Boston Globe Did the Unthinkable?
That's Box Boy Gage's headline on a recent post at 9-11 Flogger, followed by the thrilled mention that the unthinkable was that the Globe gave them some "ink". No surprise, what Gage only hints at is that the ink was dipped in with a poison pen:
It’s hard to understand how Asner, an early 9/11 “truther” who has suggested that investors profited from 9/11, or the running gag line that is Geraldo Rivera, also featured in the video, add to the group’s credibility. “We’re not using Geraldo for our credibility,” Gage told me, “We’re using our appearance on mainstream media [Fox News] to gain credit for our cause.”Credit/credibility; potato potahto. What Gage won't or can't admit is that his appearance on Whorealdo didn't give him any credit; it just removed any last shred of credit that Rivera had remaining after the Secrets of Al Capone's Vault.
posted by Pat @ 6:50 AM
92 comments
92 Comments:
So what's the troofer line on the recent spate of Islamic State attacks? My guess is that Paris was done by the CIA, the Beirut bombing by the Mossad, and the Russian jetliner was actually a hologram.
This comment has been removed by the author.
I haven't seen any truthers make such claims, Ian. The only person making them that I've seen is, predictably, Kevin Barrett--but he'a a liar, not a truther. He and you have a lot in common, Ian. You both lie, you both have a lot of goofy ideas, and you both have very peculiar notions about humor.
Thanks for proving my point, Brian. Kevin Barrett is a real truther, and is a leader of the movement along with Jeff Rense, Jim Marrs, David Icke, Bill Deagle, Jim Fetzer, Judy Wood, and Craig Ranke.
You, on the other hand, were banned from the truth movement. You also have a hideous homeless mullet because you can't afford to go to a decent barber.
At least Brian admits that the truthers are actually liars.
Something this blog has been telling for many years now.
Liars are not rruthers, th--no matter what you and Ian say.
Kevin Barrett is a conspiracy theorist, not a truther. Try to employ some distinctions.
Kevin Barrett is a conspiracy theorist, not a truther. Try to employ some distinctions.
There is no distinction, Brian. Kevin Barrett is a leading figure in the ridiculous conspiracy cult that calls itself the "truthers".
You are a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and who used to be a low-level errand boy for leading truthers, but they got tired of your lies and sex obsessions and banned you. That's why you can only post your spam here, where people taunt and humiliate you.
Well, the truth movement is bankrupt. There is nothing left. Only a bunch of loons, liars and people who are in deep denial....
Like Brian admits: the truthers are actually liars.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No, Ian. The truthers are not a conspiracy cult. The 9/11 truthers are both the 86% of Americans who believe that the government has not told us the whole story, and those who are actively pursuing disclosure and accountability. The 9/11 liars are a few sociopaths like you and Barrett and Rodriguez and th. Your inability to distinguish between the truthers and the conspiracy theorists is a demonstration of your perceptual failures or your mendacity (or both).
You seem to think that working as a janitor to make some money while I was college is a shameful thing. What did you do for money when you were young? Turn tricks in the woods behind the all-night diner? Have you been snooping through my underwear drawer (trick question)? Otherwise, how do you know about my underwear?
Far from being bankrupt, the truth movement has legislation pending in Congress to declassify the 28 redacted pages from the Joint Inquiry into 9/11. Ae911Truth reports that they signed up 25 structural engineers at a recent structural engineers conference in Las Vegas. Kristin Breitweiser is back in action, blasting Condi Rice on Huffington Post. Condi Rice seems to find appearing in public in the San Francisco Bay Area to be too embarrassing to be worthwhile for her--it's been years since her most recent protestable appearance.
All liars like you can do is obstruct and delay the truth, but you can't stop it. When it comes out all your efforts will have been expended for nothing more than to buy time--while the truthers' efforts have been building the foundations of history.
86% of the people support 911truth according to you, yet Gage only managed to 25 people to sign up......
That kinda contradicts, Brian...
And what exactly is the truth Brian?
You are still too afraid to share that with us...
We all know why...
Haters gonna hate.
Potatoes gonna potate.
th, Gage got not 25 "people"; he got 25 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS to put their professional reputations on the line by signing a petition calling for new investigations.
You see contradictions where there are none, and miss distinctions where there are some.
Where I come from there is no truth---there is only what we call "current dogma" and we know that in the future people will laugh at our theories as we of today laugh at phlogiston and phrenoogy and criminal physiognomy of yesteryear.
Truth is an ideal, and in the context of 9/11 it means transparency and accountability and rigorous investigation and honest reporting.
