Friday, September 19, 2014

Truthers Finally Acknowledge Reality

Granted, it's in service to their desperate attempt to keep their cruddy little Highrise Safety Initiative on the ballot, but it's certainly refreshing to see this:

Specifically, members of the Office of Emergency Management and the Fire Department were present at the site of WTC 7 where they determined several hours in advance that WTC 7 would very likely collapse, and, based on this determination, made the decision to remove firefighters from the building and to establish a “collapse zone” where no one was permitted to enter until after the collapse.
 I've been following the Truthers for 8 years and I don't think I've ever heard any of them acknowledge that FDNY knew WTC-7 was doomed hours before it actually collapsed.

98 Comments:

At 19 September, 2014 09:47, Blogger ConsDemo said...

How are they paying for an attorney, or do they have some twoof lawyer writing this garbage up pro bono?

 
At 19 September, 2014 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ummm, Pat, do you have any evidence that Mr. Glickman is a 9/11 Truther? It appears to me that he is an elections lawyer, a hired gun whose opinions in the service of a legal argument can hardly be taken as an acknowledgment by the truth movement.

Furthermore, Mr. Glickman's opinion can be taken as "reality" only by the confirmation-biased. His claim that FDNY "determined several hours in advance that WTC 7 would very likely collapse" is not supported by his reference, which is the oral testimony of Chief Nigro, page 10. Chief Nigro describes a precautionary evacuation based on the possibility that WTC7 might collapse, not on a determination that it would very likely collapse.

Speaking of reality, your impugning of my honesty in the thread immediately previous on the basis of my "non-denial denial" was not fair. Many of the pictures that have been presented in these threads that were alleged to be me were not of me. I believe the first one was presented by your buddy Willie Fraudriguez. It turned out to be a picture of a college professor in Arizona who was emaciated because he was doing a hunger strike. My characterization of my critics here as people "ransacking the internet for pictures [they] imagine to be of me" is entirely justified, and my non-denial denial was perfectly honest. I didn't even look at Ian and Stewie's pictures. Not every man in the vicinity of Carol Brouillet holding a microphone is me. It would be pretty sad if that were the case, wouldn't it?

 
At 19 September, 2014 12:12, Blogger Pat said...

1. It was a picture of you. I happen to have met Blair Gadsby during his hunger strike and would certainly know the difference. So yes, as usual, you are lying.

2. There are plenty of other firefighters who described WTC-7 as certain or very likely to collapse:

Firefighter Edward Kennedy:

"But this is as the day was going on and, of course, there were so many transmissions going over. I remember him screaming about 7, No. 7, that they wanted everybody away from 7 because 7 was definitely going to collapse...."

Lieutenant Rudolph Weindler:

"Captain Varriale told Chief Coloe and myself that 7 World Trade Center was badly damaged on the south side and definitely in danger of collapse. Chief Coloe said we were going to evacuate the collapse zone around 7 World Trade Center, which we did."

Assistant Chief Harold Meyers:

"Chief Nigro directed me to continue monitoring conditions at the site. Specifically to monitor number 7 World Trade Center. We were very concerned with the collapse potential there, and to do whatever I could do to ensure site safety in that no additional people became injured."

 
At 19 September, 2014 14:35, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Yeah, why would the legal representation the truthers paid for be considered to represent them?

Makes sense if you don't think about it.

 
At 19 September, 2014 14:35, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 September, 2014 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, what did I lie about? Willie presented a picture of Blaire Gadsden and said it was me. I didn't look at Stewie's pictures.

It's natural that there were speculations that WTC7 might collapse--after all, two other buildings had collapsed that day, and the many diesel fuel tanks in the building were probably known to the authorities. There is a world of difference between speculating that it might collapse and determining that it would collapse.

It was also natural to suspect that there were bombs in WTC7. Many people suspected that bombs had been placed in the towers. Chief Downey thought the collapse of WTC2 was "too even", Chief Turi said he believed there were "secondary devices". And then we had the Corporation Counsel of NYC reporting an explosion in WTC7, and we had a FDNY reconnaissance team that found an elevator car blown out into the hallway 20 or 30 feet. After an attack on the Pentagon it was natural to suspect that the CIA offices or DoD offices in WTC7 might be targets too.

Mr. Kennedy's account must be evaluated in terms of the source. Kennedy said the claim that WTC7 was "definitely going to collapse" came from Chief Visconti. If Chief Visconti believed that the building was going to collapse it was probably because he believed that "the fire was going virtually on every floor". We now know that this belief was erroneous.





 
At 19 September, 2014 17:04, Blogger Ian said...

I love this photo of Brian (that's you on the left, Brian, just to be clear):

http://photos4.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/4/7/3/e/highres_10818238.jpeg

He has this grin on his face that's like "look ma, I can hold up a sign all by myself!"

Given that Brian is a mental 6-year-old who thinks calling people "girls" is an insult, and has his parents take care of him, it's not that surprising.

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

 
At 19 September, 2014 17:04, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, nobody cares about your paranoid delusions about WTC 7.

 
At 19 September, 2014 17:20, Blogger truth hurts said...

I didn't look at Stewie's pictures.

So you denied being on those pictures without looking at them..

Kinda figures..


