NYC-CAN Submits 67000 Signatures
It's interesting that with paid signature gatherers and a much less-controversial measure this time around, they got 13,000 fewer John Hancocks than in 2009. Of course, they're headed for another pie-in-the-face ending, but for now they're probably convincing themselves that the NY Buildings Department will somehow find that WTC-7 was a controlled demolition.
Truckload of fail to follow.
posted by Pat @ 10:48 PM
126 comments
126 Comments:
Aren't you comparing apples to oranges, Pat? As I recall (and I could be wrong) the NYCCAN effort took two years to gather its signatures.
How many months was this new initiative in action?
You guys need to rethink your "truthers are stupid because their initiatives are going to fsil" axioms.
NIST claimed in 2005 that computers were not powerfulenough to model the collapses. How about now? Why should we not bring current computer power to bear on the problem?
Why should you guys claim that the computer limitations of 2005 should restrict our final answer?
@brian,
Why don't the thruthers use their resources to create there own collapse sequenses?
You already have over 2000 architects and engineers on your side.
I would expect that such an amount of expertise is more then enough to do some own research, in stead of depending on a gouvernement organisation that might have a different agenda.
I don't expect anything to come out ofthis campaign, since NIST already investigated the collapse and a judge already ruled that you cant expect a skyskraper to survive a disaster like 911
Why should we not bring current computer power to bear on the problem?
Indeed, why don't you?
That is the real question
This comment has been removed by the author.
Because TH, we need to waste the taxpayers money to entertain delusions of magic explosives & thermite.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Also, GMS, a new investigation is not about entertaining delusions.
Refuting delusions would be an exercise well worth undertaking. Let's start with nanothermite, for a test case. Only $1000 has been spent in that enterprise--with predictably piss-poor results. How about spending $150,000 and see what you get? What's the harm in that?
A new investigation need not entertain any (alleged) delusions at all. It could be restricted to supporting the official account, which as anyone can see is very poorly supported. It could be restricted to investigating the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise that NIST dodged.
You are using the dishonest framing of "entertain[ing] delusions" to attack any further investigation at all. Why? What are you afraid of?
Let's have the widows' 273 questions answered, let's have the ten essential tower mysteries addressed.let's have the release of the tower collapse visualizations and the WTC7 thermal expansion calculations.
Let's have NIST run their WTC7 models again with a few parameters adjusted. For instance, instead of assuming that 3/4 of connections broken at a joint equals all connections broken, let's see what the model looks like if 7/8 of connections need to be broken to make all connections broken. Or what the hell, let's see what happens in their models if we require that all connections be broken before the joint fails. Just for giggles. Let them explain why that model is not valid. A fudge factor for dynamic effects? Maybe that's reasonable. I don't know. Let them explain why it's reasonable. Call me old-fashioned, but I'd like to have government reports free of hazy fudge factors.
Why don't you?
Let's start with nanothermite. Let's have a $150,000 investigation. It will test the red-gray chips in a calorimeter in Nitrogen to see if they truly are energetic from high-tech chemistry or if they are energetic only from the kind of combustion you'd expect from ordinary paint.
Let's have electron micrographs of ordinary paint chips. Do they demonstrate the same stereotyped rhomboidal crystals of iron oxide that the (alleged) nanothermite chips do? Do they have the same stereotyped aluminum platelets seen in the alleged nanothermite chips? Why or why not?
What are you afraid of? Are you afraid that Bigfoot might be real? How would that hurt you?
TH, a new investigation needs subpoena power if it is to have any hope of findings the truth.
The only way that investigations of the hypotheses of design or construction flaws can be investigated is through subpoena power.
The only way that controversy within NIST and FEMA about their investigations can be discovered is through subpoena power.
A private investigation will not have subpoena power. Also, if there were a private investigation, people like you would just lie about it.
NIST already investigated the collapse of WTC7, yes, but their investigation had to resort to the removal of vital structural elements from the system to make their collapse scenario seem plausible.
GMS, if you really want to save the taxpayers' money, you would go after a bloated, corrupt, and wasteful military establishment.
Only $35 million has been spent to date on official investigations of 9/11. That is little more than the cost of ONE Chinook helicopter.
GMS, speaking of wasting taxpayer money on delusions, how about the 13-year (and counting) Ashcanistan war that failed to capture bin Laden?
How about the Iraq war that failed to find any WMDs and failed to make a model liberal democracy of Iraq?
That's $3 trillion of wasted taxpayer money that enriched some Friends of Cheney greatly--all based on 9/11. But we've only spent $36 million on official investigations of that event--little more than the cost of ONE Chinook helicopter.
Why are you so sanguine about expenditures to a corrupt, bloated, and wasteful military establishment and so chary when it comes to expenditures for INTELLIGENCE, when intelligence could have prevented the attacks in the first place--if it wanted to?
ALso, has anyone seen Willie lately? He's not on the 9/11 blogs and he's not in the news at all--not even on RT or PressTV. Last I saw of him he was presenting at some hick disaster conference in Juarez, and then at SLC.
He ran away screaming and crying after I showed that his hero story was a lie, and that he stole it from dead 9/11 heroes such as Pablo Ortiz and Frank DeMartini.
I have no fear of a libel suit from Willie because in the USA truth is a defense (I checked) and a court case would only publicize his fraudulence.
Nonsense brian,
You don't need subpoena power to investigate how the collapse could have happened.
The only way that controversy within NIST and FEMA about their investigations can be discovered
Aaah, so you don't want to investigate the collapse, but want to investigate the investigations
:o)
Let's start with nanothermite
Has been tested, turned out to be paint...
Furthermore, anyone with more than half a brain cell can figure out that you can't melt steel columns using a thin layer thermite. .
NIST already investigated the collapse of WTC7, yes, but their investigation had to resort to the removal of vital structural elements from the system to make their collapse scenario seem plausible.
Bogus statement.
Of course vital structural elements need to be removed in order to make the building collapse.
I had a local engineer look into it and he found the collapse improbable, until i showed him the frankel steel blue prints.
After studying, it made sense to him.
I guess that is why we never saw an analysis of the blue prints on their website...
TH--what local engineer investigated, and upon what basis did he conclude that the collapse was improbable?
TH, you are a liar. You may think that you have laudable reasons for lying, but that doesn't change the fact of your lies.
He thought the collapse was improbable, based on the same information Jowenko had when he came with that conclusion.
We then contacted ae911truth after we heard they had the blue prints of the steel framing from Frankel Steel. Ae911truth gladly provided the papers, but when the engineer came to another conclusion than AE desired, they broke every contact...
I'm not going to mention the name of the engineer that i consulted, as i don't want hem to be harassed by truthers like you.
Just mentioning his findings already makes you starting to harass me by calling me a liar...
Also, GMS, a new investigation is not about entertaining delusions.
Sure it. It's about magic explosives and people who don't know what symmetry is.
Refuting delusions would be an exercise well worth undertaking.Let's start with nanothermite, for a test case. Only $1000 has been spent in that enterprise--with predictably piss-poor results. How about spending $150,000 and see what you get? What's the harm in that?