So Marc, are you telling us that you have relocated to Idaho?
Still on this incredibly dumb idea that it takes courage to sign Gage's petition??
So Brian, you refused to answer the question the last time you brought up this nonsense. What is YOUR professional reputation? who are these 25 engineers you cite?
Of all of the hysterical things Brian has posted repeatedly on this blog over the 7 years he's been here, my favorite is always the "the truthers are winning, the public agrees with us, the government will be forced to admit the conspiracy any day now and you girls will be sorry!" type that he posted above.
I'm not sure why he does it. To convince himself that he hasn't wasted his life on this nonsense? Brian, you have no job and live with your parents at an age when many people start to retire and take care of grandkids. Even without 9/11 truth (which you've been banned from, remember), your life would be a total failure.
I hope Richard Gage and Kristin Breitweiser enjoy their lonely Thanksgivings, since their families and friends have abandoned them for being liars and lunatics.
That's the best part of this, Brian. You can squeal and squeal and squeal about 86% all you want. It doesn't change the fact that I'll spend Thursday with my wife and family, and Laurie Van Auken will spend it with nothing but her unanswered questions. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!!!!!
So Brian, you refused to answer the question the last time you brought up this nonsense. What is YOUR professional reputation? who are these 25 engineers you cite?
Brian is an unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. He had a professional reputation like the truthers have academic reputations, ie nothing.
Anyway, these 25 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS have not published any papers introducing new theories into what happened on 9/11, so until then, they remain part of a tiny crackpot cult that is rejected by over 99% of the engineering community.
It's also amusing that in a country where 86% of the population agrees with Brian, these 25 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS are risking their careers by joining the massive majority. Not sure how that works, you'll have to ask the failed janitor who suggested both of these things.
FWIW, I agree that joining the truth movement is dangerous to one's career and marriage, because it suggests profound mental illness. Just look at how badly Brian needs psychiatric care.
Where I come from there is no truth---there is only what we call "current dogma" and we know that in the future people will laugh at our theories as we of today laugh at phlogiston and phrenoogy and criminal physiognomy of yesteryear.
Truth is an ideal, and in the context of 9/11 it means transparency and accountability and rigorous investigation and honest reporting.
I guess this is what passes for profound philosophy in mentally ill unemployed janitor circles, but it's on par with Brian's hysterical "someday I'll be proven right and you girls will be sorry!" squealing.
Hey Brian, it's been almost a decade since you promised everyone that was taunting you that "meatball on a fork" would appear in a journal. You getting on that?
Yes Ian, I was going to make the point that with an 86% approval of rating of "trutherism", one would think getting a majority of actual experts on board shouldn't be too hard. I figured Brian would illustrate how qualified his 25 are, thus negating his long held view that joining the ranks would be a risk to their careers, but since you made that point, I'm sure his next post will include the prelude: "what makes you think.."
That and anyone who has ever talked to an engineer who knows an engineer from nist has a conflict of interest and can't be trusted The ones who critisize nist but don't think it was an inside job can be trusted and are brave for their criticism but are fearful and have conflicts for not thinking it was an inside job. It goes something like that.
"What makes you think I think it was an inside job"
Or
"You guys don't know the difference bettered hypothesis and theory" coming soon.
Between not bettered.
“We’re using our appearance on mainstream media [Fox News] to gain credit for our cause.”
LMAO! What a media attention whore Gage is.
"Gage got not 25 "people"; he got 25 STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS"
So structural engineers aren't people?
Anyway, my point still stands.
85% of the public supports him according to you, yet he could only get a lousy 25 people to sign..
"to put their professional reputations on the line by signing a petition calling for new investigations."
That also proves my point.
If 86% of the population support a new investigation, then why are these engineers putting their reputations on the line if they also support that?
You constantly contradict yourself and you aren't even aware of it..
Shamrock, it takes enormous courage to put one's professional reputation on the line and to face ridicule and to risk social and business isolation. It is very easy to rationalize silence--to say that professionalism demands that you avoid controversy, to say that you owe such non-controversy to your professional colleagues, to plead that you are not expert in the engineering of 100-story buildings.
One MS Structural Engineer sent a questionnaire to 100 of his peers asking about their knowledge of, and attitudes about, the 9/11 structural failures. Only 2 of the 100 had the guts to return the questionnaire. The majority of experts prefer not to offer an opinion.
Your careless punctuation is really quite fatiguing to read. Sloppy writing is sloppy thinking. Clean up your act. You're not a dummy like Ian and th.