It's natural that there were speculations that WTC7 might collapse--after all, two other buildings had collapsed that day, and the many diesel fuel tanks in the building were probably known to the authorities.

So you acknowledge the possibility that WTC7 collapsed due to the circumstances it was in on 911.


There is a world of difference between speculating that it might collapse and determining that it would collapse.


And as you know, the FDNY determined that it would collapse based on their knowledge of the structure of wtc7, on the fact the building was moving, leaning, making noises, debris falling out of it, severe damage caused by the tower collapse and uncontrolled fires.


It was also natural to suspect that there were bombs in WTC7.

Nope, it wasn't.


Many people suspected that bombs had been placed in the towers.

The towers were targets, wtc7 wasn't.


Chief Downey thought the collapse of WTC2 was "too even"

His opinion.
We now know that the collapse was that even due to the fact the structure collapsed around the core of the building. The core initially remained standing, keeping the collapse even.


, Chief Turi said he believed there were "secondary devices".

Probably, but the truthers aren't speaking of a bombing, but about a controlled demolition.


And then we had the Corporation Counsel of NYC reporting an explosion in WTC7

An explosion...
Explosion doesn't automatically mean bomb, and bomb doesn't automatically mean controlled demolitions.
The bombing of embassies in Africa weren't controlled demolitions.

, and we had a FDNY reconnaissance team that found an elevator car blown out into the hallway 20 or 30 feet.

Which explains the sound of an explosion: a crashing elevator car.


After an attack on the Pentagon it was natural to suspect that the CIA offices or DoD offices in WTC7 might be targets too.

The pentagon wasn't bombed, they flew a plane into it.
For some reason, you omit that fact.



If Chief Visconti believed that the building was going to collapse it was probably because he believed that "the fire was going virtually on every floor".

probably this, probably that..
Speculation, Brian.

Also, 'virtually on every floor' does not mean that the fires were actually on every floor.
You seem to forget that.


We now know that this belief was erroneous.

No, we know that you want it to be erroneous, because you base your existence on the controlled demolition of wtc7. And since you have 0.0 evidence for your 'claim', you try to downplay anyone who counters your believes..

Like most truthers, you can't live with the fact that the FDNY knew the collapse of wtc7 would be eminent and that they stopped all firefighting and rescue work in a large area around wtc7 in order to create a safety zone for the building to collapse.
According to your reasoning, the FDNY should not have done that.

 
At 19 September, 2014 17:25, Blogger truth hurts said...

t appears to me that he is an elections lawyer, a hired gun whose opinions in the service of a legal argument can hardly be taken as an acknowledgment by the truth movement.

Meaning that according to you, he does not represent his clients in the published paper...


Always fun to see how truthers try to deny the truth...

 
At 19 September, 2014 17:27, Blogger truth hurts said...

Many of the pictures that have been presented in these threads that were alleged to be me were not of me. I believe the first one was presented by your buddy Willie Fraudriguez..

Still not over him.

Do yourself a favour, brian: move on with your life...

 
At 19 September, 2014 17:59, Blogger Ian said...

Still not over him.

Do yourself a favour, brian: move on with your life...


He can't. He's an obsessed deranged homosexual lunatic. He wants Rodriguez to molest him.

 
At 19 September, 2014 18:39, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"Reccomendation"? This brief is not off to a good start.

 
At 19 September, 2014 18:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Many of the pictures that have been presented in these threads that were alleged to be me were not of me.

Would you please comment on this one?

 
At 19 September, 2014 19:06, Blogger Ian said...

Well, he has a much better haircut in that photo. That was back when he had a future, back before he damaged his brain sniffing glue and doing too much acid.

 
At 20 September, 2014 02:25, Blogger truth hurts said...

You call that a haircut???

 
At 20 September, 2014 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

So I see that newlywed Ian spent his Friday night commenting on haircuts. I'll suppose that his bride got what she deserved, or that she will learn from this experience.

Have you considered becoming a hairstylist, Ian? Top-notch hairstylists can make a lot of money, and they get to spend their days in the company of beautiful women--or beautiful men, if that's what floats your boat.

 
At 20 September, 2014 10:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, Mr. Glickman represents the High Rise Safety Initiative, not the truth movement.

Please make some effort to determine the facts before commenting.

 
At 20 September, 2014 11:42, Blogger Ian said...

So I see that newlywed Ian spent his Friday night commenting on haircuts. I'll suppose that his bride got what she deserved, or that she will learn from this experience.

Have you considered becoming a hairstylist, Ian? Top-notch hairstylists can make a lot of money, and they get to spend their days in the company of beautiful women--or beautiful men, if that's what floats your boat.


Poor Brian. He's hysterical because everyone is laughing at his hideous appearance. At least you're not pretending that those photos aren't of you anymore. That was as pathetically obvious a lie as the time you pretended that "petgoat" and his "meatball on a fork" scribbles weren't you either.

 
At 20 September, 2014 11:44, Blogger Ian said...

th, Mr. Glickman represents the High Rise Safety Initiative, not the truth movement.

The high rise safety initiative is the truth movement. Maybe if you hadn't been banned from the truth movement, you'd know what it was.

 
At 20 September, 2014 14:17, Blogger Jay said...