On your dime...sure. Why should we waste tax dollars b/c the so called scholars avoid academic scrutiny? Surely with the alleged numbers of truthers they could get the scratch together.
A new investigation need not entertain any (alleged) delusions at all. It could be restricted to supporting the official account, which as anyone can see is very poorly supported.
According to a fringe cult. Meanwhile the academic world goes on.
It could be restricted to investigating the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise that NIST dodged.
No one cares about your nonsensical list.
You are using the dishonest framing of "entertain[ing] delusions" to attack any further investigation at all. Why? What are you afraid of?
Wasting tax dollars on delusions. We could just as easily waste it on finding out if the Earth is flat or hollow.
Let's have the widows' 273 questions answered, let's have the ten essential tower mysteries addressed.let's have the release of the tower collapse visualizations and the WTC7 thermal expansion calculations.
Blah blah blah...same nonsense new thread.
Let's have NIST run their WTC7 models again with a few parameters adjusted... Let them explain why that model is not valid. A...Call me old-fashioned, but I'd like to have government reports free of hazy fudge factors.
You're not old fashioned. You're a science illiterate as you repeatedly prove. You guys can prove anything you want if you submit to the scrutiny actual scientists undergo. Don't expect others to pick up the tab for your delusions.
TH, you're absolutely right. You don't need subpoena power to investigate how the collapse could have happened.
We've already had investigations into how the collapse could have happened. I want investigations into how the collapse DID happen. For that, we need subpoena power.
The hearsay accounts of an anonymous internet liar such as you are not worth the paper they're not printed on.
"NIST claimed in 2005 that computers were not powerfulenough to model the collapses."
Computers they had access too. Los Alamos had modeling computers sophisticated enough to model nuclear blasts and their effects on structures and environment as early as 1999. That's one of the reasons we don't have to do underground testing anymore.
NIST didn't have acces, but didn't need access as the cause of the collapse was known.
" Why should we not bring current computer power to bear on the problem? "
Why don't you? The blue prints for the entire WTC complex are on file at NYC, and A&E9-11BS can hire out to have the modeling done.
They have raised enough money over the last five years to have done this twice.
Wow, Brian's on a role.
Widows? Check
10-essential mysteries? Check.
Subpoena power? Check
Corrupt Defense Spending? Check
NIST can't be trusted, but quotes them anyway? Check
Nanothermite? Check
Willie Rodriguez? Check
The hilarious thing is that he's been kicked out of all of the troofer sites, and this is the only place he has to go now.
I want investigations into how the collapse DID happen. For that, we need subpoena power.
No you don't.
Also, you turn this into what you want to investigate, in stead of what the petitioners want to investigate
@mgferris
That is the odd thing about AE: they never use the money and their own expertise and resources to do their own research...
@brian: what puzzles me is that you never consulted a local unbiased engineer to look into the building structure.
Let's have the widows' 273 questions answered, let's have the ten essential tower mysteries addressed.
The widows have no questions and the "essential mysteries" are the paranoid delusions of a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
Next!
From the last thread, Brian Good asked,
Ian, what makes the USA The Greatest Country on Earth?
Easy. We celebrate winners like me, while mocking and humiliating losers like you. While I have a successful business career, you can't even hold down a job mopping floors. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
While normal people with jobs and friends and family spent July 4th weekend out and about, you spent it posting spam about magic spray-on thermite.
Anyway, Brian, the next few weeks will see me busy with my upcoming wedding and honeymoon. I'll be celebrating with my family and friends and have a lifetime of memories to cherish.
You wouldn't understand any of this since you have no friends and your romantic life consists of posting obsessive homosexual spam about Willie Rodriguez all over the internet.
But rest assured, when it's all done and I return to my normal life, I will be back to humiliate you over your obsession with invisible widows, magic thermite elves, and your hideous homeless mullet.
We've already had investigations into how the collapse could have happened. I want investigations into how the collapse DID happen. For that, we need subpoena power.
Sadly Brian you are under the delusion that science can always tell you exactly how something happens. Meanwhile anyone with a cursory understanding of science knows that is not always a realty.
Actual science literates understand that not all things can be explained and we have to accept that limitation, hence your problem.
FYI- While the any of the various Derps for 9/11 Truth groups were busy fleecing money from gullible people, they could have paid reputable people in the scientific community to conduct independent studies and submitted them to any of the reputable journals or communities on the planet for review and validation if they had merit, multiple times.
Meanwhile we have to settle on sending Dickie Gage around the globe, on vacation, errrr...I mean o convert new members to the flock, ever thinning demonstrations, and youtube videos.
mgf, the cause of the collapses will not be known until we have an investigation that explains all of their features. NIST dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses, knowing that fools like you would be satisfied with corrupt, unscientific, and incomplete reports.
If AE911truth did computer models, you guys would be all over them like flies on shit, claiming that the engineers were unqualified and biased. There's no point. We need new investigations with subpoena power.
Lyin Ianinny, your claim that the widows have no questions is a shameful lie. The pulverized concrete and the melted steel are not "paranoid delusions". They are unexplained mysteries.
Why does a "winner" find it necessary to gloat about the distress of the victims of 9/11? Any idiot can get an MBA, and any idiot can get rich, and only an idiot thinks it's something to brag about. Any idiot can "succeed" by lying to his customers (as your buddy Willie Rodriguez did) but not for long.
GMS, when are you going to quit playing with straw dolls and put forth a grown-up argument?
Poor Brian. He's humiliated because I'm a winner and he's a loser obsessed with phony "widows" who can't even afford a decent haircut.
Thanks for proving my point about paranoid delusions, Brian. You're babbling about pulverized concrete and melted steel because you're a mentally ill ignoramus.
Ian, the pulverized concrete and the melted steel are physical facts.
There is no reason in the world to believe your tales of MBAs and success and weddings. But even if it were all true, it makes me smile to think that if the day ever came that you were forced to take the quick way down from 100th floor, your widow would not be at all demanding of honest investigations about the circumstances of your death. She'd take the payoff million, and soon she'd take up with the biggest, hairiest personal trainer she could afford.
Only 15% of 18-29-year-olds say the United States is the world’s No. 1 nation.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americans-are-down-on-america-190304928.html
Lyin Ianinny's out of touch.
Brian is just posting hysterical spam now because he can't stand that I'm smart, successful, and happy, and that my fiancée is not a lying, gold-digging floozy like Laurie Van Auken.
Also, your opinion poll spam is meaningless. My Uncle Bill is a sociologist at Northwestern and he's done a study that proves that the US is the best country ever. You fail again, Brian.
Anyway, Brian, you still haven't told us why you don't want to investigate the likelihood that the towers were destroyed by micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. The essential mysteries strongly suggest this. Renowned truther Bill Deagle suggests it. Over 95% of Americans believe in baboons and nuclear weapons.
Your continued dismissal of this just shows your bushcist contempt for democracy.
