PDA

View Full Version : critical thinking about September 11, 2001


Pages : [1] 2

mhgaffney
01-04-2013, 04:51 PM
Richard Gage presents a 10-minute primer on 9/11

that will change the way you think about the issue.

Not to be missed...

http://youtu.be/vZAHp_zSGd8

DenverBrit
01-04-2013, 05:15 PM
It's pathetic that you continue to use that debunked con man and pseudo 'architect' then run over here expecting to be taken seriously.

Here's his 'masterpiece' of stupid.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DFVoencqfZw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
01-04-2013, 08:08 PM
Thanks for the most ironic thread title in quite some time, gaffe.

BTW, what's Venus?

When was America at its best, and what are your reasons?

See if you can herald the new year with some balls.

mhgaffney
01-04-2013, 09:27 PM
It's pathetic that you continue to use that debunked con man and pseudo 'architect' then run over here expecting to be taken seriously.

Here's his 'masterpiece' of stupid.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DFVoencqfZw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Debunked?

I'd like to see a shot of Brit early in the morning -- before he's put in his false teeth.

DenverBrit
01-04-2013, 10:47 PM
Debunked?

I'd like to see a shot of Brit early in the morning -- before he's put in his false teeth.


Was that why Gage acted like a clown with little boxes, it was early and his teeth were still in a jar by the door??

Ok, that explains everything.

defilade
01-05-2013, 11:18 AM
Holy ****!! Nope, can't believe anymore that the cave men did it. That's a freakin Fairy tale!

Fedaykin
01-05-2013, 02:48 PM
Richard Gage presents a 10-minute primer on 9/11

that will change the way you think about the issue.

Not to be missed...

http://youtu.be/vZAHp_zSGd8

Coming from the person on this board with perhaps the worst critical thinking skills, this is... cute.

W*GS
01-05-2013, 02:56 PM
Book sales musta dipped a bit - time for gaffe to do a sales pitch again.

<strike>red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes</strike>, eh?

mhgaffney
01-05-2013, 05:22 PM
Was that why Gage acted like a clown with little boxes, it was early and his teeth were still in a jar by the door??

Ok, that explains everything.

The principle of physics he is explaining is valid. Try using your pea sized brain to understand what he is saying.

The upper floors of the WTC disintegrated before our eyes -- turned to dust -- and therefor cannot provide the mass which (we are told) caused the "classical collapse"

Of course, there is no such thing as a "classical collapse" when it comes to high rise steel buildings. Not a one had ever failed before 9/11 -- nor has any since - though three (count them, 1,2,3) failed on that one day.

Nor have the collapses been explained satisfactorily (except by us conspiracy theorists). 1700 architects and engineers now agree.

MHG

mhgaffney
01-05-2013, 05:25 PM
Thanks for the most ironic thread title in quite some time, gaffe.

BTW, what's Venus?

When was America at its best, and what are your reasons?

See if you can herald the new year with some balls.

You are scamming the board again with your off topic posts. Either address the topic or get the **** out of here.

MHG

W*GS
01-05-2013, 06:02 PM
You are scamming the board again with your off topic posts. Either address the topic or get the **** out of here.

Chicken. We all know that asking you about the nature of Venus is a Zionist trick.

PS - That's you on the platter, son. Cooked to crispy deliciousness.

http://www.hillcountrychicken.com/assets/image/hillco_chicken_girl.png

W*GS
01-05-2013, 06:04 PM
The principle of physics he is explaining is valid.

How the **** would you know, moron?

Try using your pea sized brain to understand what he is saying.

You're the expert on peabrains.

The upper floors of the WTC disintegrated before our eyes -- turned to dust -- and therefor cannot provide the mass which (we are told) caused the "classical collapse"

No.

Nor have the collapses been explained satisfactorily (except by us conspiracy theorists). 1700 architects and engineers now agree.

No.

Whatever happened to <strike>red-mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes</strike>, boy?

DenverBrit
01-05-2013, 06:49 PM
The principle of physics he is explaining is valid. Try using your pea sized brain to understand what he is saying.

The upper floors of the WTC disintegrated before our eyes -- turned to dust -- and therefor cannot provide the mass which (we are told) caused the "classical collapse"

Of course, there is no such thing as a "classical collapse" when it comes to high rise steel buildings. Not a one had ever failed before 9/11 -- nor has any since - though three (count them, 1,2,3) failed on that one day.

Nor have the collapses been explained satisfactorily (except by us conspiracy theorists). 1700 architects and engineers now agree.

MHG

Absolute nonsense, but believing that bs is crucial for the troofers and their wacky conspiracy theories.
Without that lie, they have NOTHING but money grubbing schemes to fleece the gullible.

Gaffeny, this crap was put to bed years ago. Get a ****ing life!

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

W*GS
01-05-2013, 07:07 PM
Absolute nonsense, but believing that bs is crucial for the troofers and their wacky conspiracy theories.
Without that lie, they have NOTHING but money grubbing schemes to fleece the gullible.

Gaffeny, this crap was put to bed years ago. Get a ****ing life!

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

The Physics 101 in that URL are waaaaaaaay over gaffe's head.

Probably a Zionist trick.

DenverBrit
01-05-2013, 07:44 PM
The Physics 101 in that URL are waaaaaaaay over gaffe's head.

Probably a Zionist trick.

Gaffney doesn't read anything other than trooferese.

The second video, clearly blows the troofer 'free fall' nonsense out of the water.

But of course, those videos were, as you say, a Zionist trick.....along with the 'hologram' and 'radio controlled planes.'

Gage, however, was last seen supervising the renovation of a school gym.....he's that good an architect. Hilarious!

W*GS
01-05-2013, 07:57 PM
Evidence for Nuclear Fission at the WTC (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3150163&postcount=58)

One of gaffe's past loads o' bilge...

The **** just flows fast and furious from that peabrain of his.

DenverBrit
01-06-2013, 10:13 AM
Evidence for Nuclear Fission at the WTC (http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3150163&postcount=58)

One of gaffe's past loads o' bilge...

The **** just flows fast and furious from that peabrain of his.

Based upon his paranoid and delusional posts, he should consider testing for early onset dementia. :(

mhgaffney
01-06-2013, 02:43 PM
Gaffney doesn't read anything other than trooferese.

The second video, clearly blows the troofer 'free fall' nonsense out of the water.

But of course, those videos were, as you say, a Zionist trick.....along with the 'hologram' and 'radio controlled planes.'

Gage, however, was last seen supervising the renovation of a school gym.....he's that good an architect. Hilarious!

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conceded in its final report in 2008 that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 2+ seconds.

This is fact -- not mhgaffney's opinion. Gage is correct.

MHG

mhgaffney
01-06-2013, 03:03 PM
You can download NIST's final report on WTC-7.

Not that you clowns will look at it.

http://www.nist.gov/manuscript-publication-search.cfm?pub_id=861610

W*GS
01-06-2013, 03:15 PM
You can download NIST's final report on WTC-7.

Not that you clowns will look at it.

I read it before you even knew about it, dick.

mhgaffney
01-06-2013, 03:17 PM
I read it before you even knew about it, dick.

You lie.

DenverBrit
01-06-2013, 03:22 PM
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conceded in its final report in 2008 that WTC 7 fell at free fall for 2+ seconds.

This is fact -- not mhgaffney's opinion. Gage is correct.

MHG


Explain the errors in the calculations, video and sound. This is all out of your league, but try anyway.

Remember, that you didn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.

http://www.debunking911.com/freefall.htm

And Gage has been debunked as the unqualified, money grubber that he is. His qualifications have nothing to do with structural engineering, metallurgy or demolition. But he's good at duping troofers and picking their pockets.

You're two of a kind.

W*GS
01-06-2013, 04:37 PM
You lie.

Nope.

mhgaffney
01-06-2013, 05:06 PM
You will find the pertinent passage on page 45 of the NIST report.

Here is the pdf -- a quick 5 mg download:
http://www.nist.gov/customcf/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Here is the passage on page 45. I have hi-lited the key phrases:

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration, as the buckled columns provided negligible support to the upper portion of the north face. This free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 m (105 ft), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s.

For those who do not know physics, "gravitational acceleration" means free fall.

The next page (p 46) has a graph where the free fall of WTC-7 is plotted for approximately 2 seconds.

I know there are people of integrity here in the US. Very few of them can be found on this board.

I post for thinking people who occasionally drop into the forum. With a few exceptions, the residents are a bunch of idiots.

As Allen Dulles said in defense of the Warren Commission Report on the JFK assassination: "Don't worry, Americans do not read reports."
MHG

DenverBrit
01-06-2013, 06:38 PM
Seriously, Gaffney, you're grasping at straws.

There has only been one peer review paper written about the collapse.

What is your opinion of this paper reviewed by some of the most eminent experts in their field.

Why is it wrong and why would only unqualified conspiracy nuts think so??

Ok, you're up!


Below is the list of people who have staked their reputations on the only paper which passed the scrutiny of peer review regarding the WTC tragedy...

For those who may think that no one has written a peer reviewed paper on the collapse of the towers here it is...

"Walter P. Murphy Professor of

Civil Engineering and Materials Science

Northwestern University

The towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft. So why did a total collapse occur? The reason is the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating caused creep buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the structure, which transmits the vertical load to the ground. The likely scenario of failure may be explained as follows...

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

The version linked above, to appear in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics (ASCE), was revised and extended (with Yong Zhou on September 22 and additional appendices on September 28) since the original text of September 13, which was immediately posted at various civil engineering web sites, e.g. University of Illinios. It also has been or soon will be published in a number of other journals, including Archives of Applied Mechanics, Studi i Ricerche, and SIAM News:

Z. P. Bazant and Y. Zhou, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?", Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics News, vol. 34, No. 8 (October, 2001).

That means it's not just a document, book, web site or calculation on a forum. It's had to pass critical review by other engineering Professors.

