< Home