AE911 has a new witness which will expose the 9/11 lies. His name is Ricki DeSantis and he is a fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4PxUypgZuqk

 
At 20 September, 2014 14:25, Blogger Jay said...

And this was mentioned at the ticket site where they sold tickets for 9/11 awakening.

“Surprise Guest – 9/11 Survivor – speaking publically on 9/11 truth for the first time; witness of plane hitting the South Tower. Despite experiencing severe emotional and physical trauma like so many thousands of survivors, this courageous individual who had a business in the South Tower is speaking out for the first time on what he witnessed before, on, and the days after 9/11.”

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/911-awakening-goes-mainstream-a-truth-inspired-symposium-tickets-12850581435

As you can see, they werent sold out, because 117 tickets were left. More proof that 9/11 trutherism is dead.

 
At 20 September, 2014 15:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

What makes Mr. DeSantis a fraud, Jay? Did he fabricate his photos?
Is he passing off someone else's photos as his own? Did he lie about 9/11?

How do you know the event didn't sell out? Do you think eventbright recorded non-eventbright sales? Do you think that no at-the-door sales were made?

 
At 20 September, 2014 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, as to your magnum opus, I wish you would stop presenting your interpretations of what I've done, what I've said, and what I know.

Your inability to express your own notions competently confirms that you are unqualified to evaluate me.

 
At 20 September, 2014 15:55, Blogger truth hurts said...

@Brian:
I don't care about your denial and am not planning to follow it. '



 
At 20 September, 2014 15:55, Blogger Ian said...

How do you know the event didn't sell out? Do you think eventbright recorded non-eventbright sales? Do you think that no at-the-door sales were made?

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because the truth movement is dead.

It's been dead for years, Brian. I mean, just look at that rally with all the photos of you with your hideous homeless mullet:

http://photos3.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/1/a/4/f/highres_10746735.jpeg

What is there, 15 people there?

th, as to your magnum opus, I wish you would stop presenting your interpretations of what I've done, what I've said, and what I know.

Your inability to express your own notions competently confirms that you are unqualified to evaluate me.


Nothing gets Brian squealing more than repeating back to him what he says. You see, Brian wants to be able to plausibly deny what he thinks, because he's terrified of looking like a liar and a lunatic.

Too late, Brian. Everyone knows you're a liar and a lunatic. And we all know that you hold fanatical beliefs that 9/11 was an inside job.

 
At 21 September, 2014 07:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

What gets me riled up is not "repeating" what I say. What gets me riled up is someone incompetently or dishonestly claiming I said something I didn't.

Of course since you never say anything worth mischaracterizing, you wouldn't understand. I'll try to put it in terms you can relate to: So Ian, what you're saying is that your bride knows you're a shit, but she doesn't care 'cause she's an airhead and thinks you're rich.

I didn't lie about anything.





 
At 21 September, 2014 07:52, Blogger truth hurts said...

The fun is that you brian, do what liars do best: lie in such a way that they cannot 100% frame you for lying.

Well, you should try that somewhere else, as you aren't really good at it.
Everyone sees right through you, which ends in you starting to babble and squeal all kinds of nonsense..

 
At 21 September, 2014 08:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about anything, th.

Of course you are able to lie without without being 100% frameable for lying. Your lies are disguised as ignorance and unintelligence.

 
At 21 September, 2014 10:15, Blogger truth hurts said...

LMAO!!

You lied just about everything, including about your presence on pictures posted on this blog.
I don't expect that you will stop lying soon so no wonder that your response is full of lies..

 
At 21 September, 2014 11:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about anything, th.

Simple-minded people can make quite valuable contributions to society when they work hard and understand their limitations and play nice. When simple-minded people lie and when they're mean, that's bad all around.

We all have limitations in our knowledge. There's no shame in that as long as we recognize them and avoid the evils that come from thinking we know things we don't.


 
At 21 September, 2014 12:40, Blogger truth hurts said...

Well, that says a lot about you, Brian...

No wonder you enjoy being kicked around on this blog..

but I sincerely suggest that you would confine yourself to telling the truth and stop pretending to be more than you really are..

 
At 21 September, 2014 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't pretend anything, th. And I don't lie about anything.

You sad sacks are pathetic. You know nothing about 9/11, so you can't comment on that. All you know how to do is lie about me.

 
At 21 September, 2014 13:26, Blogger truth hurts said...

The usual mirror talk.

You are the only one on this blog who demands a new investigation as he doesn't know what caused 911, Brian..

You are the one who doesn't know and start making up things about the collapses etc..

 
At 21 September, 2014 15:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't make anything up about collapses, th. I simply took the trouble to inform myself about them, and about the reports about them--things you never bothered to investigate.

 
At 21 September, 2014 19:49, Blogger Ian said...

I don't pretend anything, th. And I don't lie about anything.

You sad sacks are pathetic. You know nothing about 9/11, so you can't comment on that. All you know how to do is lie about me.


Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because we pwn3d him years ago on 9/11, so there's nothing to talk about there. But since you continue to post spam here, we'll continue to mock you for it.

You can always stop posting here, Brian. But of course, you've been banned everywhere else, so you'd have nowhere else to post. And since you have no job, no friends, no family, and no normal interests, you'd have nothing to do with your life. It's sad.