Shamrock, it takes enormous courage to put one's professional reputation on the line and to face ridicule and to risk social and business isolation. It is very easy to rationalize silence--to say that professionalism demands that you avoid controversy, to say that you owe such non-controversy to your professional colleagues, to plead that you are not expert in the engineering of 100-story buildings.
It's not "controversy", it's insanity that they want to avoid. Giving credence to conspiracy theories put forth by unemployed lunatics such as yourself is, as you correctly point out, is inviting social and professional ostracism from professionals who dwell in reason and evidence.
One MS Structural Engineer sent a questionnaire to 100 of his peers asking about their knowledge of, and attitudes about, the 9/11 structural failures. Only 2 of the 100 had the guts to return the questionnaire. The majority of experts prefer not to offer an opinion.
Brian, given that you have no job or family or friends or any normal interests, it apparently doesn't occur to you that normal people tend not to waste their time addressing lunatic conspiracy theories. It has nothing to do with "guts".
Ianinny, upon what basis do you claim that the concerns of dozens of licensed structural engineers are "insanity"?
Would you care to explain to the class why the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the collapses of the three skyscrapers on 9/11? Or would you prefer to talk about haircuts and underwear and ninja elves as you usually do?
Hint: the First Law of Thermodynamics is not a conspiracy theory. It is a law of physics--one you probably never encountered in your education.
Again, if most Americans question the official narrative, why would any need to fear reprisals. That you think it takes courage for scientists to question "current dogma" shows clearly you don't have an understanding of the process whatsoever.
Care to prove the 98 others weren't just apathetic or is that just fact less bare assertion
Sloppy writing is sloppy thinking.
Another fact less bare assertion.
So your professional reputation is????
How is the reputation and career of the brave 25 PhD's?
Ianinny, upon what basis do you claim that the concerns of dozens of licensed structural engineers are "insanity"?
Reason and evidence. The complete absence of either from truther claims suggests insanity.
Would you care to explain to the class why the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the collapses of the three skyscrapers on 9/11? Or would you prefer to talk about haircuts and underwear and ninja elves as you usually do?
See what I mean? Brian's "evidence" that 9/11 was an inside job is that the towers' collapses violated the laws of physics (or, at least the laws of physics as understood by an unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State).
Thanks for proving my point about insanity, Brian.
Ianinny, bare assertion that your position constitutes "reason and evidence" is neither logical nor rational.
Where do you get the idea that I "failed out of San Jose State"? My ex-wife took some night-school classes at San Jose State. I never did.
Would you care to explain to the class why the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the collapses of the three skyscrapers on 9/11?
"Would you care to explain to the class why the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the collapses of the three skyscrapers on 9/11?"
that is easy, you merely lack any understanding of the laws of thermodynamics and lack of understanding how the towers collapsed.
but that does not come as an surprise.
any fool who believes that agreeing with a majority would put your career at risk as a lack of basic understanding in any field.
Ianinny, bare assertion that your position constitutes "reason and evidence" is neither logical nor rational.
Nobody cares what you think, Brian. You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.
Where do you get the idea that I "failed out of San Jose State"? My ex-wife took some night-school classes at San Jose State. I never did.
You told us you failed out of San Jose State. Also, stop pretending that you've ever been married.
Would you care to explain to the class why the First Law of Thermodynamics does not apply to the collapses of the three skyscrapers on 9/11?
No, I don't want to explain. You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and can't afford a decent haircut. Nobody cares if you ever understand what happened on 9/11.
The question I've been asking a lot of Truthers is this:
Where is your 9/11 Truth equivalent of the official report to support your theories?
Without an official report of their own they have no leg to stand on. Which is why a majority of nutters attack the official report because it's the only official report that's based on facts and evidence telling us that 9/11 was an outside job done by 19 radical muslims that flew planes into buildings and the ground killing nearly 3,000 people in the process.
Of course Brian doesn't like to answer questions but we know all too well he doesn't have anything official to add to any arguement therefore his arguments are MOOT.
th, what what errors have you identified in my understanding of the laws of thermodyamics, and what errors in my understanding of how the buildings collapsed?
Shamrock, I didn't say that most Americans question the official narrative. I said that 86% of Americans who believe that the government has not told us the whole story. I pointed out the peer pressure in the engineering community to avoid controversy. University professors, for instance, know that many of their colleagues depend of government research grants. New Mexico Tech, for instance, a school with 160 professors, gets $90 million in a year in government contracts. Such a gravy train can inspire a lot of peer pressure. A University professor was forced to retire because of his 9/11 truth activities, and an engineer cited professional consequences of his signing of the petition and asked to have his signature removed.