I know there are CT sites which attack this paper but not one person has yet to disprove its hypothesis professionally. There are still people attacking the theory of evolution. Anyone can attack, not many can produce a paper to back it up. Just as there is no "theory of intelligent design" except on Christian web sites, there are no alternatives to this paper other than in CT sites and books."

http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/

The paper... http://www-math.mit.edu/~bazant/WTC/WTC-asce.pdf

http://www.pubs.asce.org/journals/edem.html

Editor:

Ross B. Corotis, Ph.D., P.E., S.E., NAE, University of Colorado, Boulder
corotis@colorado.edu

http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?corotis

Editorial Board:

Younane Abousleiman, Ph.D., University of Oklahoma http://mpge.ou.edu/faculty_staff/faculty.html

Ching S. Chang, Ph.D., P.E., University of Massachusetts http://www.ecs.umass.edu/cee/faculty/chang.html

Joel P. Conte, Ph.D., P.E., University of California, San Diego
http://kudu.ucsd.edu/

Henri Gavin, Duke University
http://www.cee.duke.edu/faculty/gavin/index.php

Bojan B. Guzina, University of Minnesota
http://www.ce.umn.edu/people/faculty/guzina/

Christian Hellmich, Dr.Tech., Vienna University of Technology
http://whitepages.tuwien.ac.at/oid/998877.html

Lambros Katafygiotis, Ph.D., Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
http://lambros.ce.ust.hk/

Nik Katopodes, Ph.D., University of Michigan
http://www.engin.umich.edu/dept/cee/prospective/

Nicos Makris, University of Patras
http://www.civil.upatras.gr/Melidep_gr/depi_en.asp?profid=5

Robert J. Martinuzzi, P.E., University of Calgary
http://www.ucalgary.ca/pubs/calendar/2005/who/stafflists/academicAlpha.htm

Arif Masud, Ph.D., University of Illinois, Chicago
http://www.uic.edu/depts/bioe/faculty/core_faculty_list.htm

Arvid Naess, Ph.D., Norwegian University of Science and Technology
http://www.bygg.ntnu.no/~arvidn/front.htm

Khaled W. Shahwan, Daimler Chrysler Corporation
http://www.pubs.asce.org/WWWdisplay.cgi?9800592

George Voyiadjis, Ph.D., EIT, Louisiana State University
http://www.cee.lsu.edu/facultyStaff/Voyiadjis_George/Voyiadjis_Gbio.htm

Yunping Xi, Ph.D., University of Colorado
http://ceae.colorado.edu/new/faculty/people/people.cgi?xi



Engineering Mechanics Division Executive Committee

Alexander D. Cheng, Ph.D., M.ASCE, Chair
http://home.olemiss.edu/~acheng/

James L. Beck, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~jimbeck/

Roger G. Ghanem, Ph.D., M.ASCE
http://ame-www.usc.edu/personnel/ghanem/index.shtml

Wilfred D. Iwan, M.ASCE
http://www.eas.caltech.edu/fac_i-m.html#i

Chiang C. Mei, M.ASCE
http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2354&isa=Category&op=show

Verna L. Jameson, ASCE Staff Contact

Journal of Engineering Mechanics

http://www.debunking911.com/paper.htm

W*GS
01-07-2013, 06:43 AM
Peer review has no meaning to gaffe. All that means is that the conspiracy is even deeper.

The funniest thing is that troofers are even more deluded than climate change deniers, and that's saying something.

DenverBrit
01-07-2013, 09:13 AM
No kidding. They are 'hysterically deluded' by comparison.

Maybe Gaff can have Gage review the paper and tell him what to think.

BroncoLifer
01-07-2013, 09:15 AM
Remember, that you didn't understand the difference between heat and temperature.



I remember that well. For those who missed it, Gaff insisted that heat and temperature were exactly the same thing and repeatedly attempted to ridicule someone else who (correctly) pointed out the difference between them as ignorant. One of the funniest things I've read on this site.

defilade
01-07-2013, 02:32 PM
It's pathetic that you continue to use that debunked con man and pseudo 'architect' then run over here expecting to be taken seriously.

Here's his 'masterpiece' of stupid.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DFVoencqfZw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Wow, Your kinda on the retarded side of things aren't ya! Here is a simple video for ya, Thought all the shock wore off people by now but I see some people are still clinging to the "Cavemen did it theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

DenverBrit
01-07-2013, 02:42 PM
Wow, Your kinda on the retarded side of things aren't ya! Here is a simple video for ya, Thought all the shock wore off people by now but I see some people are still clinging to the "Cavemen did it theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

LOL

Another 'Troofer'. Hilarious!

So tell us YOUR version of the 'Troof' and explain why the peer reviewed paper is wrong. Assuming you're not Gaffney in drag.

DenverBrit
01-07-2013, 02:59 PM
I remember that well. For those who missed it, Gaff insisted that heat and temperature were exactly the same thing and repeatedly attempted to ridicule someone else who (correctly) pointed out the difference between them as ignorant. One of the funniest things I've read on this site.

It's amazing that Gaffney didn't understand this concept.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lwiee4MST41qbmtryo1_1280.jpg

But knows everything about structural engineering, demolition, nuclear fission and metallurgy. Ha!

mhgaffney
01-07-2013, 03:16 PM
How a high school science prof upstaged and embarrassed the US government

In post # 24 I gave you the link to the final report about WTC-7 -- by the official government agency that did the investigation -- NIST.

I gave you the page number -- and the actual verbatim text -- the passage -- where NIST admits in its final report that building seven fell at free fall for 2+ seconds.

Thus, NIST itself supports the video by R Gage at the top of this thread.

It is curious that in its draft report on WTC-7 NIST denied that free fall had occurred. In the draft report NIST also stated that IF a free fall had occurred it would have been the tell-tale indicator for use of explosives.

The draft report was made public in August 2008. That same month NIST sponsored a public hearing for its draft report. A high school physics and math teacher named David Chandler showed up at the hearing and confronted the NIST scientists with his own mathematical analysis of the collapse of WTC-7 based on the videos of the collapse. His analysis concluded that free fall had occurred.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpAp8eCEqNA

As a result of that presentation, NIST was forced to change its analysis - and this is reflected in the final report released a couple of months later. NIST conceded in its final report that Chandler was right - -that free fall did occur.

Curiously -- NIST dropped the passage where it stated that free fall is the tell tale sign of a demolition.

A high school science teacher embarrassed a gov't agency staffed with hundreds of scientists and funded with a nearly endless budget. This is one of the great stories about 9/11. This story should have been front pages news -- and rated a headline in the NY Times (i.e., NIST UPSTAGED BY HS SCIENCE PROF) But as we know --the US media never so much as mentioned it.

This is the state of affairs in America today. It's why I titled my latest book Black 9/11 --

Darkness has descended upon the nation. Fools chase their tails and call it normal.

The blind lead the blind.

Meanwhile we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

MHG

W*GS
01-07-2013, 03:59 PM
How a high school science prof upstaged and embarrassed the US government

This bull**** claim was covered over two years ago. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188089)

gaffe, you're constantly dredging up old debunked **** and presenting as new.

WTF is your problem?

You're as bad as the climate change deniers who state that the satellite record shows cooling - which was fixed back in 2006.

The blind lead the blind.

And you're making money from the corpses of dead innocents. Truly a darkness.

Meanwhile we drift toward unparalleled catastrophe.

That makes you orgasm, doesn't it?

defilade
01-07-2013, 04:33 PM
LOL

Another 'Troofer'. Hilarious!

So tell us YOUR version of the 'Troof' and explain why the peer reviewed paper is wrong. Assuming you're not Gaffney in drag.

Yep, building 7 came down due to normal office fires according to nist. Hilarious! Wow, just wow. Do you know how to butter bread?

DenverBrit
01-07-2013, 04:51 PM
This bull**** claim was covered over two years ago. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=188089)

gaffe, you're constantly dredging up old debunked **** and presenting as new.

WTF is your problem?

You're as bad as the climate change deniers who state that the satellite record shows cooling - which was fixed back in 2006.



And you're making money from the corpses of dead innocents. Truly a darkness.



That makes you orgasm, doesn't it?


It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.

Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??

What was incorrect and why??

Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.

DenverBrit
01-07-2013, 05:06 PM
Yep, building 7 came down due to normal office fires according to nist. Hilarious! Wow, just wow. Do you know how to butter bread?

The cause is well documented, it's only the Troofer wackos who ignore the facts and dream up looney conspiracy theories. So what have you got, other than sophomoric responses to real questions??

There was no mystery to those who fought the fires on the ground. But you know what they don't, right??

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IwdD6ERutEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Fedaykin
01-07-2013, 05:11 PM
Wow, Your kinda on the retarded side of things aren't ya! Here is a simple video for ya, Thought all the shock wore off people by now but I see some people are still clinging to the "Cavemen did it theory."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BImVvEyk

Idiotic video that ignores the good engineering practices that go into building high rises.

Hint: High rises are designed to fail as gracefully as possible. If the WTC buildings had not been well designed, they might well have toppled over like dominoes instead of failing relatively gracefully as they did.

Fedaykin
01-07-2013, 05:16 PM
The cause is well documented, it's only the Troofer wackos who ignore the facts and dream up looney conspiracy theories. So what have you got, other than sophomoric responses to real questions??

There was no mystery to those who fought the fires on the ground. But you know what they don't, right??

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IwdD6ERutEI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


...not to mention the energy equivalent of two small tactical nukes being detonated near/under its foundation (i.e. the energy from the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2).

W*GS
01-07-2013, 08:04 PM
It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.

Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??

What was incorrect and why??

Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.

He won't even tell us what Venus is.

He's a cowardly chicken****. That's all. Oh, and with pervasive mental illness. A true nutjob.

StugotsIII
01-08-2013, 09:13 AM
Richard Gage presents a 10-minute primer on 9/11

that will change the way you think about the issue.

Not to be missed...

http://youtu.be/vZAHp_zSGd8

Didn't watch.


F*** you…by the way.

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 12:21 PM
He won't even tell us what Venus is.

He's a cowardly chicken****. That's all. Oh, and with pervasive mental illness. A true nutjob.

I doubt Gaffney could make himself look any more ridiculous, but he'll try anyway.

mhgaffney
01-08-2013, 12:32 PM
It was a typical Gaffney response: ignore the facts and keep repeating the same old debunked bs.

]Hey Gaffney, how about the peer reviewed paper??

What was incorrect and why??[/B]

Don't re-post the same old debunked troofer nonsense.

Bazant's paper dealt only with WTC 1 and 2 -- not building 7. Citing him here was off topic-- because this thread is primarily about WTC 7.

Nonetheless, let's look at Bazant's paper.

He claimed that the top floors of the WTC acted like a hammer and crushed the floors below -- causing a so called "classical collapse" of the remaining floors -- all the way to the ground.

Bazant's paper has been discredited. There are a number of fatal problems with his analysis.

1. Energy can only be expended once. If you look at the collapse videos -- one can clearly see that the top floors disintegrate before our eyes. They turn to dust in mid air.

This disintegration expends the potential energy contained in the top floors. Once it is expended -- that energy is no longer available to exert a crushing effect on the floors below. This is according to the law of conservation of energy.

Therefor, the top floors could not and did not cause the lower floors to fail. Only explosives could have done it.

2. Also -- Bazant's paper fails to explain why the collapse continued all the way to the ground. As you move lower in the WTC the steel beams get heavier and stronger. The lightest beams are at top. For this reason -- even assuming he was correct about the crushing effect -- the collapse should have self arrested long before it reached the ground. At least a third of the WTC would have been left standing.