 
At 21 September, 2014 19:52, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't make anything up about collapses, th. I simply took the trouble to inform myself about them, and about the reports about them--things you never bothered to investigate.

No, you didn't make anything up about the collapses. You just repeat what Richard Gage says because you're a pathetic simpleton who doesn't understand how things work, and fell for his confidence scheme.

We're just trying to educate you here.

Actually, we're not trying to educate you. Who cares what you think? You're a pathetic failed janitor who lives with his parents. Nobody listens to anything you say.

 
At 21 September, 2014 19:53, Blogger Ian said...

So Ian, what you're saying is that your bride knows you're a shit, but she doesn't care 'cause she's an airhead and thinks you're rich.

Poor Brian. He's obsessed with my personal life because he'll never be married, never have a successful job, and will never be respected. He will just be an object of ridicule, mostly because of his absurd delusions about 9/11, but also because of his hideous homeless mullet.

 
At 21 September, 2014 21:46, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

In other news.....

Kevin Barrett posted this back in March 14, 2014 about JREF:

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/16/jref-loses/

Funny thing Barrett said was this:

"Apparently you literally cannot pay anyone to defend the official story."

So Barrett want's to pay off anyone to defend the official report? Is that what twoofers are reduced too, paying people off? Isn't that what they're claiming the Government did by paying people to keep their mouths shut about 9/11? Ironic isn't it?

Barrett's mad because he can't get hired. I'll let Barrett explain why he can't get hired any where:

"I had been hired for virtually every teaching job I applied for at UW-Madison since I arrived in 1994. Beginning in 2007, I was turned down for several successive job applications. An insider on one of the hiring committees said the committee was told that I could not be hired for political reasons due to my 9/11 research and advocacy.

Well if Barrett would lose his political and advocacy he'd get hired and he should really stop posting on the internet. I'm pretty sure if people know you they'll find info about you online and then you won't get hired because the bosses will think you're on drugs or just a retard.

Every year Barrett tries to challenge university staff, but no one wants to:

"Every succeeding year, I have continued to challenge the 32,000 University staff and faculty members to debate me on 9/11. If my views are so wrong that I cannot be allowed to teach, why can’t at least one UW faculty member try to explain why using logic and evidence?"

Because Barrett, no one wants to debate or challenge an idiot who doesn't have the academics or phd who studied in actual fields.

 
At 21 September, 2014 22:06, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

In Brian related news....

http://www.bullshift.net/data/images/2013/09/0013f35300304cd4af000403.jpg

https://litterboxconfidential.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/brian-good-of-palo-alto.jpg?w=870

 
At 21 September, 2014 22:16, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I have ISO training and I'm certified. I'll tell ya that WTC7 was on fire for 6-7 hours and that building was gonna come down anyways. With or without the help of explosives.

In ISO training I was taught to have a perimeter around a structural fire. Look at all possible escape routes for any firefighter/occupant trapped inside and have a holding stage for firefighters waiting for the structure to collapse and then go towards the collapsed structure and put out any remaining fires. Everything the FDNY did was textbook procedure in firefighter safety.

So Brian, I'd like to know how much you've really learned about firefighting. I'd also like to know what kind of firefighting credentials you have? Also have you ever trained to be a firefighter at fire academy?

 
At 22 September, 2014 03:38, Blogger truth hurts said...

I didn't make anything up about collapses, th.

You came with the ten myths about the collapse, which you consider essential and for some weird reason expect NIST to address to you.


I simply took the trouble to inform myself about them

Informing yourself is not the same as understanding the information.
You have shown that you don't understand it.

things you never bothered to investigate.

I'm not the one who got stuck with 10 mysteries he cannot get solved, you are.
If you did any real investigation, you would have known that those myths aren't mythical at all and that you made them up.

 
At 22 September, 2014 04:57, Blogger Ian said...

"Every succeeding year, I have continued to challenge the 32,000 University staff and faculty members to debate me on 9/11. If my views are so wrong that I cannot be allowed to teach, why can’t at least one UW faculty member try to explain why using logic and evidence?"

Good point, Kevin. Brian, you must agree with Kevin here that academics are too cowardly to debate him because they know he's right. This is Buschist America, right Brian? Barrett, being a renowned academic with tremendous insight into 9/11, is being blackballed.

 
At 22 September, 2014 12:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since Barrett is so obviously an attention-seeker, academics probably consider it undignified to engage and indulge him. His lousy books show what he is all too clearly.

The truth movement distanced itself from him, so I haven't followed his career lately. He had a couple of appearances in Madison where he presented himself poorly--one where he abused the question period to deliver a long non-question to Amy Goodman, and another where he interrupted David Horowitz and was booed out of the hall. Then there was a recorded talk he gave outside of Sacramento, CA, in which he claimed that ordinary morality did not apply to him because he was serving some greater cause in some far-off dimension in the universe. Given such performances, some might feel that it would not be fair to put the poor guy on stage.

Barrett blackballs himself. He lies, he's a bigot, he's a dishonest and negligent scholar, he advocates violence, his books are silly, and he makes a fool of himself.

 
At 22 September, 2014 13:11, Blogger truth hurts said...