When I say that sloppy writing is sloppy thinking, I'm asserting an axiom. If you disagree with it, feel free to show how sloppy writing is clear thinking.
Lyin Ianinny posts more lyin iananity, I see. I never told anyone I flunked out of San Jose State. I never even attended San Jose State. My ex-wife took some night-school classes there once.
Stundie, there are quite a number of papers to read at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Also, the 911research website is a thorough compendium of information and analysis about the 9/11 attacks.
Dr. David Ray Griffin's ten books on 9/11 can be considered to approach the level of an official report. They vary in quality, and I have not read them all. His book about WTC7 is a very astute criticism of the NIST WTC7 report, though its publication in 2009 means it lacks damning information about that report that has turned up since then.
The official reports are of unacceptably low quality. Dr. Griffin takes on the 9/11 Commission Report (9CR) in his book "The 9/11 Commission Report" Omissions and Distortions". The Commission relied for its information about al Qaeda upon CIA transcripts allegedly recording testimony from alleged prisoners allegedly extracted under torture. The Commission made no attempt to verify these transcripts, and the CIA allegedly destroyed the alleged video tapes allegedly recording the alleged interrogations of the alleged prisoners. The Commission's investigation was corrupted by the confllcts of interest and unprofessional behavior of its Executive Director, Dr. Philip Zelikow.
The official reports about the twin towers are flawed by their unscientific and incomplete nature. Input data were manipulated to yield the desired results. They claim they did not analyze the collapses of the towers. How do you explain the collapses of the towers without analyzing them? By declining to address the towers' collapses they were able to dodge the ten essential mysteries of those collapses.
The official reports about WTC7 are also riddled with dishonesty. They removed essential structural elements such as shear studs and flange stiffeners from the system because their girder walk-off theory would not work if those elements were in place. In all the reports they also declined to exercise their subpoena power, making it easy for them to claim they could not find information they did not want to find.
So 86 % of Americans don't think the gov has told the whole story doesn't mean 86% question the official narrative. Got it. Circular illogic defined perfectly.
Of course an engineer cited professional consequences and asked to have his signature removed. It's you who has decided the consequences weren't his colleagues ridiculing his gullibility.
I have no need to show how sloppy writing is clear thinking. You made the baseless assertion. Now you've retreated to it being nothing more the an axiom. I'll take that as you understand sloppy writing and clear thinking are unrelated. It's comical how you make baseless claims and ask others to prove its opposite.
Sorry Brian, you are proof sound writing and clear thinking are unrelated.
So what's your professional reputation again Brian?
Those 25 brave PhD's. How's their career going?
" what what errors have you identified in my understanding of the laws of thermodyamics, and what errors in my understanding of how the buildings collapsed? "
You never dared to provide that data,
Lyin Ianinny posts more lyin iananity, I see. I never told anyone I flunked out of San Jose State. I never even attended San Jose State. My ex-wife took some night-school classes there once.
Poor Brian. I've humiliated him by pointing out that he failed out of college and has never had a relationship with a woman (or man).
Stundie, there are quite a number of papers to read at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Also, the 911research website is a thorough compendium of information and analysis about the 9/11 attacks.
Thanks for proving our point. There are no papers in academic journals that dispute the official narrative to 9/11.
Dr. David Ray Griffin's ten books on 9/11 can be considered to approach the level of an official report. They vary in quality, and I have not read them all.
Brian doesn't have to read something to know that something "approaches the level of an official report". Of course not. Anything that doesn't tell Brian what he wants to hear is "dishonest, incomplete, unbelievable, etc" and everything that confirms his belief in magic spray-on thermite and invisible silent explosives is serious.
The official reports are of unacceptably low quality.
See what I mean?
The official reports about the twin towers are flawed by their unscientific and incomplete nature.
See what I mean?
The official reports about WTC7 are also riddled with dishonesty.
See what I mean?
Anyway, Brian, none of this matters. What matters is that we're fast approaching the end of 2015, which is a 14th straight year in which Laurie Van Auken will have to spend the holidays without any questions answered. That means, once again, that I've won and you've lost at 9/11. I will always win, and you will always lose. That's just how it is when I'm a smart, successful, good-looking professional with an MBA, and you're a mentally ill college failure who couldn't hold down a job mopping floors and can't afford to cut his hideous homeless mullet.