3. The symmetric nature of the collapse is another fatal problem. The planes and fires affected only certain floors and only a part of the WTC. Any collapse should have been asymmetric. The top of the tower would have tipped over. Only explosives can cause a perfectly symmetric collapse -- a perfect foot print.

I have given you three reasons why Bazant's analysis was wrong. Any one of them is sufficient to overthrow his paper. All three together leave no doubt. He got it wrong.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 12:40 PM
LOL.

Yep, still looking ridiculous.

The paper was peer reviewed by some of the best in their field.

You, on the other hand, are a hack, with absolutely no credentials or expertise and one wacko, narcissist! :loopy:

Oh, and your comments are bull****!!

mhgaffney
01-08-2013, 12:54 PM
LOL.

Yep, still looking ridiculous.

The paper was peer reviewed by some of the best in their field.

You, on the other hand, are a hack, with absolutely no credentials or expertise and one wacko, narcissist! :loopy:

Oh, and your comments are bull****!!

Someone requested that I not provide links to "truther" sites - so I explained the problems with Bazant's paper myself in plain English.

Your reaction shows you can't handle substance. As usual, you attack the messenger.

Sad -- so sad.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 01:28 PM
Someone requested that I not provide links to "truther" sites - so I explained the problems with Bazant's paper myself in plain English.

Your reaction shows you can't handle substance. As usual, you attack the messenger.

Sad -- so sad.

MHG

First. You're not remotely qualified to critique a peer reviewed paper on the WTC tower's collapse.

Second. As the sources of the comments you posted are not yours, where are those sources of the critique? Troofer sites? Hilarious!

Third. Why is it that you, of all people, think you are more knowledgeable than the Engineering PHDs, from around the world, who signed off on the paper?

As I said, you're a wacko narcissist.

Here. Discredit these papers with your knowledge of organic gardening.

Building 7.

Structure Magazine, a well respected magazine for structural engineers, has come out with a probable collapse hypothesis. "Single Point of Failure: How the Loss of One Column May Have Led to the Collapse of WTC 7" points out that the failure of column 79 in the lower levels will create the very effect we see in videos.
http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

And how about Dr.Keith Seffen, of Cambridge University and his paper on the collapse? Are you also qualified to critique that paper too??

An analysis of the World Trade Center collapse has challenged a conspiracy theory surrounding the 9/11 attacks.

The study by a Cambridge University engineer demonstrates that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.

One of many conspiracy theories proposes that the buildings came down in a manner consistent with a "controlled demolition".

The study suggests a different explanation for how the towers fell.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6987965.stm


Get over yourself Gaffney, you're a money grubbing fraud and nothing more.

defilade
01-08-2013, 02:05 PM
It's amazing how one could not believe for a moment that bombs could not have been the reason for the buildings to come down like they did! Really it's only posted all over MAINSTREAM MEDIA during that day!!! stupid idiots! and guess what? people that were there said the same thing!

MAINSTREAM REPORTING--------->>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT8aYGtyi-M

defilade
01-08-2013, 02:21 PM
Dam office fires! Hate it when it throws steels I beams the size of cars into other buildings 300 feet! Gotta get a grip on those Explosive Office fires!ROFL! Are you for real! Oh and hurry up and put that steel on barges on a one way trip to China.. We wouldn't want any evidence around! Oh and we won't mention how concrete turns to dust befire hitting thr ground... OFFICIAL STORY IS FOR MOONBATS!!!

http://www.american-buddha.com/aconfrontev17.jpg

myMind
01-08-2013, 02:34 PM
Here's his 'masterpiece' of stupid.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/DFVoencqfZw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

My god that man is an idiot.

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 03:14 PM
Dam office fires! Hate it when it throws steels I beams the size of cars into other buildings 300 feet! Gotta get a grip on those Explosive Office fires!ROFL! Are you for real! Oh and hurry up and put that steel on barges on a one way trip to China.. We wouldn't want any evidence around! Oh and we won't mention how concrete turns to dust befire hitting thr ground... OFFICIAL STORY IS FOR MOONBATS!!!


Junior, we already have Gaffney making an ass of himself with simplistic troofer nonsense, he doesn't need an assistant.

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 03:16 PM
My god that man is an idiot.

And he's the troofers structural engineering expert.

You should see their demolition expert, stumpy. ;D

defilade
01-08-2013, 03:58 PM
And he's the troofers structural engineering expert.

You should see their demolition expert, stumpy. ;D

Aha, I think Gage has thousands on his side that are Experts... some won major awards there fruitloop...

defilade
01-08-2013, 04:01 PM
I guess all these EXPERT people are nuts too..

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

defilade
01-08-2013, 04:07 PM
Is this Expert lying??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 04:12 PM
Aha, I think Gage has thousands on his side that are Experts... some won major awards there fruitloop...

LOL

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 04:33 PM
Is this Expert lying??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_TrBw6E

He's obviously mistaken.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/1cT8WWt61eg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

defilade
01-08-2013, 06:48 PM
Oh boy, have to make ya look like an ass again.

See wing marks??

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/reynolds/docs/WTC1_hole.jpg


See no wing marks!

http://notafreemason.com/the7thfire/pentagonxox30.jpg

Guess the General was right! Feel like ya want to get away?

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 08:08 PM
LOL. A trainee troofer.

If that's all you've got, you're a decade late. Come up with something that hasn't been laughingly debunked.

defilade
01-08-2013, 08:34 PM
LOL. A trainee troofer.

If that's all you've got, you're a decade late. Come up with something that hasn't been laughingly debunked.

Yeah, you got me there, I see the wing marks... Sure was a plane!

http://lgbtpov.frontiersla.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/9-11-01-10-Pentagon-hole-.jpg

DenverBrit
01-08-2013, 09:53 PM
There's no way to sugarcoat this......but you're a simpleton!

Fedaykin
01-08-2013, 11:07 PM
1. Energy can only be expended once. If you look at the collapse videos -- one can clearly see that the top floors disintegrate before our eyes. They turn to dust in mid air.

This disintegration expends the potential energy contained in the top floors. Once it is expended -- that energy is no longer available to exert a crushing effect on the floors below. This is according to the law of conservation of energy.

Talk about babbling idiocy. Once again you demonstrate that you don't have the first ****ing clue about physics.

If you have m kg of mass @ h m height, you have mgh potential energy, no matter what the form of the mass. That the parts of the building were falling apart in no way "expends their potential energy". The only thing that expends* potential energy is FALLING.

1kg of lead brick @ 1m has *exactly* the same potential energy of 1kg of lead dust @ 1m (or 1kg of feathers for that matter).


* Energy is never "expended" it only is converted to other forms (including mass).

Also, the hammer effect is the result of the top 20 floors of the tower (which certainly did NOT disintegrate before the collapse) smashing into the lower 90 floors. See:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dUikmLufHrs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

W*GS
01-09-2013, 06:32 AM
I doubt Gaffney could make himself look any more ridiculous, but he'll try anyway.

He pulled it off.

It's horribly clear that he has no understanding regarding the issue. He doesn't have the science mindset.

He doesn't understand, so he accepts troofer bull****, because he can't see where they're wrong. They tell a good tale, relying on their audience's ignorance, and the audience bites.

DenverBrit
01-09-2013, 11:30 AM
He pulled it off.

It's horribly clear that he has no understanding regarding the issue. He doesn't have the science mindset.

He doesn't understand, so he accepts troofer bull****, because he can't see where they're wrong. They tell a good tale, relying on their audience's ignorance, and the audience bites.

Troofer logic requires that they ignore facts and reverse engineer reality until it fits their conspiracy.

So they invent scenarios, plagiarize each other's theories and sign off on their fellow wacko's books and articles, ensuring a circle jerk of 'stupid.'

As you say, they rely on the ignorance of their audience as they pick their pockets without a thought about the victims or their loved ones.

If ever a group was despised by the 911 families, it's the troofers as they circle like vultures. Gaffney is small potatoes, but a troofer leach nonetheless. Without 911, he'd have to work for a living.

defilade
01-09-2013, 03:33 PM
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
– Adolf Hitler

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
– Adolf Hitler


I bet he's your Daddy!

Rohirrim
01-09-2013, 03:38 PM
If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.
– Adolf Hitler

All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
– Adolf Hitler


I bet he's your Daddy!

We're hitting the Reductio ad Hitlerum already? Ha!

W*GS
01-09-2013, 04:37 PM
We're hitting the Reductio ad Hitlerum already? Ha!

Every time.

Only troofers know The Truth.

DenverBrit
01-09-2013, 04:45 PM
http://911fantasyworld.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/troofers.jpg

mhgaffney
01-09-2013, 04:51 PM
Talk about babbling idiocy. Once again you demonstrate that you don't have the first ****ing clue about physics.

If you have m kg of mass @ h m height, you have mgh potential energy, no matter what the form of the mass. That the parts of the building were falling apart in no way "expends their potential energy". The only thing that expends* potential energy is FALLING.

1kg of lead brick @ 1m has *exactly* the same potential energy of 1kg of lead dust @ 1m (or 1kg of feathers for that matter).


* Energy is never "expended" it only is converted to other forms (including mass).

Also, the hammer effect is the result of the top 20 floors of the tower (which certainly did NOT disintegrate before the collapse) smashing into the lower 90 floors. See:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dUikmLufHrs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Did you watch the collapse video carefully? Obviously not.

The top 20 floors of WTC-2 started to tip to one side- then simply turned to dust in mid air.

What did this? The only thing that could have done it is explosives.

You can also see the dustified material being ejected out and away from the tower. What did this? The downward force of collapse could not do it.

Falling dust cannot bring down the lower floors.

MHG

orangeatheist
01-09-2013, 04:56 PM
Every time.

Only troofers know The Truth.

Well, but it has to go through three stages first...

mhgaffney
01-09-2013, 04:57 PM
Here is the key photo of the Pentagon -- after the impact -- but before the collapse.

This photo should have received a lot of attention -- but I never saw it cited.

You can see the hole is much larger than we were led to believe. It is certainly large enough to accommodate a Boeing 757.

The plane hit the Pentagon at first floor level --

I have generally stayed out of the "what hit the Pentagon" debate -- because it is so contentious. IMO there is no doubt about the answer. It was flight 77.

The controversy has diverted people from the really important question, which is: who was flying the plane?

It certainly was not Hani Hanjour. The man was a flunky.

MHG

orangeatheist
01-09-2013, 05:05 PM
Did you watch the collapse video carefully?

Yep.

Obviously not.

Obviously, you're a Troofer Troll.


The top 20 floors of WTC-2 started to tip to one side- then simply turned to dust in mid air.