Barrett blackballs himself. He lies, he's a bigot, he's a dishonest and negligent scholar, he advocates violence, his books are silly, and he makes a fool of himself.

like everyone else in the truth movement...

 
At 22 September, 2014 15:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Poor th has to lie to think well of himself.

 
At 22 September, 2014 15:16, Blogger Ian said...

Hold on, I need to fix something....

Since Gage is so obviously an attention-seeker, academics probably consider it undignified to engage and indulge him. His lousy books show what he is all too clearly.

There, now you understand why no academics have wasted their time dignifying AE911Truth with a response, or felt the need to defend the offical reports. Why bother with an obvious con man who does nothing but swindle a handful of simpletons?

 
At 22 September, 2014 15:49, Blogger truth hurts said...

@Brian,

aah, so that is why you post here; so you can think well of yourself..

Your life must be even more sad than Ian has clarified...

 
At 22 September, 2014 18:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

What lousy books has Mr. Gage written, Ian? Mr. Gage has addressed halls on many college campuses. I'm not aware that DR. Barrett has--not since his 2005 appearance with David Ray Griffin in Madison. In 2005 Barrett's modesty and self-effacement were evidence. But after he saw himself on Fox News he changed. He craved the attention, and his efforts to get it became increasingly bizarre.

 
At 22 September, 2014 18:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Mr. Glickman's client is High Rise Safety, not the truth movement.
High Rise Safety is out to get a new investigation of WTC7. Mr. Glickman is thus obligated to put forth arguments supportive of that goal, including the proposition that city workers have information supporting the claim that the collapse of WTC7 had been expected.

9/11 Truthers also, I am sure, would love to see the information from the city workers about who predicted the collapse and upon what basis it was predicted. But the desirability of the information hardly constituted an endorsement of it by the truth movement.


 
At 22 September, 2014 20:16, Blogger Ian said...

What lousy books has Mr. Gage written, Ian? Mr. Gage has addressed halls on many college campuses. I'm not aware that DR. Barrett has--not since his 2005 appearance with David Ray Griffin in Madison. In 2005 Barrett's modesty and self-effacement were evidence. But after he saw himself on Fox News he changed. He craved the attention, and his efforts to get it became increasingly bizarre.

You're right. Gage wouldn't write any books, since he's ripping off illiterate simpletons like you, and making you try something hard like reading would probably drive you away, and make it impossible for him to swindle you.

 
At 22 September, 2014 20:18, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Mr. Glickman's client is High Rise Safety, not the truth movement.

High rise safety is the truth movement. You would know this if you hadn't been banned from the truth movement.

 
At 22 September, 2014 20:20, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, enough about 9/11.

Brian, you still haven't asked me to talk about my honeymoon, which is disappointing. Don't you want to know all the expensive, luxurious things I spent money on? I mean, it's not like you'd ever be able to afford any of them, since you can't even afford a decent haircut. Still, wouldn't you want to know about the lifestyle of a smart, successful professional with an MBA?

 
At 22 September, 2014 21:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the fact that High Rise Safety puts forth arguments that are not endorsed by the truth movement shows that High Rise Safety is not the truth movement, Ian.

I'm sorry these subtleties evade you, but that's not too surprising. Aren't you the guy who had to be told that "nomadic" did not necessarily involve tents and camels?

I've had more than my share of luxuries. I can have them any time I want, and I indulge now and then but don't really care much. Certainly I have no need to brag about them.

 
At 23 September, 2014 04:07, Blogger truth hurts said...

Well, Brian, first you rushed to state that the lawyer did not speak on behalf of his clients and now you realize how silly that sounded, you hurry to state that the HRS is not part of the truth movement.

And all that to avoid the possible notion that WTC7 did collapse due to fire and damage alone.

 
At 23 September, 2014 09:28, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brian isn't qualified to determine what actually happened to WTC7. All he can go on is speculation and asinine theories based on half assed what-if scenerios.

 
At 23 September, 2014 18:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the fact that High Rise Safety puts forth arguments that are not endorsed by the truth movement shows that High Rise Safety is not the truth movement, Ian.

Brian, you wouldn't know what the truth movement endorses. You've been banned, remember?

I'm sorry these subtleties evade you, but that's not too surprising. Aren't you the guy who had to be told that "nomadic" did not necessarily involve tents and camels?

Yes, you were babbling about smoldering carpets and nomadic fires, and I completely humiliated you by asking if the nomadic fires rode flying smoldering carpets. You squealed and squealed and called us "girls". Now you don't talk about that anymore because I pwn3d you.

I've had more than my share of luxuries.

Yes, living with your parents for the last 40 years since you failed out of college would be a big luxury. Most people's parents would kick them out if they couldn't hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 23 September, 2014 18:12, Blogger Ian said...

This is how I imagine Brian's household was in the 70s:

http://youtu.be/TS1v7m6tgs0

Then Brian's parents gave up without actually sending Brian to military school with the goddamn Finkelstein shit kid.

 
At 23 September, 2014 19:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, I never said that Mr. Glickman did not represent his clients. I said that he represented High Rise Safety, not the truth movement, and thus the arguments he put forth in the service of High Rise Safety could not be expected to represent the opinions of the truth movement.