I have many times told you that I don't regard micro-nukes as a worthwhile hypothesis because as I understand it their use would create detectable radiation which was not found at Ground Zero. If I'm wrong about that, then I might reconsider that opinion.
The attack baboon hypothesis seems to me to add unnecessary complexity, unnecessary risk of discovery, and difficulties in quality control to the op. I'd see the chief advantage of attack baboons as their expendability, which would not likely be an issue in the WTC op. Of course there again I could be persuaded to change my position if presented with reasonable arguments of sufficient strength.
Your attempts at humor only shows your feeble imagination and the limitations of your wit. I sure am glad I'm not you.
the cause of the collapses will not be known until we have an investigation that explains all of their features.
You can't expect a 100% explanation for what happened.
No disaster in history has a 100% explanation for all its features...
Furthermore, the collapse has been explained. But not in a way you like, so you will continue to question the collapse, no matter what...
NIST dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses
There are no 10 essential mysteries of the collapse.
If AE911truth did computer models, you guys would be all over them like flies on shit, claiming that the engineers were unqualified and biased.
Like you do with NIST.
There's no point. We need new investigations with subpoena power.
if they come to the same conclusion of nist (e.g. wtc7 collapsed due to fires), you will be all over them like flies on shit, claiming that they were unqualified and biased.
So according to your own reasoning, it is useless to do so..
Speaking of NIST: they released preliminary reports of wtc7 for public scrutiny. The only critism coming from ae911truth is that NIST ommitted a 2,5 second free fall acceleration of the facade..
And NIST added that to the report.
" The pulverized concrete and the melted steel are not "paranoid delusions". They are unexplained mysteries."
Not really.
There never was molten steel and a Dutch university has proven that the potential energy of the towers was more than sufficient to pulverize the complete contents of the building during a collapse.
But according to Brian, AE911truth is so scared to get criticism from the public that they don't dare to do any investigation at all...
Chickens...
"NIST dodged the ten essential mysteries of the collapses, knowing that fools like you would be satisfied with corrupt, unscientific, and incomplete reports."
Funny, in the last thread you claimed you've never accused NIST of corruption...and yet here you do it again.
"If AE911truth did computer models, you guys would be all over them like flies on shit, claiming that the engineers were unqualified and biased."
Depends. If AE911Dipshits actually did this they would have to show their work, and their numbers. Their results would be repeatable - hence scientifically sound...you know...like the NIST.
"There's no point."
Only your head.
"We need new investigations with subpoena power."
Nope. AE911RETARDS could have filed FOIA lawsuits on a number of fronts over the last few years with the money they've spent spreading lies.
They haven't. Why? Because they do not have a case.
Just pointing out that Uncle Fetzer has popped up over at JREF in this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=228644
He chimes in on Page 4 at post 145.
Hilarity ensues.
truth hurts, a 100% explanation is not expected. Of the widows' 3000 questions, 91% were not answered.
Of the ten mysteries of the towers' demise, 0% have been officially addressed.
I don't claim that NIST's engineers were unqualified or biased. Where do you get such an idea?
What clairvoyant powers give the ability to predict my reaction to an investigation that hasn't been done yet?
8 PhDs have attested to the melted steel. The New York Times called it "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". NIST has not explained it.
The potential energy of the towers may well be sufficient to pulverize the concrete. But the energy required to pulverize the concrete must necessarily be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to dismember the structure--slowing the collapse down. If you understood the first law of thermodynamics you would know this.
mgf, when in the last thread did I say I "never accused NIST of corruption"? I think you're lying again.
NIST's refusal to share their computer visualizations and their thermal expansion calculations makes their findings unverifiable and thus inherently unscientific.
Numerous FOIA requests have been filed. FOIA only gets us government evidence. FOIA can't get the evidence that NIST never bothered to subpoena for.
We need new investigations that subpoena the reluctant witnesses and the evidence that NIST never bothered to subpoena.
truth hurts, a 100% explanation is not expected. Of the widows' 3000 questions, 91% were not answered.
Nobody cares about your phony "widows".
NIST's refusal to share their computer visualizations and their thermal expansion calculations makes their findings unverifiable and thus inherently unscientific.
False.
Numerous FOIA requests have been filed. FOIA only gets us government evidence. FOIA can't get the evidence that NIST never bothered to subpoena for.
False.
We need new investigations that subpoena the reluctant witnesses and the evidence that NIST never bothered to subpoena.
"We" don't need this. You want this, but nobody cares what you want. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parent.
I have many times told you that I don't regard micro-nukes as a worthwhile hypothesis because as I understand it their use would create detectable radiation which was not found at Ground Zero. If I'm wrong about that, then I might reconsider that opinion.
You are wrong about that. All of the essential mysteries suggest nukes. Have you forgotten that one of the essential mysteries is radiation in the dust cloud?
The attack baboon hypothesis seems to me to add unnecessary complexity, unnecessary risk of discovery, and difficulties in quality control to the op. I'd see the chief advantage of attack baboons as their expendability, which would not likely be an issue in the WTC op. Of course there again I could be persuaded to change my position if presented with reasonable arguments of sufficient strength.
Speaking of unnecessary complexity and risk of discovery, can you explain why Dick Cheney planted both magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives in the towers, and then had planes fly into the towers, according to your hypothesis?
My hypothesis is simple. Micro-nukes. And modified attack baboons would be used because they evade detection easier than people. The fact that you haven't considered this goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.
Lyin Ianinny, your persistent repetition of the same juvenile "humor" suggests that you are a case of arrested development--at about the none-year-old level.
Radiation is NOT one of the ten essential mysteries of the tower collapses. You have no credible evidence of unusual levels of radiation at Ground Zero. And don't claim that your Cousin Melvin was there with a Geiger Counter. That schtick wasn't funny the first time, and it's certainly not funny after dozens of repetitions.
Attack baboons could not evade detection better than people. People could walk into the towers among the 50,000 other people walking into the towers. They could be issued identification tags naming them as sprinkler system technicians, or information cable technicians, or elevator technicians, or janitors and New Yorkers wouldn't even look at them once, let alone twice.
Attack baboons would have to smuggled into the buildings and kept out of sight and then smuggled out again. The idea is silly and you know it.
People who have a personal connection to 9/11 have a right to feel strongly about it, and to have a powerful sense of injustice about the shitty treatment of the victims. You seem to think that their shitty treatment is something to gloat about.
I have many times explained why perps might use a plan involving both explosives and incendiaries. One reason is that silent incendiaries would be desirable to soften up the structure before the collapse began, and explosives could then be employed when the collapse was underway because the noise of the collapse would mask the sound of explosions. Another reason is that small explosive charges would be sufficient to buckle the core columns if the column walls were already heated up by incendiaries to the point of softness.
Another reason would simply be to cause doubt. "You claim that explosives were used, and you claim that there was melted steel," bright ten-year-olds might ask, "but how did the explosives cause the melted steel?" And then they can high-five their aspie buddies at JREF in the fatuous belief that they have slam-dunked the issue and their future MBAs will make them future Masters of the Universe--or at least permit them to put a down payment on a repainted Jagwire and fool some mercenary bimbo into sleeping with them.