Um...no. The bottom portion of the section crushed into the lower section as it collapsed and THEN turned to "dust." Just like the 3D modelling video shows. There's nothing "mid air" about it.


What did this? The only thing that could have done it is explosives.

No. Explosives are NOT the "only thing" which could have done that:

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G91IU8cFJ7o?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


You can also see the dustified material being ejected out and away from the tower. What did this? The downward force of collapse could not do it.

You saying so doesn't make it so.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G91IU8cFJ7o?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Falling dust cannot bring down the lower floors.


Did you somehow miss Fedaykin's post where he stated:

"1kg of lead brick @ 1m has *exactly* the same potential energy of 1kg of lead dust @ 1m (or 1kg of feathers for that matter)."

You're just willfully stupid.

By the way, WHAT IS VENUS??

DenverBrit
01-09-2013, 05:18 PM
Here is the key photo of the Pentagon -- after the impact -- but before the collapse.

This photo should have received a lot of attention -- but I never saw it cited.

You can see the hole is much larger than we were led to believe. It is certainly large enough to accommodate a Boeing 757.

The plane hit the Pentagon at first floor level --

I have generally stayed out of the "what hit the Pentagon" debate -- because it is so contentious. IMO there is no doubt about the answer. It was flight 77.

The controversy has diverted people from the really important question, which is: who was flying the plane?

It certainly was not Hani Hanjour. The man was a flunky.

MHG

Ah, trooferisms: Move on from one debunked conspiracy theory and replace it with another.

Fedaykin
01-09-2013, 05:42 PM
Did you watch the collapse video carefully? Obviously not.

The top 20 floors of WTC-2 started to tip to one side- then simply turned to dust in mid air.

What did this? The only thing that could have done it is explosives.


You love to just make **** up don't you? The top 20 floors did not just *poof* into dust. They were quickly obscured by a dust cloud created as the two parts of the building smashed into each other, but they did not, as you suggest, just *poof* into dust.


You can also see the dustified material being ejected out and away from the tower. What did this? The downward force of collapse could not do it.


So no lateral forces great enough to operate on dust can be generated by the collapse of a building huh?

Hilarious!


Falling dust cannot bring down the lower floors.

MHG

Once again for the idiot: hundreds of millions of kg of dust (even though it was not all "dustified") is still 100's of millions of kg.

defilade
01-10-2013, 02:14 PM
Here is a simple experiment for you Morons... Fire up that Gas grill and crank it up as high as it will go. Let it run for hours.. notice something??? Gee! those steel grates did'nt melt under a perfect constant flame (Which the steel from the WTC could not receive from OFFICE FIRES) Hilarious! Talk about an easy way to de-bunk the official story!!

OFFICE FIRES!!:yayaya:

How's that Steel holding up!!


http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/sumos/sumos0702/sumos070200272/754494-lamb-chops-being-barbecued-on-a-gasgrill-flames-visible-beneath-meat.jpg

W*GS
01-10-2013, 02:17 PM
NTSA.

defilade
01-10-2013, 02:20 PM
Yep.


Obviously, you're a Troofer Troll.



Um...no. The bottom portion of the section crushed into the lower section as it collapsed and THEN turned to "dust." Just like the 3D modelling video shows. There's nothing "mid air" about it.



No. Explosives are NOT the "only thing" which could have done that:

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G91IU8cFJ7o?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



You saying so doesn't make it so.

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/G91IU8cFJ7o?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



Did you somehow miss Fedaykin's post where he stated:

"1kg of lead brick @ 1m has *exactly* the same potential energy of 1kg of lead dust @ 1m (or 1kg of feathers for that matter)."

You're just willfully stupid.

By the way, WHAT IS VENUS??


Did you say something about Gravity?? Gravity pulls down IDIOT, it does'nt blow steel and concrete 300 feet from the building! wow, can you too butter bread?

http://www.american-buddha.com/aconfrontev17.jpg

DenverBrit
01-10-2013, 05:00 PM
Here is a simple experiment for you Morons... Fire up that Gas grill and crank it up as high as it will go. Let it run for hours.. notice something??? Gee! those steel grates did'nt melt under a perfect constant flame (Which the steel from the WTC could not receive from OFFICE FIRES) Hilarious! Talk about an easy way to de-bunk the official story!!

OFFICE FIRES!!:yayaya:

How's that Steel holding up!!


The 'moron' is the one who posts a BBQ picture to illustrate that steel doesn't melt.

[Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton] told BBC News Online: "The world trade centre was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, but that was unusual... we are trying to discover why they [ the towers ] collapsed and what needs doing to rebuild them."

"The buildings survived the impact and the explosion but not the fire, and that is the problem."

"The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel... all that can be done is to place fire resistant material around the steel and delay the collapse by keeping the steel cool for longer." Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager [sic], speculated that flames fuelled by thousands of litres of aviation fuel melted steel supports.

"This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said. "But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

mhgaffney
01-10-2013, 06:15 PM
The 'moron' is the one who posts a BBQ picture to illustrate that steel doesn't melt.

Not sure what your point was. I suspect you don't know either/

No way jet fuel (kerosene) could melt steel. Not even close. Yet something did melt steel.

The fires in the WTC basement burned for at least 3 months. In the early days the NY firemen sprayed millions of gallons of water on the rubble pile trying to put out the fires -- to no effect.

Water has no effect on burning thermite -- at 4500 degrees or hotter.

mhgaffney
01-10-2013, 06:20 PM
You love to just make **** up don't you? The top 20 floors did not just *poof* into dust. They were quickly obscured by a dust cloud created as the two parts of the building smashed into each other, but they did not, as you suggest, just *poof* into dust.



So no lateral forces great enough to operate on dust can be generated by the collapse of a building huh?

Hilarious!



Once again for the idiot: hundreds of millions of kg of dust (even though it was not all "dustified") is still 100's of millions of kg.

You are so full of yourself -- but you are still wrong.

The WTC rubble pile was only about 6 stories high. If you study the photos you will see no concrete -- why? Because there was none.

Despite the fact the WTC was made up largely of concrete --

So what happened to the concrete? Simple. It was converted to dust. The dust piled up all over lower Manhattan.

A mere collapsing building cannot do this. Look at the photos of concrete buildings that have been destroyed by an earthquake -- and you will see the floors pancaked one on another.

There was no pancaking on 9/11. The concrete was converted to dust -- and this took a vey large amount of energy.

The only thing that could do this is explosives.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-10-2013, 06:45 PM
Not sure what your point was. I suspect you don't know either/

No way jet fuel (kerosene) could melt steel. Not even close. Yet something did melt steel.

The fires in the WTC basement burned for at least 3 months. In the early days the NY firemen sprayed millions of gallons of water on the rubble pile trying to put out the fires -- to no effect.

Water has no effect on burning thermite -- at 4500 degrees or hotter.

That's exactly my point. Troofers are ignorant deniers of basic science.

You're the clown who ridiculed others because you couldn't understand that temperature and heat were NOT the same, something a schoolboy would know.

Now you want to dispute proven science, again.

I notice you have nothing to say about the two quotes I posted. Explain how they are lying and why?

Hyman Brown, a University of Colorado civil engineering professor and the Trade Center's construction manager:
But steel melts, and 90,850 litres of aviation fluid melted the steel. Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire."

defilade
01-10-2013, 06:47 PM
The 'moron' is the one who posts a BBQ picture to illustrate that steel doesn't melt.

Must be over your head! To simple for ya.

DenverBrit
01-10-2013, 06:52 PM
Must be over your head! To simple for ya.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_H8KDKpNcbYo/Subtxan6qwI/AAAAAAAAApw/KGs9OmLVrsE/s400/blog+box+of+rocks.jpg

Fedaykin
01-10-2013, 07:33 PM
You are so full of yourself -- but you are still wrong.

The WTC rubble pile was only about 6 stories high. If you study the photos you will see no concrete -- why? Because there was none.

Despite the fact the WTC was made up largely of concrete --

So what happened to the concrete? Simple. It was converted to dust. The dust piled up all over lower Manhattan.

A mere collapsing building cannot do this. Look at the photos of concrete buildings that have been destroyed by an earthquake -- and you will see the floors pancaked one on another.

There was no pancaking on 9/11. The concrete was converted to dust -- and this took a vey large amount of energy.

The only thing that could do this is explosives.

MHG

As has been explained to you dozens of times, you twit, the very large amount of energy (on the order of a small nuclear explosion) was provided by the collapse of the towers themselves. The collapse of those towers released nearly a half kiloton of energy.

Hell, I've even shown you the ****ing math: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2372926&postcount=56

Just because you refuse to acknowledge that fact does not an argument make.

defilade
01-11-2013, 05:07 AM
As has been explained to you dozens of times, you twit, the very large amount of energy (on the order of a small nuclear explosion) was provided by the collapse of the towers themselves. The collapse of those towers released nearly a half kiloton of energy.

Hell, I've even shown you the ****ing math: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2372926&postcount=56

Just because you refuse to acknowledge that fact does not an argument make.

And as YOU have been explained to it was BOMBS!!! Controlled demolition!!! just like every other building that comes down in that fashion NIT-WIT!! why would anyone think otherwise?? Yep....OFFICE FIRESHilarious!

You would have a better chance of convicing me that it was.........


http://theawesomer.com/photos/2010/07/070710_buck_rogers_ray_gun_3.jpg

W*GS
01-11-2013, 06:43 AM
Back to thermite, I see.

Remember how you promoted <strike>red-mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes</strike>, gaffe, to get around the impossibilities of thermite?

WTF happened with 'em?

Rohirrim
01-11-2013, 07:29 AM
I can't think of a better place for this:

http://cdn.memegenerator.net/instances/400x/22338826.jpg

orangeatheist
01-11-2013, 09:01 AM
And as YOU have been explained to it was BOMBS!!! Controlled demolition!!! just like every other building that comes down in that fashion NIT-WIT!! why would anyone think otherwise?? Yep....OFFICE FIRESHilarious!

You would have a better chance of convicing me that it was.........


http://theawesomer.com/photos/2010/07/070710_buck_rogers_ray_gun_3.jpg

The BBQ grill had me suspicious, but THIS post convinces me.

Ladies and gentlemen, I think we got ourselves a

http://www.uwishunu.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/poe-240uw.jpg

mhgaffney
01-11-2013, 02:49 PM
So Brit is still claiming that the jet fuel melted the steel.

Even after NIST acknowledged in its 2005 final report that this did not happen.

W*GS
01-11-2013, 03:25 PM
What happened to red-mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes, gaffe?

DenverBrit
01-11-2013, 03:44 PM
So Brit is still claiming that the jet fuel melted the steel.