I wish you would stop trying to report what I said, because you suck at it. Kindly stick to using direct quotes. You are not competent to paraphrase or interpret.

Stewie, since I have never made any effort to determine what really happened at WTC7, your opinions on my qualifications are pointless.

No Ian, I do not remember having been banned by the truth movement.

The point that smouldering carpets make a whole lot of very black smoke is still valid today, and it was valid when I made it before. And your stupid jokes are still stupid. You asked if nomadic fires had tents and camels. It is not in your power to humiliate me, skidmark.




 
At 23 September, 2014 19:10, Blogger Ian said...

No Ian, I do not remember having been banned by the truth movement.

That's fine. The rest of us all know you were banned from the truth movement, so we'll remind you of it when you forget. You're welcome.

The point that smouldering carpets make a whole lot of very black smoke is still valid today, and it was valid when I made it before. And your stupid jokes are still stupid. You asked if nomadic fires had tents and camels. It is not in your power to humiliate me, skidmark.

My, such squealing!

Brian, you didn't answer my question: do nomadic fires fly on magic smoldering carpets?

You know, Laurie Van Auken knows how you don't answer people's questions. It really hurts her.

 
At 23 September, 2014 19:11, Blogger Ian said...

I have never made any effort to determine what really happened at WTC7

So Brian is not just stupid, he's also lazy. That explains why he can't hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 23 September, 2014 19:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, a lot of what you think you know is not true. You've repeated your lies so often that you think they're facts.

 
At 23 September, 2014 20:27, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, you didn't answer my question: do nomadic fires fly on magic smoldering carpets?

 
At 23 September, 2014 22:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why don't you learn to google and find out?

 
At 24 September, 2014 03:46, Blogger truth hurts said...

So the official endorsement, according to Brian, is that nomadic fires on smoldering carpets were burning in wtc7?
And he discovered that by not making any effort in determining what actually happened to wtc7?

Wow :o)

 
At 24 September, 2014 07:14, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

The goat bleated: Stewie, since I have never made any effort to determine what really happened at WTC7, your opinions on my qualifications are pointless.

You don't have no qualifications But you're right about yourself, debating or arguing with you is pointless. I agree!

 
At 24 September, 2014 07:16, Blogger Ian said...

So the official endorsement, according to Brian, is that nomadic fires on smoldering carpets were burning in wtc7?

No, the smoldering carpets and nomadic fires were in WTC 1 & 2 and were used as a distraction from the magic spray-on thermite and the invisible silent explosives that actually destroyed the towers.

In WTC 7, they didn't even bother using a cover for the fact that the building was demolished by magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives.

 
At 24 September, 2014 07:17, Blogger Ian said...

Why don't you learn to google and find out?

I know how to Google, Brian. That's how I find all the hilarious information about you, like how you were banned from the truth movement, how you're unemployed and live with your parents, and how you have a hideous homeless mullet.

 
At 24 September, 2014 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Stewie debating me is pointless for you, because you know nothing about 9/11.

Ian, after you learn to Google you need to learn not to believe everything you read on the internet. In particular you need to learn not to believe what has been said about me by people I've humiliated--people like Kevin Barrett, William Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, Guitar Bill, and Ian. They're liars, all.


I was not banned from the truth movement.

 
At 24 September, 2014 17:29, Blogger Ian said...

Stewie debating me is pointless for you, because you know nothing about 9/11.

Brian is running away squealing and crying from a debate again. Willie Rodriguez and Craig Ranke know all about this.

Ian, after you learn to Google you need to learn not to believe everything you read on the internet. In particular you need to learn not to believe what has been said about me by people I've humiliated--people like Kevin Barrett, William Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, Guitar Bill, and Ian. They're liars, all.

Brian, you've never humiliated anyone. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents. You're a worthless liar and sex stalker.

I was not banned from the truth movement.

See what I mean about being a worthless liar?

 
At 24 September, 2014 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Willie and Craig both know that I kicked their asses (fat and scrawny, respectively) every time I encountered them on the internet, and they know that I would kick their asses here on this thread if they had the guts to show up, which they don't.

I didn't run away from anything.

I've humiliated Kevin Barret, William Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, Guitar Bill, and Ian. They're liars, all. If any of them think I haven't, then they are free to show up here and get humiliated again.

I was never banned from the truth movement. I have attended several meetings of the truth alliance in the last few years. One person one time suggested I had no standing to attend meetings, and he looked around the room and realized that claim was not even going to be discussed.

 
At 24 September, 2014 19:39, Blogger Ian said...

Willie and Craig both know that I kicked their asses (fat and scrawny, respectively) every time I encountered them on the internet, and they know that I would kick their asses here on this thread if they had the guts to show up, which they don't.

You ran away squealing and crying from both when they challenged you to a debate. These are the kinds of things one can find on Google, Brian.

I've humiliated Kevin Barret, William Rodriguez, Craig Ranke, Guitar Bill, and Ian. They're liars, all. If any of them think I haven't, then they are free to show up here and get humiliated again.

I'm right here, Brian, and I've never been humiliated by you. You'd have to get the widows questions answered, or get a new investigation into 9/11 for that to happen, and we all know that neither will ever happen.

I was never banned from the truth movement.

False.