Shamrock, 86% of Americans don't think the gov has told the whole story. That doesn't mean they all question the substance of the official story. Frequently my statement that new investigations are needed is met by ignorant people with the response "Oh, I'm sure that there was some ass covering going on, but I think the reports pretty much got it right."
Unlike you I have no need to speculate about the professional consequences suffered by someone I do not know and who did not specify the consequences.
Sloppy writing and clear thinking are inversely related.
th, what data did I never dare to produce? I have many time explained the relevance of the First Law of Thermodynamics to the energetics of the three skyscrapers' collapses. Your refusal to learn is your own problem, not mine.
For you to brag about your MBA is pathetic, Ian. Any fool with enough time and money can get an MBA--and you're proof.
I've never wished a shitty Thanksgiving on anyone before. Have a shitty Thanksgiving, Ian. While you're having it imagine the hole that would be left at the table if you'd lost a loved one on 9/11, and imagine the frustration at wanting answers and not getting them. And consider what an asshole you are to go around lying about 9/11 in an effort to thwart the families' quest for truth.
Unlike me you have no need to speculate about the professional consequences.......???
Brian, your entire premise about why so few professionals have joined the truther movement is one big gigantic speculation. This is clear and concise proof perfect grammar and syntax is completely unrelated to clear thinking.
So 86% wondering whether or not the govt told them the entire story doesn't mean the question the substance of the OS.
Great, glad that's cleared up. You admit the 86% is not in any way tied to this being an inside job and any further attempts to use it to support a new investigation can be dismissed out of hand.
For you to brag about your MBA is pathetic, Ian. Any fool with enough time and money can get an MBA--and you're proof.
You can't get an MBA. You failed out of San Jose State, remember?
I've never wished a shitty Thanksgiving on anyone before. Have a shitty Thanksgiving, Ian. While you're having it imagine the hole that would be left at the table if you'd lost a loved one on 9/11, and imagine the frustration at wanting answers and not getting them. And consider what an asshole you are to go around lying about 9/11 in an effort to thwart the families' quest for truth.
My, such squealing!
All the real questions about 9/11 have been answered. The fact that some gold-digging bimbos have a few ridiculous questions on top of the sane ones doesn't bother me at all.
But it bothers you because it's a daily reminder of what a colossal failure the "truth" "movement" has been.
You know what, Shamrock--not only is sloppy writing slopping thinking, but your sloppy reading is sloppy thinking too.
I have already explained the professional consequences of promoting controversial positions. It alienates partners and clients and employers. I cited examples, and described the influences.
It would be speculation to comment on a particular case--as you did, coming up with a fantasy about colleagues ridiculing someone you haven't even identified. That your idea of sloppy writing is a matter merely of bad grammar is very telling.
I never said the 86% is tied to this being an inside job. I didn't say anything about an inside job. I said the 9/11 truthers include the 86%. It's called a 9/11 Truth movement. It's not called a 9/11 Inside Job movement, it's not called a 9/11 Conspiracy Theory movement, it's not called a 9/11 Jews-did-it movement.
I see, it's only speculation on an individual basis but it's a point of fact when you make assumptions about the 99.999 % of professional engineers who don't give a rats ass about Gage's group. . Brian your brilliant grammar won't save you here and You know it.
You have already explained the professional consequences based on what? Your not a professional. How would you know about professional consequences.
I didn't identify him....you brought him up dopey. and you didn't identify him and you implied he was afraid to take a stand against the OS for fear it would cost him. Man you aren't that good at this.
You call me out for speculating an alternative motive for a professional whose motives you speculated about. Dumb as a stump.
So the truth movement doesn't think this was an inside job. Yeah ok.
Maybe if you knew some engineers or architects you wouldn't need an explanation of the obvious about the professional environment of these callings.
I identified a number of issues that can in my opinion influence engineers' willingness to engage in controversy. To attribute upon no factual basis whatsoever one particular factor to a particular engineer is speculation.
Why do you guys need stuff like this explained to you?
That you don't think sloppy writing wouldn't be a matter of hastily typing on a smart phone key board is mind boggling given I've beaten your ass all thread long with your complete nonsense. Losing to a poor writer is frustrating isn't it?
What makes me think I've beaten your ass? Ask anyone.
False declarations of victory are a staple of the self-pwned ignorant.
Once you use the phrase "in my opinion" , you're speculating dopey.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You identified a number of influences, none of which included "they don't care what truthers think"! Which not only is plausible, it's infinitely more plausible.
False claims of contradiction are another staple of the self-pwned. Sloppy reading begets sloppy thinking begets sloppy writing --- etc. etc. etc.