No, the quotes were from experts, unlike you, I look for 'expert opinion' not fairy tales.

Even after NIST acknowledged in its 2005 final report that this did not happen.

This what NIST said, but keep repeating the same troofer BS.

From the NIST website, 2011, which nicely summarizes the final report.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation
6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
Based on its comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large number of jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius, or 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence—as well as accounts from the New York City Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse—support this sequence for each tower.
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

And from a recent Purdue University study.

Building fires may reach temperatures of 1,000 degrees Celsius, or more than 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit, and the strength of steel structures drops by about 40 percent when exposed to temperatures exceeding 500 degrees Celsius.
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/110901Varma911.html

What sources are you using, Gaffney? Unicorns? the idiot, Gage?

mhgaffney
01-11-2013, 04:02 PM
This what NIST said, but keep repeating the same troofer BS.

From the NIST website, 2011, which nicely summarizes the final report.

Questions and Answers about the NIST WTC Towers Investigation
6. What caused the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

And from a recent Purdue University study.


http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2011/110901Varma911.html

What sources are you using, Gaffney? Unicorns? the idiot, Gage?

I posted my first paper on the WTC collapse -- a critique of the NIST report -- in December 2006.

I reposted a slightly updated version the following year.

The only error that emerged was a typo -- I mis stated the name NIST. The paper has otherwise held up.

I've posted it on this board several times. Here's the link. I challenge you to read it -- but of course to understand it you would also have to study the NIST Report -- an investment of time I'm sure you are not ready to make.

As Allen Dulles said "Americans don't read reports..."

MHG

Still Dead on Arrival:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18999.htm

mhgaffney
01-11-2013, 04:05 PM
This is the best ever video on the WTC collapse.

It's two hours and is very thorough. The proponents of the official story have not tried to rebut it -- understandable. They simply cannot. It is too cogent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&feature=player_embedded

DenverBrit
01-11-2013, 04:21 PM
I posted my first paper on the WTC collapse -- a critique of the NIST report -- in December 2006.



LOL

This is why you come across as an arrogant, pompous ass.

You have no background, experience, qualifications or even the basic scientific knowledge of a schoolboy. So you 'critiquing' the NIST report is beyond funny.

At the same time you make this 'critique' claim, you were arguing that temperature and heat were exactly the same.
And you expect anyone, other than a troofer rube, to give you an ounce of credibility? Ha!

Stick to organic gardening.

W*GS
01-11-2013, 06:59 PM
Every post by gaffe regarding 9/11 is bull****. Every one.

W*GS
01-11-2013, 07:06 PM
You have no background, experience, qualifications or even the basic scientific knowledge of a schoolboy. So you 'critiquing' the NIST report is beyond funny.

At one time, gaffe claimed that his bull**** was supported by NIST.

How can this be, you ask?

Well, he called someone at NIST and they verified some pissant numerical value that gaffe had already read from a NIST report.

gaffe then used that to claim that NIST agreed with him.

I called him out numerous times on his lie, but gaffe being gaffe, he didn't have the balls to admit he was a lying fraud **********.

gaffe is one of the most immoral, contemptible, POSes I've ever run across on the Intertubes - and that's 20+ years' worth.

houghtam
01-12-2013, 07:25 AM
So let me get this straight:

Sane person: It was jet fuel.

Gaff: No even the NIST said it wasn't.

Another sane person: No they said it was and here's the link.

Gaff: I wrote a paper criticizing the NIST. They don't know what they're talking about.



Did anyone else catch the hilarity here?? Hilarious!

DenverBrit
01-12-2013, 08:41 AM
At one time, gaffe claimed that his bull**** was supported by NIST.

How can this be, you ask?

Well, he called someone at NIST and they verified some pissant numerical value that gaffe had already read from a NIST report.

gaffe then used that to claim that NIST agreed with him.

I called him out numerous times on his lie, but gaffe being gaffe, he didn't have the balls to admit he was a lying fraud **********.

gaffe is one of the most immoral, contemptible, POSes I've ever run across on the Intertubes - and that's 20+ years' worth.

Gaffney is a fraud, along with Gage and the other self promoting con men of the pathetic troofer cabal.

Not one peer reviewed paper amongst the lot of them.

Why? Because they know they would be exposed for the money grubbing charlatans they are.

How ****ing difficult is it to see this assclown for what he is?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rLV-ZuNPwJ4/SG-exAPo-1I/AAAAAAAABz0/edWgNWJOiTs/s400/GageWithBoxes.jpg

DenverBrit
01-12-2013, 08:53 AM
So let me get this straight:

Sane person: It was jet fuel.

Gaff: No even the NIST said it wasn't.

Another sane person: No they said it was and here's the link.

Gaff: I wrote a paper criticizing the NIST. They don't know what they're talking about.



Did anyone else catch the hilarity here?? Hilarious!

Every time Gaffney posts! ;D

DenverBrit
01-12-2013, 09:22 AM
Gage's constant appeals for troofer money is shameless.

The troofers have taken a page out of the televangelists book of cons.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTh5LPj0Abb0aApyEQU5xWRqIf2ZGD57 qdwX3jdj-WJpgfGr4hk0KsYnWZ4tQ

The latest from his website. Unbelievable! Hilarious!

Platinum Circle of Torchbearers – $25,000/yr

All of the benefits listed at the Gold Circle of Torchbearers plus:

Platinum level AE911Truth Plaque of Appreciation personally signed by Richard Gage, AIA
Privileged phone and meeting access to Richard Gage, AIA, & Board Members Hilarious!

Diamond Circle of Torchbearers – $50,000/yr (Every ****ing year!!) Yikes!

All of the benefits listed at the Platinum Circle of Torchbearers level plus:

Diamond level AE911Truth Plaque of Appreciation, personally signed by Richard Gage, AIA.
Special Access to AE911Truth national and international events as personal guest of Richard Gage, AIA, including special honors announced at all events.Hilarious!
Founders’ Circle – $100,000 - (Lifetime Membership):hitself:

All of the benefits listed at the Diamond Circle of Torchbearers level plus:

Founder’s Circle level AE911Truth Plaque of Appreciation, personally signed by Richard Gage, AIA
Benefits package – customized for you :crazy:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/687-announcing-our-new-ae911truth-membership-program.html

W*GS
01-12-2013, 10:21 AM
Gage's constant appeals for troofer money is shameless.

The troofers have taken a page out of the televangelists book of cons.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTh5LPj0Abb0aApyEQU5xWRqIf2ZGD57 qdwX3jdj-WJpgfGr4hk0KsYnWZ4tQ

The latest from his website. Unbelievable! Hilarious!

gaffe fantasizes about having Gage as his personal whore. He desperately wants to get to that $100k level - he's gonna have to sell a hell of lot more books to do that. Which explains why he advertises on the OM. Gage reels in suckers - gaffe tries to do the same thing.

mhgaffney
01-12-2013, 12:58 PM
So let me get this straight:

Sane person: It was jet fuel.

Gaff: No even the NIST said it wasn't.

Another sane person: No they said it was and here's the link.

Gaff: I wrote a paper criticizing the NIST. They don't know what they're talking about.

Did anyone else catch the hilarity here?? Hilarious!

I agree. There is humor here. But it is a very dark humor.

We have bozos in here who don't even know the official story about the WTC collapse. No way to have a conversation with idiots.

mhgaffney
01-12-2013, 01:03 PM
I've decided to widen this thread to other 9/11 issues. Starting with:

Gaffney presents his research on Insider Trading

I did these interviews last September.

Gaffney on GRTV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WScykeCbqUw

Gaffney on Swedish radio:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/10/RIR-121004.php

W*GS
01-12-2013, 02:31 PM
We have bozos in here who don't even know the official story about the WTC collapse. No way to have a conversation with idiots.

We have one bozo who calls others bozos even though this bozo doesn't know the difference between heat and temperature, or between a comet and a planet.

This bozo is also a liar, a fraud, a con man, and a vampire who feeds on the corpses of the innocent dead.

Here's the bozo:

DenverBrit
01-13-2013, 09:08 AM
I've decided to widen this thread to other 9/11 issues. Starting with:

Gaffney presents his research on Insider Trading

I did these interviews last September.

Gaffney on GRTV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WScykeCbqUw

Gaffney on Swedish radio:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/10/RIR-121004.php

Translation: "Gaffney got schooled yet again, so Gaffney will switch topics and continue to self promote in the third person."

http://www.stochasticgeometry.ie/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/snakeoil.jpg?w=257

DenverBrit
01-13-2013, 07:01 PM
I've decided to widen this thread to other 9/11 issues. Starting with toilet paper, and it's many uses:

Gaffney presents his research on Insider Trading, while taking a dump!!

I did these interviews last September, as I choked an otter.

Gaffney on GRTV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WScykeCbqUw

Gaffney on Swedish radio, they couldn't see, but heard the flush:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2012/10/RIR-121004.php

LOL FYP

I just had to look.

Gaffney is giving his interview from the toilet :flush:, seriously. How appropriate. ROFL!

defilade
01-14-2013, 04:57 AM
So let me get this straight:

Sane person: It was jet fuel.

Gaff: No even the NIST said it wasn't.

Another sane person: No they said it was and here's the link.

Gaff: I wrote a paper criticizing the NIST. They don't know what they're talking about.



Did anyone else catch the hilarity here?? Hilarious!

Insane person: Whatever my Government tells me "I Believe"Hilarious!

Rohirrim
01-14-2013, 08:52 AM
There are few things so funny as Gaffney starting a thread with the term "critical thinking" in the title.

The Lone Bolt
01-14-2013, 11:29 AM
Insane person: Whatever my Government tells me "I Believe"Hilarious!

Trotting out the standard conspiracy theorist strawman I see.

mhgaffney
01-14-2013, 01:08 PM
Trotting out the standard conspiracy theorist strawman I see.

Talk about dark humor.

We are awash in it.

mhgaffney
01-14-2013, 01:09 PM
Trotting out the standard conspiracy theorist strawman I see.

Talk about dark humor.

We are awash in it.

defilade
01-14-2013, 02:49 PM
How in the World is this possible?? These Steel Concrete buildings burned WAY longer that of the WTC's and are still standing? WTF!! look at those Office fires!

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/other_fires/other_fires.htm


You people really are Moonbats! Zombies as they say..

Care to show some examples out there in the past of Offices fires bringing down STEEL and CONCRETE buildings in the same Fashion as the WTC's????? ya know 9 secs and all. I can show you some controlled demolitions...

You clowns believe Office Fires did it.......Hilarious!

cutthemdown
01-14-2013, 02:53 PM
There is rampant insider trading by people in our govt on both sides and people hooked up with good connection in the the industry.