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:22, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie debating me is pointless for you, because you know nothing about 9/11.

I just love how I can make you tell the truth about yourself Brian. If you had known about 9/11 you wouldn't be here at all wouldn't you? You'd be out there holding signs and such and looking like a complete jackass. But you already know you don't know anything about 9/11 don't ya? Normal people wouldn't be as persistent or annoying to society as you are.

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:25, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I was never banned from the truth movement.

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/largest-911-site-condemned-for-banning-opponents-harming-truth-movement/

"Craig McKee

AUGUST 20, 2014 AT 9:42 PM

Mr. Good was banned from this site a long time ago."

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:27, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2011/05/08/largest-911-site-condemned-for-banning-opponents-harming-truth-movement/

"johnscriv

AUGUST 19, 2014 AT 11:27 PM

Do the site and its visitors a favour, ban the troll Brian Good from commenting here. Unless you mistakenly believe he is sincerely contributing something of worth, you are doing free speech a disservice by enabling and empowering Brian Good in his attempt to smear and degrade the contributions of genuine truth activists. He is obviously tasked with damaging the truth and those who seek it. His ilk are damaging and contaminating the honesty, the sincerity and the integrity of your site."

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Lyin Ianinny posts more of his lyin Iananity, I see.

I didn't run away from Craig or Willie. Here I am, here they are not. I kicked their asses.

You lie, skidmark. Your lies humiliate you. Your lack of shame only shows that you are a sociopath--it doesn't show that you haven't been humiliated.

I was never banned by the truth movement.

Stewie, what gives you the idea that I don't know about 9/11?

You make up your facts.

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:30, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Brain was saying about being banned any where within the Truth Movement?

Here's comes the denial and squealing in 3...2...1...

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:33, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Stewie, what gives you the idea that I don't know about 9/11?

You make up your facts.


You've been banned and regarded as a troll by other Truthers and they see you as agreeing with the official story. I've heard plenty about you Brian from the people you supposed to be with but really aren't. Which gives me much satisfaction that you know nothing about 9/11 since you're getting banned by the Truth Movement itself. Kind of sucks being you as they see you're damaging their "credibility"

On the contrary, it's you how makes up facts which is why the Truth Movement is banishing you into oblivion.

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:37, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

http://lists.cagreens.org/pipermail/sosfbay-discuss/2010-April/010936.html

"Brian Good was banned from the Northern California 9/11 Truth
Alliance meetings and our e-mail list. He attended our last meeting,
when Kevin Barrett and his wife, Fatna were there. They had been
invited to join us for a potluck dinner prior to the meeting. Brian
wore black and a giant V for Vendetta mask, and at some point rudely
verbally attacked Dr. Barrett, and of course he gave his
flyer/handout to all who would take them, when they left the meeting.

Carol Brouillet

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:43, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1092

"
Craig Ranke CIT

Posted: Mar 17 2010, 10:56 AM

Brian Good has been on an internet rampage to personally discredit CIT and the witnesses we present. He has claimed numerous times publicly that he has "kicked" my "ass" in a private email debate that we had and that I have "fled" from his questions so I have decided to make that discussion public for others to judge for themselves despite his failure to grant permission. His insistence on making claims and accusations about this discussion while not wanting others to be able to read the discussion speaks volumes.

So Brian Good, a self-described "former wheel-barrel jockey" who admits he is not a Pentagon attack researcher at all, wants you to believe that he is somehow intellectually superior or more informed on this topic than all published researchers on BOTH sides of the argument!

So after days and days of extremely detailed "debate" during this email discussion it ended with Brian Good running scared from MY challenge to an audio debate.

 
At 24 September, 2014 20:55, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

So Brian, you said you knew everything about 9/11 but you told Craig Ranke that you're not a Pentagon researcher.

So you asked what gave me the idea that you know nothing about 9/11. Well you're self admittance to Criag Ranke about not being interested at all about the Pentagon nor Flight 77.

This fact is undeniable to the fact that you're not really interested in the events surrounding 9/11.

Question is: Why the fuck are you even here?

 
At 24 September, 2014 21:04, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Also why did you not want to debate Craig Ranke to an audio debate?

You've been challenged by both sides and yet you run away. Are you scared to admit that you're just not telling the truth that you have no real inside knowledge about 9/11? Or is it that you've been turned down and banned by the very group you set out to destroy to begin with?

Truthers see you as an informant to the debunker side. The debunker side sees you as the same. But when both sides talk about you in such a way it's possible that you don't know shit about 9/11.

I'm beginning to think you're just a lonely old guy from Palo Alto, CA who lives in an apartment on the 7th floor and just wants to make friends online. You're desperately lonely, that's a given sign. You seek companionship with women, but fail to woo them due to your shyness and stubborness. And even when you get rejected you feel the need to lash out. We all make mistakes Brian, it's a fact of life. But you can't go through life trying to be a burden to everyone cause your life sucks so damn much. You made your life that way, we didn't.

 
At 24 September, 2014 21:06, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I would suggest that you seek a therapist or a shrink Brian. You're gonna drive yourself to an early grave worrying about shit you don't know anything about.

 
At 24 September, 2014 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh gosh, I thought maybe Ranke or Rodriguez or Barrett had showed up to debate me.