You didn't say "in my opinion" when you speculated about the professional consequences suffered by a particular person that you didn't know. You didn't have enough information about the issue to justify an opinion. That's my point.
Of course we need your line of "logic" explained. It makes sense to only you. Implying "your opinion" isn't speculation in regards to why so few engineers are truthers is the statement of a narcissist. That You don't give credence to their apathy being a likely reason is just dumb.
So Brian, what's your professional reputation?
What are the reputations of those brave 25 PhD's. I'm sure they must have a hard time finding work
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian, you asserted his rationale for asking to be taken off the petition was fear for career. I gave an alternative motive. In both cases it was speculation. You scolded me for speculating. Why was my speculation more dubious than yours? And yours is worse because you jump to the conclusion the reason only 25 PhD's are in Gage's group is the same "opinion". It ain't based in fact Brian. Get it.
Do you know why he was afraid? Do you know he was even afraid? I didn't think so. So you referencing him was a waste of time.
I identified a number of issues that can in my opinion influence engineers' willingness to engage in controversy. To attribute upon no factual basis whatsoever one particular factor to a particular engineer is speculation.
Why do you guys need stuff like this explained to you?
It's hilarious that a mentally ill unemployed janitor thinks he's "explaining" things to us, instead of just babbling like a lunatic, while we egg him on to laugh at him.
Speaking of that, remember the time Willie Rodriguez challenged you to a debate on this blog, Brian? And you ran away squealing and crying? That was hilarious.
It makes sense to only you. Implying "your opinion" isn't speculation in regards to why so few engineers are truthers is the statement of a narcissist.
You have to remember, Brian is a delusional psychotic. He thinks Carol Brouillet is in love with him. He thinks Willie Rodriguez sent Norwegian hackers to infect his computer.
He first came to note at this blog when he posted a bunch of child's scribbles at Democratic Underground and claimed that they would someday be published in a journal of engineering. Needless to say, the ridicule over there was merciless. Brian responded with his usual hysterical squealing. Then he was banned. You know, the usual for Brian.
"86% of Americans don't think the gov has told the whole story."
Aah, the monkey come out of the hat
So your whole argument is bogus. The gov never tells the whole story, so no news over here.
That also explains why you believe speaking out 911'truth' would hurt someones career.
That is because you perfectly well know that only a small group of delusional people believe in the inside job theory with controlled demolitions.
So you implicitly admit that the movement is dead.
Shamrock, it is axiomatic that engineering professionals would prefer to avoid being attacked as conspiracy theorists and thus would tend to avoid associating with controversies that might result in such attacks. It is a commonplace that most engineers are poor communicators and they would thus prefer not to be put in positions where they might have to defend themselves.
If my opinions about the professional influences at work on engineering professionals are narcissistic, what then are your opinions about my putative narcissism? Why do you guys always want to talk about me? Apathy is the result of these professional influences, not the cause of them.
I never asserted what you claim I asserted. It seems you can't remember what I said and you're too lazy to scroll upthread and check. Your speculation was dubious because it was based on nothing. I didn't speculate. I reported what the engineer in question said. I didn't say he was afraid.
Nobody said there were only 25 PhDs in Gage's group. You are out of touch with reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, I have debated Willie many times on this blog, and every time I have kicked his saggy, $#@%&ed ass. His hero story is a lie. He stole it from a true hero, Pablo Ortiz, who died on 9/11.
Willie (or maybe it was one of his many sock puppets) bragged that he had a team of Norwegian hackers working for him. I had several mysterious computer failures.
I never claimed any scribbles would be published in a journal of engineering. You make stuff up. Have a sucky Thanksgiving. Remember what I said about people who lost loved ones on 9/11, and remember that you sneered at them and chortled about their distress. You're not nearly as scummy as Willie Rodriguez, but you're still about as scummy as people can get.
Yup, all I have to do is post the words "Willie Rodriguez" and Brian starting babbling hysterically about the man he once called a "strutting, bragging, lying, hot sexy Latin dream".
Also, Brian, you still haven't addressed the possibility that Bob McIlvaine's son killed himself because his father is an awful human being. Or that Laurie Van Auken's husband is alive and used 9/11 as a way to escape his marriage to that hag.
I didn't babble in the least. I said I kicked Willie's saggy, $#@%&ed ass.
I never called Willie a "lying, hot sexy Latin dream". I called him a "a lying, bragging, strutting, blob of Latin manboob."
As I said, you're almost as contemptible as he is.