Tell me it would be easy to not be tempted? You work for a big firm, your friend a different one. All you have to do at dinner out is say hey dude buy stock in company A. He says thanks brother you buy stock in company B. We will both lay low, not invest too much, also invest in some losers, and make out like bandits.

You slowly buy up a few hundred grand of stock and boom you make 30% when company merges 6 months later. In a way you wouldnt even feel like you are that much a criminal.

W*GS
01-14-2013, 04:21 PM
"defilade" is an even stupider gaffe.

Hard to believe possible, but there it is.

DenverBrit
01-14-2013, 04:28 PM
Talk about dark humor.

We are awash in it.

More like 'toilet humor'.

WTF possessed you to do an interview from your bathroom and post it on Youtube??

StugotsIII
01-15-2013, 03:36 PM
Talk about dark humor.

We are awash in it.


Remember when people gave a **** about what you had to say?


Yeah, me neither...


Hilarious!

W*GS
01-15-2013, 03:41 PM
More like 'toilet humor'.

WTF possessed you to do an interview from your bathroom and post it on Youtube??

He figured he might as well spew the same **** from both ends.

mhgaffney
01-15-2013, 05:52 PM
Insiders made millions on the put options...

Clowns like W*gs, Brit and Lone Nut would have us believe that the hijacked planes impacted the WTC at random points.

The facts point in a different direction. For example, Flight AA 11 which hit the north tower took out the offices of Marsh and McLennan -- which it so happens had the second highest level of put options in the days before 9/11 -- second only to United Airlines.

Someone was betting that M&M stock was going to tumble -- and somebody cashed in on it.

We know the puts were exercised -- according to professor Paul Zerembka at SUNY Buffalo, whose field is econometrics. If Zarembka is correct, this means the people who bought the puts collected the winnings. There is a paper trail to the people who had insider knowledge -- but the SEC buried the evidence during their phony investigation.

This is the state of things in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Here is Lars Schall's recent interview with Zarembka in Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND27Dj02.html
MHG

StugotsIII
01-15-2013, 08:06 PM
Insiders made millions on the put options...

Clowns like W*gs, Brit and Lone Nut would have us believe that the hijacked planes impacted the WTC at random points.

The facts point in a different direction. For example, Flight AA 11 which hit the north tower took out the offices of Marsh and McLennan -- which it so happens had the second highest level of put options in the days before 9/11 -- second only to United Airlines.

Someone was betting that M&M stock was going to tumble -- and somebody cashed in on it.

We know the puts were exercised -- according to professor Paul Zerembka at SUNY Buffalo, whose field is econometrics. If Zarembka is correct, this means the people who bought the puts collected the winnings. There is a paper trail to the people who had insider knowledge -- but the SEC buried the evidence during their phony investigation.

This is the state of things in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Here is Lars Schall's recent interview with Zarembka in Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND27Dj02.html
MHG

Nobody cares.

W*GS
01-15-2013, 08:44 PM
Clowns like W*gs, Brit and Lone Nut would have us believe that the hijacked planes impacted the WTC at random points.

There were no planes. They were just holograms.

The towers were felled by <strike>red mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nukes</strike>.

Right, gaffe?

mhgaffney
01-15-2013, 09:10 PM
Nobody cares.

Your point of view is what I would expect from a slime mold.

Requiem
01-15-2013, 09:26 PM
It is awesome people don't agree on everything.

DenverBrit
01-15-2013, 09:55 PM
Insiders made millions on the put options...

Clowns like W*gs, Brit and Lone Nut would have us believe that the hijacked planes impacted the WTC at random points.

The facts point in a different direction. For example, Flight AA 11 which hit the north tower took out the offices of Marsh and McLennan -- which it so happens had the second highest level of put options in the days before 9/11 -- second only to United Airlines.

Someone was betting that M&M stock was going to tumble -- and somebody cashed in on it.

We know the puts were exercised -- according to professor Paul Zerembka at SUNY Buffalo, whose field is econometrics. If Zarembka is correct, this means the people who bought the puts collected the winnings. There is a paper trail to the people who had insider knowledge -- but the SEC buried the evidence during their phony investigation.

This is the state of things in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Here is Lars Schall's recent interview with Zarembka in Asia Times:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ND27Dj02.html
MHG


Still pushing that discredited canard. You need some new material. And denying planes hit the WTC towers isn't it.

Get help, Gaffney, you're ****ing nuts!

DenverBrit
01-15-2013, 09:57 PM
He figured he might as well spew the same **** from both ends.

If his lips weren't moving, I'd swear he was talking out of his arse again.

orangeatheist
01-16-2013, 01:36 PM
Your point of view is what I would expect from a slime mold.

Is that why you do interviews about your "book" from the bathroom? Have above-average experience with slime mold?

mhgaffney
01-16-2013, 01:52 PM
I have never denied that the planes hit the buildings. Incredible the stupid things that some of you believe.

I did show that Hani Hanjour could not have flown the plane that hit the Pentagon. Nor has anyone found any flaws in this paper -- which was posted back in 2009. This is indirect evidence for the use of remote control access and control technology.

http://www.infowars.com/how-the-fbi-and-911-commission-suppressed-key-evidence-about-hani-hanjour/

nyuk nyuk
01-16-2013, 07:55 PM
Oh no! mhgaffney! I forgot about him! Noooooooo!

DenverBrit
01-16-2013, 10:55 PM
I have never denied that the planes hit the buildings. Incredible the stupid things that some of you believe.

I did show that Hani Hanjour could not have flown the plane that hit the Pentagon. Nor has anyone found any flaws in this paper -- which was posted back in 2009. This is indirect evidence for the use of remote control access and control technology.

http://www.infowars.com/how-the-fbi-and-911-commission-suppressed-key-evidence-about-hani-hanjour/

Of course you did, well done!! We've seen you at work, very impressive!!

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTA2NzUyODE2NjReQTJeQWpwZ15BbWU3MDUzNjg2MjE@._ V1._SX348_SY500_.jpg

StugotsIII
01-17-2013, 01:13 AM
Your point of view is what I would expect from a slime mold.

Cool story bro.

Fedaykin
01-17-2013, 03:33 AM
It's pretty clear gaff-o falls pushes conspiracy theories because, like many of those losers, he has a desperate need to feel intellectually superior to others.. despite a laughably poor understanding of pretty much everything.

mhgaffney
01-17-2013, 01:52 PM
It's pretty clear gaff-o falls pushes conspiracy theories because, like many of those losers, he has a desperate need to feel intellectually superior to others.. despite a laughably poor understanding of pretty much everything.

The folks who take the time to read my articles and books beg to differ with you.

mhgaffney
01-17-2013, 01:57 PM
There are few things so funny as Gaffney starting a thread with the term "critical thinking" in the title.

Ro's concept of serious research would be like reading the Lord of the Rings.

Fedaykin
01-17-2013, 02:27 PM
The folks who take the time to read my articles and books beg to differ with you.

The people who read your books are just as idiotic as you are.

nyuk nyuk
01-17-2013, 02:35 PM
Ro's concept of serious research would be like reading the Lord of the Rings.

You're probably right, but it doesn't vindicate 9-11 truther nonsense.

mhgaffney
01-17-2013, 02:39 PM
You're probably right, but it doesn't vindicate 9-11 truther nonsense.

This may surprise you but I don't regard myself as a part of any 9/11 truth movement. I'm just a guy working with similar minded individuals -- trying to expose the lies we have been fed about the day of days.

The real nonsense is the official conspiracy theory about what happened.

W*GS
01-17-2013, 02:56 PM
This may surprise you but I don't regard myself as a part of any 9/11 truth movement.

Gads, the lies just keep a-comin'.

I'm just a guy working with similar minded individuals -- trying to expose the lies we have been fed about the day of days.

No. You're personally profiting from the horrors of that day, and you don't give a **** about anyone or anything other than yourself.

Basically, you give a big fat ****off to the rest of us.

Right back atcha, son.

nyuk nyuk
01-17-2013, 04:40 PM
W*GS, I'd hate to tell you this, but your own anti-US paranoia isn't all that far off from mhgaffney's nonsense. You both use faulty reasoning and don't bother investigating what you claim is evidence against the US.

No scratch that, at least mhgaffney can do more than just blindly quote accusatory, anti-American snippets off some left-wing website.

DenverBrit
01-17-2013, 05:52 PM
This may surprise you but I don't regard myself as a part of any 9/11 truth movement. I'm just a guy working with similar minded individuals -- trying to expose the lies we have been fed about the day of days.

The real nonsense is the official conspiracy theory about what happened.

And yet, you quote nothing but troofers. Seriously, Gaffney, you're fooling no one.

Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

So keep hiding in the crapper, they'll never think of looking for you there......psst, you should switch off your webcam.

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WScykeCbqUw/0.jpg

nyuk nyuk
01-17-2013, 06:26 PM
And yet, you quote nothing but troofers. Seriously, Gaffney, you're fooling no one.

You see similar from "independent investigative journalists" who also happen to keep showing up at Marxist conferences, hanging out with Marxists, citing Marxist books in their own writing, and so forth.

Amy Goodman is probably the most prominent example of this. Just say it; the bitch is a Marxist.

W*GS
01-17-2013, 09:03 PM
W*GS, I'd hate to tell you this, but your own anti-US paranoia isn't all that far off from mhgaffney's nonsense. You both use faulty reasoning and don't bother investigating what you claim is evidence against the US.

No scratch that, at least mhgaffney can do more than just blindly quote accusatory, anti-American snippets off some left-wing website.

Suck me.

You right-wingers think any criticism of America is emblematic of anti-Americanism. It's your "My country right or wrong" bull**** that gets us in more trouble and causes more death. America can withstand criticism. Why do you think it so weak that it cannot.

Rohirrim
01-18-2013, 11:28 AM
You see similar from "independent investigative journalists" who also happen to keep showing up at Marxist conferences, hanging out with Marxists, citing Marxist books in their own writing, and so forth.

Amy Goodman is probably the most prominent example of this. Just say it; the b**** is a Marxist.

Labeling just shields you from facing the truth that the world can no longer sustain the lifestyles of the uber-rich, and it is suicide to try and continue to do so. It's a form of denial. Pathetic, really.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-07-22/wealthy-may-hide-as-much-as-32-trillion-offshore-report-says.html

In other words, the economy would be rolling along just fine if not for these greedy bastards hiding their wealth.

DenverBrit
01-18-2013, 01:46 PM
The folks who take the time to read my articles and books beg to differ with you.

How about your fellow troofers who reviewed in detail your 'book' "The 9/11 Mystery Plane & the Vanishing of America" and differed with you and your so called 'research'?

So he has, in essence, admitted that both of his most relevant conclusions regarding the E4B proving a deception on 9/11 were completely faulty.