Take the example of a murder. Suppose witnesses saw a woman shoot a man at midnight with a .22. But the body was found under a bridge blasted to smithereens with a shotgun. Why would someone use both a .22 AND a shotgun? the simple-minded would ask.
I've explained many times why the airplanes. I'm not going to go into this now. Like Dingleberries Myth, you seem to think that your refusal to learn is clever.
Pat, why would you assume that the NYCCAN's objective is for the Buildings Department to make a finding of controlled demolition?
Would it not be a perfectly reasonable objective that the Buildings Dept. acknowledge the many inadequacies of the NIST report and investigate some of the questions they left unexamined? For instance, it appears that NIST was not willing to seriously look into the possibility of design defects or construction defects. The Buildings Department would presumably have the power to subpoena the documents and interview reluctant witnesses--powers NIST was unwilling to employ.
Why are you guys afraid of new investigations? What is wrong with testing prior unvalidated reports?
Pat, why would you assume that the NYCCAN's objective is for the Buildings Department to make a finding of controlled demolition?
B/c we are fully familiar with this gaggle. Would you also ask why a former pedophile should be viewed with skepticism for wanting to work in a daycare?
GMS, when are you going to quit playing with straw dolls and put forth a grown-up argument?
Hand waving by Brian. Big surprise.
Pretty hilarious how you disregard mini nukes b/c of lacking background radiation but wholly embrace magic explosives even though there are no detonations, explosive materials, etc.
Maybe the same people that make the magic explosives make magic mini-nukes? Or attack baboons in invisibility cloaks?
explosives could then be employed when the collapse was underway because the noise of the collapse would mask the sound of explosions. Another reason is that small explosive charges would be sufficient to buckle the core columns if the column walls were already heated up by incendiaries to the point of softness.
Baseless claim by an janitor/ex-janitor.
Would these be the same magic explosives that ejected structural steel across the WTC complex?
Why are you guys afraid of new investigations? What is wrong with testing prior unvalidated reports?
No one's afraid of them. I personally don't want taxpayer money wasted on delusions.
GMS, speaking of wasting taxpayer money on delusions, how about the 13-year (and counting) Ashcanistan war that failed to capture bin Laden?
Therefore waste more!
How about the Iraq war that failed to find any WMDs and failed to make a model liberal democracy of Iraq?
Yes Brian, the evil gubmint secretly planted explosives in one of the busiest buildings in one of the busiest cities on the planet but for the life of them could not plant some yellow cake in the middle of the desert. Makes sense.
That's $3 trillion of wasted taxpayer money that enriched some Friends of Cheney greatly--all based on 9/11. But we've only spent $36 million on official investigations of that event--little more than the cost of ONE Chinook helicopter.
Which is a waste, yet has nothing to do with proving anything about your magic explosives.
Why are you so sanguine about expenditures to a corrupt, bloated, and wasteful military establishment and so chary when it comes to expenditures for INTELLIGENCE, when intelligence could have prevented the attacks in the first place--if it wanted to?
I'm not. I am all for cuts to military spending, foreign aid, etc. But this thread isn't about that. It's about deluded rubes believing they need to find out about magic explosives.
Refuting delusions would be an exercise well worth undertaking. Let's start with nanothermite, for a test case. Only $1000 has been spent in that enterprise--with predictably piss-poor results. How about spending $150,000 and see what you get? What's the harm in that?
Not on my dime. You pick up the tab sure. Why not spend taxpayer money on flat earthers? Irreducible complexity?
A new investigation need not entertain any (alleged) delusions at all. It could be restricted to supporting the official account, which as anyone can see is very poorly supported. It could be restricted to investigating the ten essential mysteries of the towers' demise that NIST dodged.
A list made by a janitor/ex janitor does not make it necessary research. Collapse by fire is supported in the vast peer reviewed literature, by the peer reviewed NIST studies, as well as multiple societies in the relevant fields. A few kooks saying "NUH UH!"does not change that.
ALso, has anyone seen Willie lately?
LOL! Brian is back to obsessing about Willie.
GMS, where do you get the idea that I embrace explosives? All I do is refute foolish claims that a) there is no evidence of explosives and b) planting them would be hopelessly complex and c) incendiaries and explosives are mutually exclusive and d) airplane crashes and explosives are incompatible and e) someone would have talked and f) det cord would have been found.
How do you know there were no detonations? Were you there in the elevator shafts as the buildings came down?
NIST did not look for explosive residues. AE911truth has also declined to look for explosive residues. When nobody is looking for explosive residues, the fact that nobody found any is meaningless.
Why are you so hung up on the fact that I worked briefly as a janitor when I was in college? Did you never mow lawns or rake leaves for cash when you were a kid? When you have to dig so for an argument, you defeat your own credibility.
Where do you get the idea that explosives are magical? They are quite commonly employed in mining, road construction, in the military, and in building demolitions.
Why are you afraid of spending tax payer money on complete and honest reports? ALL of the 9/11 investigations only cost to $36 million--less than the cost of ONE Chinook helicopter.
What is delusional about a wish to complete the incomplete reports and explain the unexplained mysteries?
GMS, we have many times talked about the inability of the Bushcists to plant WMD. We have talked about a gun battle at the Turkish border between Val Plames's Brewster Jennings CIA group and parties undisclosed who were trying to bring WMDs into Iraq. Gee, you don't suppose that might have had something to do with the Bushcists outing the Brewster Jennings group and wiping out their cover?
Blowing up a building is not such a complicated thing. It's been done many times. Your belief that explosives are magic is very childish. Black powder has been known for 1000 years. Military scientists have been studying and improving explosives very aggressively in the most recent century. You must resort to magical thinking to maintain your illusions.
Collapse by fire is not supported by the literature--it is assumed by the literature even though we have the examples of spectacular highrise fires since 9/11 in Beijing, Shanghai, Grozny, Moscow, and Dubai. None of those highrises fell down.
I'm not obsessed with Willie. I just like how you guys are so sensitive on the subject of the inability of any of you to detect the fact that his hero story was an obvious con. What a bunch of suckers!
Poor Brian. He's clueless as to what the real essential mysteries are.
Brian, you were banned from the truth movement, so of course you would be unfamiliar with what the truth movement believes. The real essential mysteries have been laid out by expert truther researcher Bill Deagle, and they strongly suggest micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. The essential mysteries you refer to are incorrect.
Brian is out of control. Babbling about black powder, Bushcists, and ONE Chinook helicopter. None of this changes the fact the the widows don't have ONE question, or that Brian is a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
@Brian:
Why do you talk about blowing up buildings?
Earlier you stated that incendiaries were used in stead of explosives. So why talk about black powder?
All I do is refute foolish claims
Not really, you haven't refute anything so far..
a) there is no evidence of explosives
You haven't provided any evidence of explosions during the collapses. You even acknowledged that the videos of the collapse of the tower don't have any sounds of explosions going off.