Too bad. They didn't. Oh well.

 
At 25 September, 2014 03:20, Blogger truth hurts said...

Of course they didn't.

They moved on. And so should you.

 
At 25 September, 2014 04:53, Blogger Ian said...

Lyin Ianinny posts more of his lyin Iananity, I see.

I didn't run away from Craig or Willie. Here I am, here they are not. I kicked their asses.

You lie, skidmark. Your lies humiliate you. Your lack of shame only shows that you are a sociopath--it doesn't show that you haven't been humiliated.

I was never banned by the truth movement.

Stewie, what gives you the idea that I don't know about 9/11?

You make up your facts.


Yup, this is the kind of hysterical squealing that Brian posts whenever I humiliate him.

Let me know, Brian, when you get even one of the widows questions answered, OK?

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

 
At 25 September, 2014 04:57, Blogger Ian said...

Oh gosh, I thought maybe Ranke or Rodriguez or Barrett had showed up to debate me.

Why would they? They've already pwn3d you, and they all know you'll just run away squealing and crying again.

People have better things to do than engage a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 25 September, 2014 05:34, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Oh gosh, I thought maybe Ranke or Rodriguez or Barrett had showed up to debate me.

Too bad. They didn't. Oh well.


How about if we told them to debate you on an online radio station where it can be saved for future generations to listen to while you slowly back down and run away until the good people here you click off?

 
At 25 September, 2014 05:38, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

Remember guys he's not fully committed to the 9/11 Conspiracy Theories cause he told Craig Ranke that he's not interested in the Pentagon/Flight 77 debate. And Craig said that he acts like he knows all about the Pentagon/Flight 77 but doesn't argue about it.

 
At 25 September, 2014 06:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 September, 2014 06:38, Blogger snug.bug said...



th, they didn't move on willingly. Willie Rodriguez "moved on" in that he no longer goes around lying about 9/11. That's because he can't get any gigs doing so, and that's because everyone (except some of the persistently ignorant, like Ian) knows he's a liar.

Kevin Barrett "moved on" by finding an association with the Iranian news agency Press TV, and an association with the loony website "Veterans Today". He gets no news coverage outside of Press TV and very occasional coverage on RT. Nothing in the USA, where statements of journalistic ethics prohibit writing features about people for no purpose but to ridicule them.

Craig Ranke has "moved on" to a state of claiming that he is boycotting the truth conferences to which he has not been invited.

I've moved on to a state of satisfaction that I did my bit to shut these lying clowns down so they no longer discredited the truth movement. But when somebody claims I ran away because I was afraid to debate them, I will correct that lie. And when somebody claims that pictures of William Rodriguez appearing with famous scumbags represents evidence of Willie's significance, I will point out that the fact that not one truth movement organization used those pictures shows that Willie is dead, as he should be, to the truth movement.


 
At 25 September, 2014 15:10, Blogger Ian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 September, 2014 15:11, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, they ignore you because you're a waste of their time. Only a few people spend any time on you, and they're people like me, who take delight in mocking and humiliating you.

But given that you can't get a new investigation, can't get "meatball on a fork" published, can't hold down a job, can't get a decent haircut, and can't get any widows questions answered, and can't get un-banned from the truth movement, I guess you need SOMETHING to delude yourself into thinking you're not a pathetic failure at life.

 
At 25 September, 2014 15:30, Blogger truth hurts said...

they didn't move on willingly.

Doesn't matter why.
Point is that they moved on and you didn't.


Willie Rodriguez "moved on" in that he no longer goes around lying about 9/11.

Well, that is very good of him. I wonder why you don't follow his example.


I've moved on to a state of satisfaction

No you haven't.

That is thw whole point.
You still are here babling about fraudriguez and whatever you call him and still expect him to debate you on this blog.
If you were satisfied with what you have done, you wouldn't do so. You would expose brian and then move on.

 
At 25 September, 2014 15:35, Blogger truth hurts said...

And when somebody claims that pictures of William Rodriguez appearing with famous scumbags represents evidence of Willie's significance, I will point out that the fact that not one truth movement organization used those pictures shows that Willie is dead, as he should be, to the truth movement.

The error you are making here is that you claim the truth movement to be significant.
They are not, as this blog has shown for about 8 years now.

Rodriguez moved on, he is still appreciated for what he claimed to have done on 911, was special guest at the opening of the 911 memorial, where he gave a speech, spoke in front of 20+ camera's and walks among (former) presidents and other high ranking Americans.

You on the other hand are babbling and squeeling on a blog that is hostile towards you and are going around in circles again and again for years now.

 
At 25 September, 2014 15:44, Blogger Ian said...

Rodriguez also doesn't have a hideous homeless mullet:

http://photos2.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/4/5/5/e/highres_10817758.jpeg

 
At 25 September, 2014 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, you're missing the point. They didn't move on. They were moved on with pitchforks and dogs.

I've moved on. There's no reason for me to bring them up except when somebody lies about them, as y'all do here.

 
At 26 September, 2014 06:12, Blogger Stewie Griffin said...

I've moved on. There's no reason for me to bring them up except when somebody lies about them, as y'all do here.

You told Craig Ranke that you don't know about the Pentagon and yet try to say something and lie about it.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home