Although this would seem to be an unfortunate situation for an honest researcher who simply found out he was wrong and admitted it, this review will reveal how even the evidence he presents in the book clearly demonstrates the E4B was in the air after the attack and that Mark Gaffney had no legitimate reason to not understand this as he wrote it.


I pointed Mark to the new evidence and requested that he review it and release an addendum addressing the fact that Farmer's "Afterword" was deliberately based on a proven false notion. Mark refused to take responsibility for the false information in his book and instead, as expected, pushed this burden off on Farmer by replying, "If you don't like Farmer's Afterword, take it up with him. It's his research. He wrote it."

This is particularly ironic given the fact that in the beginning of Gaffney's book, under the "Acknowledgments" where he thanks contributors, he very clearly states, "I am solely responsible for any errors that mar this book."

A long winded review that takes Gaffney's 'Mystery plane' premise apart.

Even troofers regard Gaffney as a fraud and a liar. Quite the accomplishement!

A Critical Review of Mark Gaffney's 2008 Book:
"The 9/11 Mystery Plane & the Vanishing of America"
By: Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
12/17/2008

http://www.thepentacon.com/MarkGaffney.htm

mhgaffney
01-18-2013, 02:31 PM
How about your fellow troofers who reviewed in detail your 'book' "The 9/11 Mystery Plane & the Vanishing of America" and differed with you and your so called 'research'?


A long winded review that takes Gaffney's 'Mystery plane' premise apart.

Even troofers regard Gaffney as a fraud and a liar. Quite the accomplishement!

A Critical Review of Mark Gaffney's 2008 Book:
"The 9/11 Mystery Plane & the Vanishing of America"
By: Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
12/17/2008

http://www.thepentacon.com/MarkGaffney.htm

Oh yeah I know Ranke -- of the so called CIT -- the citizens investigating team --

I repudiate all of this claims. Nonsense. The radar data from 9/11 -- presented in my book -- proves the two E-4Bs were in the skies over DC during the 9/11 attack. The E-4B is the world's most advanced command and control plane. We still do not know what the E-4Bs were doing there -- but they were definitely there.

In the last two years CIT has been widely discredited by reputable 9/11 investigators. Not only by me -- but by many others. Check around. CIT had some influence 3-4 years ago -- but no longer. Today people ignore them.

I can personally say that CIT was the most divisive force I have encountered in the years I have been researching 9/11. Ranke's primary mission in life is apparently to turn people against one another. This is why some have speculated he is an agent provocateur -- Don't know, can't prove it. But I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

I suggest you do your own research -- instead of posting whatever strikes your fancy in the moment.

MHG

mhgaffney
01-18-2013, 02:34 PM
It never ceases to amaze how you clowns invariably limit your attacks to personal stuff.

Not a one of you has the integrity to actually discuss the substance of what I'm saying.

This the tell tale sign of deep denial.

MHG

W*GS
01-18-2013, 02:43 PM
It never ceases to amaze how you clowns invariably limit your attacks to personal stuff.

Ohhhh, the irony.

Not a one of you has the integrity to actually discuss the substance of what I'm saying.

When you first showed up, we tried. It became very apparent very early that you have no genuine knowledge or insight - you merely repeat the usual litany of troofer bull****, time and again, over and over, even when exhaustively proven to be wrong.

You're just another bozo.

The Lone Bolt
01-18-2013, 03:25 PM
It never ceases to amaze how you clowns invariably limit your attacks to personal stuff.

Not a one of you has the integrity to actually discuss the substance of what I'm saying.

This the tell tale sign of deep denial.

MHG

Gaff, you constantly call other posters names like "idiots", "bozos", "clowns", etc. I don't suppose you would be willing to admit that, in light of your own behavior, the above comment is more that a bit hypocritical?

mhgaffney
01-18-2013, 04:00 PM
Gaff, you constantly call other posters names like "idiots", "bozos", "clowns", etc. I don't suppose you would be willing to admit that, in light of your own behavior, the above comment is more that a bit hypocritical?

For a guy who trashes articles and books he's never read -- your question amounts to the pot calling the kettle black.

Your posts indicate you are in denial on the 9/11 issue. This has nothing to do with mhgaffney. I'm just the messenger with a message you can't handle.

The denial explains the knee jerk type reactions in here. Nothing has changed in this regard since I first came here, in late 2006.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-18-2013, 04:34 PM
For a guy who trashes articles and books he's never read -- your question amounts to the pot calling the kettle black.

Your posts indicate you are in denial on the 9/11 issue. This has nothing to do with mhgaffney. I'm just the messenger with a message you can't handle.

The denial explains the knee jerk type reactions in here. Nothing has changed in this regard since I first came here, in late 2006.

MHG

You're the inventor of the message, you ****ing narcissist. Hilarious!

DenverBrit
01-18-2013, 04:42 PM
Oh yeah I know Ranke -- of the so called CIT -- the citizens investigating team --

I repudiate all of this claims. Nonsense. The radar data from 9/11 -- presented in my book -- proves the two E-4Bs were in the skies over DC during the 9/11 attack. The E-4B is the world's most advanced command and control plane. We still do not know what the E-4Bs were doing there -- but they were definitely there.

In the last two years CIT has been widely discredited by reputable 9/11 investigators. Not only by me -- but by many others. Check around. CIT had some influence 3-4 years ago -- but no longer. Today people ignore them.

I can personally say that CIT was the most divisive force I have encountered in the years I have been researching 9/11. Ranke's primary mission in life is apparently to turn people against one another. This is why some have speculated he is an agent provocateur -- Don't know, can't prove it. But I wouldn't be surprised if it were true.

I suggest you do your own research -- instead of posting whatever strikes your fancy in the moment.

MHG

Reputable?? You?? Gaffney, you're a con-man, a liar and a leach.

As a historian, you're clueless, sloppy with the facts with an eccentric view of history. French??

As a 'scientific' commentator, you don't have the knowledge of a schoolboy, yet boast about your claims otherwise.

Basically, you're delusional and a sick puppy making money from 911 by spouting nonsense.

When even the Troofers think you're a fraud and a liar because your claims are demonstrably fake, you've reached rock bottom.

Stop digging!

W*GS
01-18-2013, 04:43 PM
Nothing has changed in this regard since I first came here, in late 2006.

Yep - you're still peddling the same discredited bull****.

orangeatheist
01-18-2013, 08:35 PM
It never ceases to amaze how you clowns invariably limit your attacks to personal stuff.


You mean, like this?

Your point of view is what I would expect from a slime mold.

http://www.coldwinterknights.net/images/FinalIronyMeter.gif

orangeatheist
01-18-2013, 08:38 PM
Nothing has changed in this regard since I first came here, in late 2006.

Then please, by all means, pick up your damn ball and leave.

orangeatheist
01-18-2013, 08:39 PM
Reputable?? You?? Gaffney, you're a con-man, a liar and a leach.

As a historian, you're clueless, sloppy with the facts with an eccentric view of history. French??

As a 'scientific' commentator, you don't have the knowledge of a schoolboy, yet boast about your claims otherwise.

Basically, you're delusional and a sick puppy making money from 911 by spouting nonsense from your bathroom.

When even the Troofers think you're a fraud and a liar because your claims are demonstrably fake, you've reached rock bottom.

Stop digging!

FIFY

nyuk nyuk
01-18-2013, 08:59 PM
Labeling just shields you from facing the truth that the world can no longer sustain the lifestyles of the uber-rich, and it is suicide to try and continue to do so. It's a form of denial. Pathetic, really.

This is a total non-sequitur. There aren't even nearly that many "uber-rich" to remotely assert that their lifestyles are straining the world. This is just out there. What are you talking about?


Who am I labeling? If it's "labeling" to call someone who ideologically lifts from Marxism and hangs out with them in their conferences, then it is with someone who does the same with the Nazis.


In other words, the economy would be rolling along just fine if not for these greedy bastards hiding their wealth.

I've had liberals call me a liar when I say people will just hide their money.

Rohirrim
01-18-2013, 09:36 PM
This is a total non-sequitur. There aren't even nearly that many "uber-rich" to remotely assert that their lifestyles are straining the world. This is just out there. What are you talking about?


Who am I labeling? If it's "labeling" to call someone who ideologically lifts from Marxism and hangs out with them in their conferences, then it is with someone who does the same with the Nazis.




I've had liberals call me a liar when I say people will just hide their money.

How many there are is meaningless. It's the amount of assets that so few control. Unsustainable. Period. In fact, it is madness. We protect ourselves from the insanity of it all by pretending to have everything well labeled and under our rational control (ergo your desperate grasp onto the labels of "Marxist" and "liberal"), when in fact the absurdity of the situation makes a mockery of our pretense to rational thought. The economy of the world is teetering on the edge while the mega rich hide more than twice the resources of the GDP of the United States. But we should be worried about the Marxists. Hilarious!

nyuk nyuk
01-19-2013, 11:56 AM
How many there are is meaningless. It's the amount of assets that so few control. Unsustainable. Period. In fact, it is madness. We protect ourselves from the insanity of it all by pretending to have everything well labeled and under our rational control (ergo your desperate grasp onto the labels of "Marxist" and "liberal"), when in fact the absurdity of the situation makes a mockery of our pretense to rational thought. The economy of the world is teetering on the edge while the mega rich hide more than twice the resources of the GDP of the United States. But we should be worried about the Marxists. Hilarious!

I was referring to gaf's citations and their circle of associations.

What does X percentage of assets have to do with that, let alone with this sustainability you refer to?

If you understood that Marxism is applied to all human relations and understand further the implications of disrupting human relations by imposing Marxist class conflict theory, perhaps you'd see the problem. I'm not grasping, let alone desperately. I'm explaining. I've stated before that as a former Marxist, I see this crap all too often. Any time, anywhere, you see the oppressor/oppressed paradigm, you see Marxism. It is Marxist class conflict theory. Bourgeoisie oppressors vs the proletariat victims. Not only are no other explanations given for why the have-nots dont have, alternative explanations aren't even sought out or explored. Does it mean those saying and doing this are Marxists themselves? Of course not. It does mean they've internalized the garbage and need to be more critical of what they're picking up from others.

What we call modern liberalism is heavily influenced by Marxist thought. These beliefs didn't just pop out of a vacuum.

W*GS
01-19-2013, 12:23 PM
What we call modern liberalism is heavily influenced by Marxist thought. These beliefs didn't just pop out of a vacuum.

"Marxism" is a word used to push buttons and eliminate any chance of serious discussion.

DenverBrit
01-19-2013, 12:57 PM
This is a total non-sequitur. There aren't even nearly that many "uber-rich" to remotely assert that their lifestyles are straining the world. This is just out there. What are you talking about?