You even stated that during the time on the video that no sign of a collapse is visible, there was no sound coming from inside the building.
Ergo: no explosions like in a controlled demolition...
planting them would be hopelessly complex
It is: planting explosions in an office building that is still used 24/7, completely invisible to its tennants, workers and visitors, is very complex.
The demo of a vacant structure already takes months of preparation. Above that, the twin towers and even wtc7 were much larger than the largest structure that has been blown up in an explosive demolition at that time.
It is unprecedented.
and c) incendiaries and explosives are mutually exclusive
incendiaries were used as an excuse for the absence of evidence for explosions.
And also in this case: demolitions of skyscrapers using both explosives and incendiaries is unprecedented. It has never been done before, nor after 911..
and d) airplane crashes and explosives are incompatible
They are, at the plane crashes completely destroyed about 9 floors in both towers.
But no explosive devices were detonated during the crash, nor were they premature detonated during the fires in the buildings.
WTC7 burned for 7 hours. No explosive devices detonated premature during that time.
and e) someone would have talked and f) det cord would have been found.
So you realize that none was found and you now argue that it is possible none would be found?
How do you know there were no detonations?
Because you don't provide any evidence for detonations.
Were you there in the elevator shafts as the buildings came down?
20 people survived the collapse of wtc1, while they were on the stairs in the core of the building, close to the shafts.
None mentioned anything about detonations.
Also, the collapse started at the impact of the planes and the core of the building initially remained standing, while the perimeter and floors around it came down.
Bombs in the elevator shafts would implicate that the core came down first, with the towers imploding.
That didn't happen.
So your elevator shaft theory is bogus.
Where do you get the idea that explosives are magical?
Well, they must have been.
They were completely silent, did not create any shockwave, completely vanished after the collapses, they survived the impact of a plane and the fires in the tower and they can be placed completely invisible in the highest office buildings in the US...
Sounds like magic to me....
explain the unexplained mysteries?
What mysteries are unexplained, besides the ones i just stated about your explosive devices?
, it appears that NIST was not willing to seriously look into the possibility of design defects or construction defects. The Buildings Department would presumably have the power to subpoena the documents and interview reluctant witnesses--powers NIST was unwilling to employ.
Quite a fun statement coming from you, Brian.
When I mention a local engineer that i consulted, who concluded based on the Frankel Steel papers that the structure of the tower did incorporate into its collapse due to office fires, you started to panic and immediately called me a liar.
Now you try to make it look like as is you are concerned that the building structure was flawed, causing it to collapse during fire.....
we have many times talked about the inability of the Bushcists to plant WMD.
That must have been a fun discussion...
They can plant explosive devices and incendiaries into the largest office buildings in Manhattan, completely unseen, creating an unprecedented disaster and demolition, but they were completely unable to spread some residue of WMD in places in Iraq that they controlled...
You swing in any direction desired, brian...
Of the widows' 3000 questions, 91% were not answered.
Where can we find those 3000 questions?
Of the ten mysteries of the towers' demise, 0% have been officially addressed.
Can you name some of those mysteries that haven't been addressed?
I don't claim that NIST's engineers were unqualified or biased.
Then what is your problem with their findings?
They studied the collapse thoroughly and came with reports that were published in draft versions for public scrutiny.
Only minor corrections were send to NIST, like the 2.5 seconds of free fall acceleration by chandler of ae911truth.
But when the final papers came out, all kinds of nonsense was spread about the report.
Like the statement of ae911truth that the collapse wasn't 2.5 seconds free fall, but 6,5 seconds. Or the expectation that the computer simulation of the collapse sequence of wtc7 should be a 100% match to the way wtc7 actually collapsed. Or the idea that the fire tests of NIST during the investigation of the twin tower collapses should have been a 100% match of the way the floor started to fail during the fires in the buildings , etc. etc..
What clairvoyant powers give the ability to predict my reaction to an investigation that hasn't been done yet?
Results from the past reflect to future expextations.
You still babble about how you can't hear the internal collapse on video, while completely ignoring the seismic data that shows the collapse continued during the time between the fall of the penthouse and the fall of the facade.
8 PhDs have attested to the melted steel.
And found that they had corroded. They didn't find it being molten by thermite.
The New York Times called it "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation". NIST has not explained it.
The most likely explanation is that the corroding happened in the rubble pile, which remained extremely hot for a long period after 911.
That is outside the scope of the investigation of nist.
NIST was assigned to investigate if and in what way the used building materials and design of the towers contributed into the global collapse of the structure and to come with recommendations about how to prevent this in the future.
A criminal investigation into if the building was blown up and by who is not the task of NIST, but of the FBI...
The potential energy of the towers may well be sufficient to pulverize the concrete. But the energy required to pulverize the concrete must necessarily be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to dismember the structure--slowing the collapse down. If you understood the first law of thermodynamics you would know this.
None of the collapses were at free fall speed, so the slowing down you mention is present in the collapse.
My favorite of Brian's insane babbling points is that the explosives detonated after the buildings started coming down. Because on Planet Petgoat (where unemployed janitors are preeminent scientific experts), building demolition doesn't even need explosives. They're planted for fun, or something.
What clairvoyant powers give the ability to predict my reaction to an investigation that hasn't been done yet?
A good question, why do you state this:
If AE911truth did computer models, you guys would be all over them like flies on shit, claiming that the engineers were unqualified and biased.
My favorite of Brian's insane babbling points is that the explosives detonated after the buildings started coming down.
It shows how desperate he really is..
If a new investigation will address Brian's combination of incendiaries and explosives, and Ian's combination of baboons and mini-nukes, it better address the Mormons. And any other theories I come up with. If they don't, it's incomplete, and obviously an inside job.
My favorite of Brian's insane babbling points is that the explosives detonated after the buildings started coming down. Because on Planet Petgoat (where unemployed janitors are preeminent scientific experts), building demolition doesn't even need explosives. They're planted for fun, or something.
Not only that, but these explosives then remove all evidence of their existence afterwards.
So what's been more of a smashing success: NYC-CAN's petition drive, or Brazil's performance against Germany in the World Cup?
Hey Brian, guess what I did today?
I got a haircut in order to be ready for my wedding!
See, now I'm going to look sharp on my biggest day for all my family and friends. You wouldn't know anything about that, since you have no family or friends, and your romantic life consists of posting homosexual squealspam about Willie Rodriguez all over the internet.
If only you spent your disability checks in better ways, like getting rid of that hideous homeless mullet of yours. Instead, you send your money to Richard Gage, who is just the latest in a long line of con artists to swindle gullible simpletons like you.
I feel sorry for you, Brian.
And then they can high-five their aspie buddies at JREF in the fatuous belief that they have slam-dunked the issue and their future MBAs will make them future Masters of the Universe--or at least permit them to put a down payment on a repainted Jagwire and fool some mercenary bimbo into sleeping with them.