I remember the last time Rogriguez posted here. Brian ran and hided until Rodriguez was gone, before starting to post here again.
Boy, that was hilarious.
Anyway, still no explanation why the collapse of the towers didn't follow some law of physics.
As expected..
Last time Rodriguez posted here I kicked his saggy #$%@#$% ass.
I have a dozen times explained the lack of conformance of the collapses of the towers to the First Law of Thermodynamics. Unfortunately providing such explanations to you is a waste of time.
as expected, you cannot deliver...
Anyway, i also loved the time you ware bouncing off the walls when Pat posted pictures of Rodriguez at the opening of the 911 memorial. That could not be true!! Those pictures had to be fake!!! etc. etc...
Boy, you couldn't sleep for weeks :o)
Your presence here is a perfect example of the state the movement is in. You are all by yourself, with the delusion the majority is behind you. You fail to give any explanation of why certain events were impossible. You cannot even explain how 911 happened, by who and why. Despite the tons of evidence you claim to have...
Face it, the movement is dead. Nobody cares anymore. They have seen how people like you lie all the time. They aren't buying it anymore.......
"Last time Rodriguez posted here I kicked his saggy #$%@#$% ass. "
Nope, he kicked yours and you ran off...
All the same nonsense. The creationists also think they are brave and have a fake journal to publish in. Same tune different lyrics.
It's also common sense that engineers would want to avoid being ridiculed for joining a movement that is as pathetic as the truth movement. Doing so would put their careers at risk as it show poor judgement. It's also true they wouldn't want to be put into a position of defending a defenseless position. Good point Brisn. You're finally catching on.
Happy Thanksgiving.
Sorry I gotta ask since you don't seem to know what speculation means.
Why are there not more then a fraction of engineers in the movement?
Why did you bring up the engineer in the 1st place? He surely served some purpose you were making a point about fearful engineers and you brought him up in that context. But once again you cannot keep a cohesive argument going, punted to "I never said that" garbage when everyone knows why you brought him up. I just returned the kick is all. Yeah for me.
th, I don't remember bouncing off any walls. I said your crowd shot was so blurry there was no way you could identify the speaker. I also pointed out that in the picture of Bill Clinton with Willy Clinton was making a face like he was about to puke.
I also pointed out that the picture of Willie with Hillary more resembled George Cloony than Willie:
Willie and Hillary: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CTOesjb7Xkk/U3qOCk8_LAI/AAAAAAAAMsM/IGtuyjvs55M/s1600/hillary2014.jpg
Willie in news coverage: http://www.elobservador.com.uy/los-tesoros-un-latino-legados-al-nuevo-museo-del-911-n278698
I also pointed out that those "fabulous" photos of Willie with the Clintons were not featured by the truth movement anywhere. I also pointed out that those photos were not even featured on Willie's own website. I also pointed out that the photos seemed to have no internet presence whatsoever aside from the hosting here at SLC--that Pat and James seemed to hold exclusive rights was quite impressive.
I have many times explained why Willie's hero story is impossible. I can explain something to you a dozen times and you will just lie and claim I never did.
I kick Willie's ass every time he shows up here. I point out that his hero story is an impossible lie because the people he claims he "saved" will not corroborate his claims, they were not trapped behind locked exit doors, and death statistics show that the survival rate on his floors was no higher than any other floor under the impact zone. I also point out that Wilie stole his hero story from Pablo Ortiz, who saved dozens before died on 9/11.
Willie is unable to refute these truths. Willie can not provide even one credible witness to support his claim that he saved hundreds of lives.
You claim knowledge of my sleeping habits, Ian claims knowledge of my underwear. Maybe you two should get together for fun weekends.
Also, in the Willie-and-Hillary shot, Willie looks like he's wearing Raccoon eye makeup. Remember Pris (Darryl Hannah) in Blade Runner? If you bother to examine the blown-up image, you'll see extremely clumsy digital retouching on that black. You can see the mark of the digital brush under both eyes and under the lower lip. No attempt to blur the effect was made.
Stundie, there are quite a number of papers to read at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. Also, the 911research website is a thorough compendium of information and analysis about the 9/11 attacks.
You still don't have an official report of your own so you're lying out your ass Brian.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/official
"a person appointed or elected to an office or charged with certain duties."
Richard Gage had appointed himself in charge of A&E for 9/11 Truth. Why hasn't he come out with an official report stating that his claims and theories are true? Also where is the money he's receiving from the loons ($75,000 a year) for his "non-profit" ogranisation? I'd like to know why both hasn't been talked about it through the Truthers?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I didn't say we had an official report. I said there are quite a number of papers to read at The Journal of 9/11 Studies, and the 911research website is a thorough compendium of information and analysis about the 9/11 attacks.