Do we need any more evidence than this that Brian is simply a pathetic, bitter old man who doesn't understand why he failed at life and is blaming society for all of his failures? That's why he joined the idiotic 9/11 truth cult.
Lyin Ianinny, you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. Glad I could make that clear.
th, I mentioned black powder because GMS claimed explosives are magical.
Squibs are evidence of explosives, multi-ton building components hurled hundreds of feet are evidence of explosives; the symmetry, totalilty, and speede of collapse are evidence of explosives; the sounds and sights of explosions are evidence of explosives.
Elevator shafts are completely invisible to office tenants. Especially when crews working in them have made the tenants accustomed to noise of work going on in them.
The army doesn't take a month to demolish a vacant building.
There is good reason to use both explosives and incendiaries in a covert demolition.
How do you know no explosives were detonated during the crash?
You make stuff up. The collapse of WTC1 began above the impact zone of the plane. Explosions many hours before WTC7's collapse were reported by NYC employees.
Who needs det cord? Why would you use det cord in a covert demolition?
Why would you expect explosives planted in the bottom five stories of the building? Why bother?
Where do you get the idea that the explosions reported by dozens of first responders were completely silent? Where do you get the idea that they were invisible? You make stuff up.
The ten essential mysteries are unexplained.
Glad I could clear that up fopr you.
th, there is no need for me to panic when an anonymous internet poster makes claims about hearsay from experts. I simply point out that such accounts aren't worth the paper they're not printed on.
Your claim that NIST studied the collapses thoroughly is a lie. NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses.
Your claim that none of the collapses were at free fall is contradicted by Dr. Sunder's statement to NOVA and by the NIST reports themselves. You get your talking points from lying propaganda websites.
And yet, you paniced anyway, brian.
And that says enough about your real agenda in these discussions.
Thanks for revealing that to me..
Explosions many hours before WTC7's collapse
Many hours before..
Name any demolition that had explosions many hours before, brian...
I mentioned black powder because GMS claimed explosives are magical.
Ah, so you decided to throw a red herring at him, to avoid the subject...
Squibs are evidence of explosives
They are not.
A shockwave coming from an explosion would not kick out 1 or 2 random windows, but all the windows on that floor.
multi-ton building components hurled hundreds of feet are evidence of explosives
They are not. A shockwave capable of throwing multi ton components that far away would have blown out all windows of surrounding buildings an a diameter of hundreds of feet..
Didn't happen.
Any moron with more than half a brain cell can see on the videos that large parts of the building fell side ways.
Given the hight of the building, that debris should be expected to land several hundreds of feet outside the footprint.
Even more amusing is that truthers always state that the buildings collapsed into their footprint, which is to them proof of a demolition.
You state that they didn't collapse into their footprint, which you find is evidence of a controlled demolition.
Furthermore, show me any demolition that had multi ton building parts thrown away for hundreds of feet outside the building footprint..
the symmetry, totalilty, and speede of collapse are evidence of explosives
No they are not.
the sounds and sights of explosions are evidence of explosives.
There are no sounds and sights of explosions.
You are aware of that, that is why you stated the explosives were detonated *after* the initiation of the collapse, so that the sound of the collapse could masquerade the sounds of explosions..
Elevator shafts are completely invisible to office tenants.
Not relevant, as the core of the towers remained standing for a while during the collapse. They didn't fall first.
And of wtc7, you claim that the demolition should have been completely symmetrical. Just blowing up the shafts won't establish that.
The army doesn't take a month to demolish a vacant building.
You can't proof that,
It is an empty statement.
show me any 40+ high rise building that has been demolished in a similar way as wtc7 collapsed by the army and show how much time and effort it took the army to do so.
There is good reason to use both explosives and incendiaries in a covert demolition.
Yet you failed to mention even one..
How do you know no explosives were detonated during the crash?
You claim the explosives were powerfull enuough to throw multi ton building components hundreds of feet away from the buildings..
Didn't happen, brian.
Nor were there shockwaves that blew out the windows of surrounding structures.
Nor were there the sounds of explosions that carry for miles...
The collapse of WTC1 began above the impact zone of the plane.
Nope, you make that up.
Video evidence shows how the columns on the impact zone were pulled inward, initiating the collapse.
You were smart enough to not mention wtc2, as you are aware that the failure of the structure was even more visible on that tower
Explosions many hours before WTC7's collapse were reported by NYC employees.
You are smart enough not to mention that you speak of Jennings and Hess, who experienced the falling debris of the twin towers into wtc7 as explosions.
This is on video, as you well know..
Who needs det cord? Why would you use det cord in a covert demolition?
Many firemen died during the collapses because their radio's didn't recieve the evacuate call.
Yet you expect that well hidden detonation devices can recieve their signal perfectly?
You just make things up as you go, brian...
Why would you expect explosives planted in the bottom five stories of the building? Why bother?
Funny, first you claim that the whole collapse is only possible using explosives, now you claim that blowing up the upper part would completely destroy the building.
Also, with demolitions, that is exactly what they do: blow up the lower part of the building, so gravity takes care of the rest.
And again you contradict yourself, brian.
Explosions carrying multi tons of building components away.
But no one on the fourth floor could hear them....
Where do you get the idea that the explosions reported by dozens of first responders were completely silent?
You claim is was an controlled demolition.
Random explosions hours prior to the collapse aren't part of a controlled demolition.
And since the buildings remained standing in despite of your alleged explosions, they weren't related to the collapse.
Lots of thing can explode during fires.
You are the one that link them with bombs and bombs only, brian..
Where do you get the idea that they were invisible?
You haven't provided any evidence for visible explosions.
You even claim that the bombs must have been hidden away in elevator shafts, deep inside the building, explaining why they weren't heard or seen..
And at the same time, you claim without any evidence that they were heard and seen..
You are the one makingt things up, brian, and in the process, you are contradicting yourself more and more..
The ten essential mysteries are unexplained.
And you don't dare to mention them here, afraid that an explanation might come...
NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses.
they indeed didn't analyze every detail of the collapses.
And that would have been pointless.
The only thing that should be analyzed is if and in what way the structure of the building and the used materials contributed to the initiation of the global collapse.
And that is what NIST has done.
You also stated that it would have been pointless to place bombs in the lower sections of the buildings.
So you acknowledge that once the global collapse was taking place, there was no stopping it.
Lyin Ianinny, you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. Glad I could make that clear.
And you squeal and squeal and squeal and squeal ans squeal because I humiliate you every time I mention that you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents, can't afford a decent haircut, and believes in invisible widows.
The ten essential mysteries are unexplained.
Brian, your list of essential mysteries is incorrect. The real list of essential mysteries strongly suggests micro-nukes planted by modified attack baboons. You would know this if you hadn't been banned from the truth movement.
This comment has been removed by the author.
th, NIST claims they did not analyze the collapses, period. There's nothing pointless about explaining the ten essential mysteries that they dodged.
Given NIST"s failure to analyze the collapses, there is much doubt about when a collapse became unstoppable. Certainly by the 50th floor it was unstoppable. But NIST assumes that when you have one floor collapsing, then the collapse is unstoppable. That is not reasonable.
Lyin Ianinny, micro-nukes are not indicated because the associated radiation was not detected. Baboons are not indicated because of problems with secrecy and quality control.
Your financee may a) know you're a shit and plan on taking advantage of that or b) know you're a shit and hope she can change you or c) not know you're a shit but is soon to find out. You'll get what you deserve.
Time wounds all heels, as they say. When you gloat about the widows' frustration, you've earned yourself a doomed marriage. I hope it doesn't wind up hurting your financee too much.
Lyin Ianinny, micro-nukes are not indicated because the associated radiation was not detected. Baboons are not indicated because of problems with secrecy and quality control.
False. The essential mysteries noted the radiation in the dust cloud, the mushroom cloud, the shockwave from the collapse, and the evaporated steel. In addition, one of the essential mysteries was burnt baboon fur in the wreckage.
Your financee may a) know you're a shit and plan on taking advantage of that or b) know you're a shit and hope she can change you or c) not know you're a shit but is soon to find out. You'll get what you deserve.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Yes, Brian, I will get what I deserve: a happy and successful life. You have gotten what you deserve too: no job, no friends, no family, and a life wasted on posting spam about invisible widows all over the internet.
Time wounds all heels, as they say. When you gloat about the widows' frustration, you've earned yourself a doomed marriage. I hope it doesn't wind up hurting your financee too much.
More hysterical squealing from the failed janitor who can't accept that I've won, and the liar Laurie Van Auken has lost. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
But NIST assumes that when you have one floor collapsing, then the collapse is unstoppable
You seem to forget that not one but 20+ floors came down during the initial collapse.
You also forget that the plane impact destroyed about 9 floors, not just one.
And of course you ommit the fact that the floors were designed to withstand a dynamic load of 6 floors.
The top falling into the lower floors was at least 3 times more heavy.
@brian
You babble about the ten mysteries for years now, but You never mention them.
What are you affraid of?
Lyin Ianinny, there was no undue radiation in the dust cloud.
Your belief that you are successful is pathetic. Any idiot can get an MBA and get rich. Some of us are more ambitious than that.
Your belief that you have won is equally pathetic. Time wounds all heels. You can bank on it.
th, if you simply google ten essential mysteries 9/11 you will find them. You are a very lazy researcher, and thus very confused about 9/11.
So you can't provide those 10 essential mysteries, brian..
that was to be expected.
If i google them, i most likely will get that mystery about baboons planting mini nukes.
You are well aware of the fact that there is a lot of nonsense on the net which will show up when i google.
So the fact that you point me to Google anyway, in stead of just copy/past those mysteries on this blog indicates that you are aware of the fact that your so called mysteries are also just nonsense...
Lyin Ianinny, there was no undue radiation in the dust cloud.
False. Dr. Deagle's researchers found radiation. You'd know this if you hadn't been banned from the truth movement.
Your belief that you are successful is pathetic. Any idiot can get an MBA and get rich. Some of us are more ambitious than that.
It's not a belief, it's a fact. My income is way above that of the median American.
It's also a fact that you have no job and live with your parents. You might be "more ambitious" than that, but so far, you haven't shown it. You can't even get a single question from the widows answered! Not one!
Your belief that you have won is equally pathetic. Time wounds all heels. You can bank on it.
Ho hum. When I'm on a tropical island celebrating my wedding, I'll remember that a mentally ill unemployed janitor and sex predator was saying mean things about me. And then I'll laugh because he has a hideous homeless mullet.
I've won, Brian. You've lost. And your lying floozy "widows" have lost too.
If i google them, i most likely will get that mystery about baboons planting mini nukes.
Precisely. The list of essential mysteries that Brian babbles about is incorrect. The real list is the evidence that points to modified attack baboons planting micro-nukes in the towers.
th, thanks for demonstrating your lazy incompetence at basic research, your tendency to leap to unjustified conclusions, and your use of fortune-telling to try to understand your world.
If you simply google ,,,,,ten mysteries 9/11,.,,, you will get the list. Your belief that because I don't provide them therefore I can't provide them is absurd. It far better serves my purposes to demonstrate your basic incompetence than to have a lot of boring discussion about your lies.
I see there's more boring lying iananity from Lyin Ianinny.
Ianinny, your belief that a high income is success is silly. Any idiot can have a high income. The failed janitor Willie Rodriguez, for instance, had an income sufficient so that he could fly around the globe lying to packed theaters.
How do you know I have no job? How do you know where I live? Are you stalking me?
Your glee about the widows' frustration shows you to be a none-too-bright psychopath. Either your alleged bride knows about this, or she will soon find out. Either way, the prognosis for your life is nothing to brag about.
Poor Brian. He's humiliated because I'm successful and happy, while he and Laurie Van Aiken are miserable failures. Too bad that lying, gold digging bimbo was more interested in becoming famous as a "Real Housewife of 9/11" than actually doing any good.
And of course Brian is hysterical because his list of essential mysteries is laughably wrong, so he reverts to posting homosexual squealspam about Willie Rodriguez. Typical.
Ian, the unverifiable claims of an anonymous internet poster as to his success and happiness are meaningless. Apparently you target your posts to ten-year-olds.
Your need to libel the victims of 9/11 is noted. Successful, happy people have no such need. Had it been I that stepped out of that 100-story window, I would hope that my widow would ask questions and demand answers. Apparently you don't care. You'll get what you deserve.
What's homosexual about pointing out that the fraud William Rodroiguez briefly had a high income? Are you insinuating that there was something inappropriate about Mr. Rodriguez's relationship with Mr. Randi?
My, such squealing!
Also, you wouldn't have stepped out the window and had a wife asking questions, Brian. You're a dateless unemployed liar who lives with his parents, remember?
You didn't address the issues, Ianinny. Instead you rely on your fantasies about me to try to give the impression that you have a point.
Your belief that because I don't provide them therefore I can't provide them is absurd.
Well, that is how it works.
You state something, you need to provide it.
You state that there are 10 essential mysteries, so you should provide them.
A simple copy paste for you.
But you refuse to do so.
That is your choice, but then i can only conclude that there is no such list.
Had it been I that stepped out of that 100-story window, I would hope that my widow would ask questions and demand answers
And when we ask which questions she has, she points to google?
Anyway, if you step out of a 100-storey window, your widow can ask and demand whatever she likes, but the only person who can answer her questions is lying dead on the pavement..
You didn't address the issues, Ianinny. Instead you rely on your fantasies about me to try to give the impression that you have a point.
Yes I did. I pointed out that your list of essential mysteries is incorrect, and that the real list strongly suggests modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes. You then started squealing and crying.
You don't like talking about the facts of 9/11 when other smarter, more successful people make a fool out of you on the topic.
th, don't try to tell me how it works. You obviously have no idea how it works. Your belief that Kenneth van Auken has the answers to Lorie van Auken's questions about his death is absurd.
Ianinny, you make a fool only of yourself--and it seems you're not smart enough to recognize that.