I didn't lie about anything. Your interest in my ass, Ian's interest in my underwear, and th's interest in my sleeping habits are noted. What do you think about Willie Rodriguez's raccoon eye makeup?
Mr. Gage founded AE911Truth with many dozens of thousands of dollars of his own money. It's his group and he's entitled to run it as he sees fit.
AE911Truth has recently come out with an expensively-produced publication called "Beyond Misinformation". I'm guessing you never heard of it. Do you think $75k a year is a lot of money? Mr. Gage made more than that as an architect. What's to talk about? You seem to be very confused.
Well, I see Brian spent another lonely Thanksgiving posting spam about his homosexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez.
Ian, most of what you "see" is pure hallucination. I had a fine Thanksgiving. I hope you had the shitty one you deserve.
So the fashion expert has no commentary on Willie's fabulous racoon eye makeup?
I didn't say we had an official report.
Without it you have nothing to support you Brian.
I didn't lie about anything.
Still don't have anything official to prove your claims or theories so what else is there besides telling the "truth" Brian?
Your interest in my ass
Wow, just going out on a limb to evade the subject of not having an official report by putting words in your victims mouths Brian?
Mr. Gage founded AE911Truth
And he's taking in $75,000 a year from gullible suckers like you.
You seem to be very confused.
Only person whose confused here is you Brian. You have no official statements from any of the 9/11 Families nor do you have anything official to produce for us that you're actually telling the truth.
When are you going to grow up and move on?
The Brian Good Challenge remains unchallenged by Brian:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=256440
I challenge Brian C. Good of Palo Alto, CA Aged: 61 to present me an official statement from the 9/11 Families that they never had their "questions" answered.
I want something official Brian, do you have what it takes to have a brain that you can actually use instead of using it for childish bullshit?
Stundie, can you name any movement that ever had an official report? The Civil Rights movement? Anti-war movement? Environmental movement? Temperance movement? Abolition movement? Impeachment movement? Gay Rights movement? Electoral Integrity movement? Animal-Rights movement? Media Reform movement?
If you want an "official report" from the 9/11 Truth movement you can give me the $15 million dollars that the 9/11 Commission had and the $20 million that NIST had and I'll give you an official report.
The 9/11 widows are on record about the failure of the 9/11 Commission report to answer their questions here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Your belief that $75,000 a year is a lot of money is quite pathetic, Stundie. How old are you?
What is your point about the Brian Good challenge? The challenge as I understand it was to name even one engineer free of professional ties to NIST who is willing to express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence. Are you claiming that such a person has been named? Where? When? Who?
The 9/11 widows are on record about the failure of the 9/11 Commission report to answer their questions here:
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
False.
Your belief that $75,000 a year is a lot of money is quite pathetic, Stundie. How old are you?
I'm sure the disability and Medicaid benefits you live on don't come close to $75k per year.
The challenge as I understand it was to name even one engineer free of professional ties to NIST who is willing to express confidence in NIST's collapse sequence. Are you claiming that such a person has been named? Where? When? Who?
Uncle Steve has been named many times. You fail again, Brian.
Brian, if you want to stop sounding like a hopeless ignoramus, you should try listening to REAL truthers:
https://youtu.be/_ojHkROzwjE
These men are two of the leading figures in the truth movement, rather than failed janitors who live with their parents. You could learn something from them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
More lyin ianananity from a lyin hyenaiaininny, I see.
And the fashion expert has nothing to say about Willie's fabulous raccoon eye shadow?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-CTOesjb7Xkk/U3qOCk8_LAI/AAAAAAAAMsM/IGtuyjvs55M/s1600/hillary2014.jpg
If you want an "official report" from the 9/11 Truth movement you can give me the $15 million dollars that the 9/11 Commission had and the $20 million that NIST had and I'll give you an official report.
Sucks to be broke doesn't it Brian? Why would anyone in their right mind give you anything when we all know you wouldn't do a damn thing?
The 9/11 widows are on record...........
But they aren't steel high rise structural engineers Brian. Again grasping at straws!
How old are you?
My age isn't of your concern since you're the one who can't grow up.
What is your point about the Brian Good challenge?
You never accepted the challenge cause you're a huge wuss.
Brian, I'm not a deranged homosexual who is obsessed with Rodriguez like you, so I don't care at all about how he looks.
Post a Comment
<< Home