Any idiot can get an MBA. Any idiot can get rich. Your belief that it's something to brag about is silly. Your belief that we should believe your brag is even sillier.
You still don't provide anything, brian
You try to look sincere with your doubts about 911 and its victims but you cannot provide even one question that needs to be answered, not even one mystery that needs to be addressed.
As if you are affraid for the answers...
So Brian must realize that his list of essential mysteries is wrong, and that's why he won't provide them to truth hurts.
It's good that he realizes that serious researchers like Bill Deagle have come up with plausible scenarios and real lists of mysteries.
th, your inability to distinguish "can't" from "don't" shows you to be so logically challenged that you're a waste of time. There's this thing called Google. Maybe someday you'll learn to use it, and then maybe you won't be so confused.
Ianinny, when you leap to fantasy conclusions based on your failure to distinguish "can't" from "don't" you show yourself to be so logically challenged that you're a waste of time. There's this thing called Google. Maybe someday you'll learn to use it, and then maybe you won't be so confused.
Brian, you have proven that you can't provide the list with mysteries, which would be a simple copy paste for you.
In stead you ask me to google the list, knowing that there are so many theories out there, including one with baboons placing mini nukes, that the chance is quite great that i will end up getting the wrong list.
So i can only come to one conclusion: there is no such list.
You are just babbling, crying out for attention.
Yup, Brian realizes he's been pwn3d, and that the real list of essential mysteries is all about modified attack baboons planting micro nukes.
th, what I'm proving is that you can't google your way out of a paper bag, and that you have no idea what "proof" is.
Well, I can prove my Google skills.
For instance, "Brian Good failed janitor" gives over 32 million results.
"Brian Good homeless mullet" has over 3 million results.
"Brian Good sex stalker" gives a bit under 500,000 results.
"Brian Good liar" gives us almost 50 million results.
I could go on, but I figure that's enough to demonstrate mad googling skillz.
This comment has been removed by the author.
@brian
Still no list.
Face It, you can't deliver.
If you could, you would have done so already.
Which proves that there is no list of unanswered essential mysteries.
So your whole argument is bogus...
th, your faith in your own woefully inadequate reasoning skills is ludicrous.
After I've several times informed you about why it serves my rhetorical purposes to allow you to demonstrate your inability to google what any half-wit can google in seconds, you still insist on demonstrating your propensity for self-serving and STOOOPID conclusions.
Life has no doubt demonstrated to you amply that you are not the sharpest tool in the shed. You can still be a valuable person if you find some field of endeavor better suited to your qualifications. There are plenty of issues out there that could benefit from your energies and advocacy and give you an opportunity to help make the world a better place, but defense of the official story of 9/11 is not one of them. Your lack the knowledge base and the skill set for this avocation. Have you considered getting involved in the anti-fracking movement? Energy conservation? Green power?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lyin Ianinny, .....ian failed janitor,,,,,, yields over six million results.
,,,,,ian homeless mullet,,,, yields over two million.
,,,,,ian sex stalker,,,, yields 42 million results.
,,,,,ian liar,,, gives us less than a million results but ,,,, ian good liar,,,, gives us 97 million hits.
I've forgotten. Did you have a point?
@Brian:
Your ad hominem attempt to hide the fact that you can't deliver fails miserably.
Face it, you are babbling about those 10 essential mysteries for several years now on this blog, but you are unable to name even one of those mysteries.
So the conclusion is simple, there is no such list.
And you know it, that is why you start yelling and screaming with your ad hominem.
And speaking of the sharpest in the shed: the simple fact that you can't figure out the point Ian is making to you says enough about your skill.
You are the perfect example of why the truth movement fails.
This comment has been removed by the author.
th, it is not an ad hominem attack to point out the intellectually deficient nature of your argument that "doesn't equals can't" after I have repeatedly tried to clue you in.
An ad hominem is one used as a non sequitur substitute for an argument. For instance, when GMS seems to want to believe that he can refute the fact that the NIST reports are incomplete with the claim that I am a janitor, that's an ad hominem. My being a janitor or not being a janitor has nothing to do with the fact that the reports are incomplete.
When I repeatedly point out your stubbornly faulty reasoning that's not an ad hominem, because I am not substituting an irrelevant criticism of your character for an argument. The criticism of your faulty reasoning is pertinent to the subject of the shortcomings of your argument.
Where in the world did you get the idea that I am unable to name the mysteries? What I silly thing to say! In this very thread I named two of them, you quoted my naming of two of them, and you responded to my naming of two of them.
It seems you can't remember what you wrote from one day to the next. That's what happens when you just go around making stuff up. That's why it's best to stick to facts--then it's easier to remember what you said.
When you learn to distinguish among facts, fantasies, and opinions and you labor to stick to the facts, then you can make valuable contributions to the discussion. Otherwise you're just blowing stinky smoke around and causing confusion.
GMS, when are you going to quit playing with straw dolls and put forth a grown-up argument?
More hand waving. Color me surprised.
GMS seems to want to believe that he can refute the fact that the NIST reports are incomplete with the claim that I am a janitor, that's an ad hominem. My being a janitor or not being a janitor has nothing to do with the fact that the reports are incomplete.
Sadly Brian, you are missing the most important part. When I point out that your claims are baseless. So unfortunately for your illiteracy it's no ad hom. You are just in no position to simply pretend that we should take your claims at face value. I've explained this to you numerous times with supporting documentation on logic and your baseless claims. But when has reality ever had an impact on you? Good job failing again.
The fact that the NIST reports are not complete is not a baseless claim. It is an indisputable fact.
NIST's number one objective in the twin tower reports was to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed. Their report does not even try to explain how. They claim that they did not analyze the collapses. How do you explain how the buildings collapsed without analyzing the collapses? How do you explain how the buildings collapsed when you don't explain any of the mysterious features of how the buildings collapsed?
NIST's number one objective in the twin tower reports was to explain "why and how" the towers collapsed.
Nope, the objective was to find out if and in what way the construction of the building and the used materials contributed in the global collapse of the towers and to come recommandations to prevent it from happening in the future.
And that is precisely what NIST did.
Where in the world did you get the idea that I am unable to name the mysteries?
It is quite obvious, brian.
If you realle were sincere, if you really cared about getting the truth out, really trying to get people on your side for a new investigation, you would have no trouble providing the list of essential mysteries that need to be addressed.
A simple copy paste would do the trick.
But you don't deliver, Brian.
So one can only conclude that such a list does not exist, brian.
And i don't care how you think about that qualification. Not at all. You are the one who failed, brian.
How do you explain how the buildings collapsed when you don't explain any of the mysterious features of how the buildings collapsed?
You can't even mention one mystery when asked, so your whole argument about nist is bogus, brian
" How do you explain how the buildings collapsed without analyzing the collapses? How do you explain how the buildings collapsed when you don't explain any of the mysterious features of how the buildings collapsed?"
The "How" never mattered, only the "Why", and that was the plane crash and fires.
No big mystery.
Post a Comment
<< Home