Who am I labeling? If it's "labeling" to call someone who ideologically lifts from Marxism and hangs out with them in their conferences, then it is with someone who does the same with the Nazis.




I've had liberals call me a liar when I say people will just hide their money.

Trillions are already offshore, hidden away to avoid taxes....have been for decades. There is a cult of greed in our societies that has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution.

Low taxes, right or left wing governments? It makes no difference.
Greed crosses ideological lines, economic conditions and appears to have no limits.

Rohirrim
01-19-2013, 01:30 PM
Trillions are already offshore, hidden away to avoid taxes....have been for decades. There is a cult of greed in our societies that has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution.

Low taxes, right or left wing governments? It makes no difference.
Greed crosses ideological lines, economic conditions and appears to have no limits.

And if you bring it up, the indoctrinated call you a Marxist. As Warren Buffett so elegantly put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

defilade
01-20-2013, 09:05 AM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/02/09/world/09beijing-600.jpg

Burn baby Burn.....NEVER CAME down!! now that's a fire.... Must be Magic SteelHilarious! Yeah, I believe the Official Story.. Not!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html?_r=0

DenverBrit
01-20-2013, 09:56 AM
LOL

Gaffney's monkey with another simplistic analysis.

Here, read the facts.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7


ANALYSIS
Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000ºC, forming the eutectic liquid by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

The Lone Bolt
01-20-2013, 02:48 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/02/09/world/09beijing-600.jpg

Burn baby Burn.....NEVER CAME down!! now that's a fire.... Must be Magic SteelHilarious! Yeah, I believe the Official Story.. Not!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/world/asia/10beijing.html?_r=0

Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet?

DenverBrit
01-21-2013, 10:29 AM
And if you bring it up, the indoctrinated call you a Marxist. As Warren Buffett so elegantly put it, "There's class warfare, all right, but it's my class, the rich class, that's making war, and we're winning."

I don't know what it will take for the country to wake up to the fact that greed is concentrating huge amounts of wealth and influence in the hands of a relative few.

Buffet understands only too well what's going on......bloody Marxist whistle-blower. :)

mhgaffney
01-21-2013, 03:23 PM
LOL

Gaffney's monkey with another simplistic analysis.

Here, read the facts.

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7


ANALYSIS

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Biederman/Biederman-0112.html

Hilarious.

Brit cites the FEMA paper -- which was an appendix to the FEMA report on the WTC collapse -- without comprehending its significance. Yes the FEMA study of WTC-7 steel confirmed that steel had melted -- evaporated in fact.

But not because of burning jet fuel or building fires. This is what Brit fails to comprehend.

If you read the FEMA analysis you will see that the FEMA scientists were at a loss to explain what they had found.

It is highly significant that NIST ignored their research. Which should have been a starting point for the NIST investigation. But there is no mention of the FEMA paper in the 10,000 page NIST report on the WTC collapse, released in 2005.

The materials scientists who did the FEMA paper are today among the many experts who dispute the official story.

The evaporated steel is consistent with the use of explosives.

Thanks Brit. I have posted the FEMA paper many times on this board
-- but no one in here listens. In your ignorance you have helped advance the cause of 9/11 truth.
MHG

DenverBrit
01-21-2013, 05:03 PM
Gaffney, get a grip. You're spouting nonsense again.

Another of your NIST rants and distortion of the scientific facts.

There was no mystery to the eutectic mixture found at WTC7. It's only a mystery to Troofers as they circle jerk around the same discredited theories and fabricated mysteries.

This is well known and proven science, not a fairy tale of troofer weirdness.

Here's an explanation that you probably won't understand as it isn't in "Trooferspeak."


Sulfur Dioxide gas (e.g., from decomposing Gypsum wallboard) spontaneously reacts (combines) with iron metal (cold or hot), turning it into iron sulfides and iron oxides (i.e. burning the iron). The sulfides introduced into iron (sulfidation) by exposure of iron to Sulfur Dioxide gas have been used by humans (blacksmiths) for hundreds if not thousands of years, and have been understood in chemical terms for centuries, but apparently, such chemistry is not understood by BYU Professor Jones.

"The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1000°C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)"

For hundreds of years, Blacksmiths took advantage of this well-known property of sulfur dioxide by "welding" iron parts together over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron at its surface.
Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it). Sulfur Dioxide gas, has a distinct impact on the nose, and is a respiratory irritant, because it forms sulfurous acid when it combines with water or moisture in the human body. Sulfur Dioxide can be further oxidized to form sulfuric acid (when added to water). High concentrations of Sulfurous fumes emanating from the piles at Ground Zero have been documented, and have been identified as a probable cause of respiratory ailments suffered by many rescue workers and cleanup crews. "One of the America's top air-quality scientists test the air around Ground Zero and tells NBC's Lisa Myers and the NBC Investigative Team he was shocked to find alarming levels of sulfuric acid and fine particles more than three weeks after the attack. (MSNBC, October 29, 2003)" http://www.asthmamoms.com/worldtradecenterarticles2003.htm

Professor Jones demonstrates his ignorance of the basic "Blacksmith" chemistry of sulfidation-by-S02-from-fire with his following oblivious or dishonest statements: "Then there is the rather mysterious sulfidation of the steel reported in this paper -- What is the origin of this sulfur? No solid answer is given in any of the official reports. ... While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. ... Thus, we find substantial evidence supporting the current conjecture that some variation of thermite (e.g., solid aluminum powder plus Fe2O3, with possible addition of sulfur) was used on the steel columns of the WTC Tower to weaken the huge steel supports, not long before explosives finished the demolition job."


http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

nyuk nyuk
01-21-2013, 11:11 PM
In a debate similar to this, I once had a Truther illiterate insist to me that there was no photographic evidence of jet engines in the ground and fuselage debris of United 93 and he linked me to this retarded Truther site and said, "This is all the pictures there are."

I found every picture he was seeking and then some. Where?

Wikipedia.

defilade
01-22-2013, 12:47 PM
Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet?

Why no! and WTC7 didn't either.. They initial blow from the plane didn't take down WTC1-2. the Official Story is "OFFICE FIRES"Hilarious! Got it fruity?

Fedaykin
01-22-2013, 12:55 PM
Why no! and WTC7 didn't either.. They initial blow from the plane didn't take down WTC1-2. the Official Story is "OFFICE FIRES"Hilarious! Got it fruity?

Lone Bolt was a bit sloppy. What he meant to say was "Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet or from debris from the collapse of another building?"

As has already been discussed in this very thread, WTC7 took major structural damage from the fall of WTC1&2.

mhgaffney
01-22-2013, 02:35 PM
Gaffney, get a grip. You're spouting nonsense again.

Another of your NIST rants and distortion of the scientific facts.

There was no mystery to the eutectic mixture found at WTC7. It's only a mystery to Troofers as they circle jerk around the same discredited theories and fabricated mysteries.

This is well known and proven science, not a fairy tale of troofer weirdness.

Here's an explanation that you probably won't understand as it isn't in "Trooferspeak."

http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm

You are an idiot.

You posted the solid work of the scientists who produced the FEMA paper -- documenting the eutectic phenomenon. So far so good.

Then you post an interpretation of their work by some disinfo site --- which is total BS. No way the gypsum magically did what they claim. Hogwash.

I suggest you email the three materials scientists themselves and ask them to explain the significance of what they found in their own words. The contact info is given at the link you posted.

You will discover that they stand by what they wrote in the FEMA paper that you failed to read. They cannot explain the phenomenon n terms of the official story.

The eutectic phenomenon is consistent with the use of thermate -- a type of thermite. The addition of sodium lowers the melting point of steel -- which greatly speeds up the reaction.

The debunking 9/11 site you keep citing is pure disinfo.

It's so typical. Stupid Americans will believe anything that affirms their beliefs -- allowing them to hold onto their precious comfort zone.

MHG

W*GS
01-22-2013, 02:50 PM
The debunking 9/11 site you keep citing is pure disinfo.

Impotent little turds like you, who love to blame everyone but themselves for their own powerlessness, and invent all sorts of grand conspiracies for the ****ty state of their lives, always call the truth "disinfo".

The idea that you'd have to grow a pair is just too psychologically jarring for you to accept.

DenverBrit
01-22-2013, 03:04 PM
Impotent little turds like you, who love to blame everyone but themselves for their own powerlessness, and invent all sorts of grand conspiracies for the ****ty state of their lives, always call the truth "disinfo".

The idea that you'd have to grow a pair is just too psychologically jarring for you to accept.

Gafffeny makes the same claim for any site/source that disagrees with his bull**** and fabricated fantasies.

What a pathetic little gnome he is.

mhgaffney
01-22-2013, 03:17 PM
Did Brit go to the source? Did he contact the three scientists directly?

Of course not. That would require an ounce of effort --

W*GS
01-22-2013, 03:26 PM
Here's what gaffe claims is the support of a NIST or FEMA or other scientist:

"Ring ring"
NIST scientist: "Hello?"
gaffe: "I'm Mark Gaffney and I'm doing some research and I've figured out that the earth is pretty much a sphere. Is that correct?"
NIST scientist: "Yes, it is."
gaffe: "Thanks!"

How gaffe reports it:

"I contacted a NIST scientist and they verified my analysis."

We call shenanigans, gaffe.

DenverBrit
01-22-2013, 03:40 PM
You are an idiot.

You posted the solid work of the scientists who produced the FEMA paper -- documenting the eutectic phenomenon. So far so good.

Then you post an interpretation of their work by some disinfo site --- which is total BS. No way the gypsum magically did what they claim. Hogwash.

I suggest you email the three materials scientists themselves and ask them to explain the significance of what they found in their own words. The contact info is given at the link you posted.

You will discover that they stand by what they wrote in the FEMA paper that you failed to read. They cannot explain the phenomenon n terms of the official story.

The eutectic phenomenon is consistent with the use of thermate -- a type of thermite. The addition of sodium lowers the melting point of steel -- which greatly speeds up the reaction.

The debunking 9/11 site you keep citing is pure disinfo.

It's so typical. Stupid Americans will believe anything that affirms their beliefs -- allowing them to hold onto their precious comfort zone.

MHG

Same response you give for any info that disagrees with your paranoid delusions.
Sulfur not only comes from gypsum, but from about every other material present in a typical office building.
A list of which you carefully avoid quoting....in typical troofer fashion, when it doesn't fit your paranoid delusions .

Sulfur Dioxide gas can be released by the burning of ANY ORGANIC substance, including wood, paper, flesh, fabrics, and especially plastics (carpets), and rubber (rubber is "vulcanized" by adding sulfur to it).

Show where FEMA claimed it was a 'demolition' or gave any hint that the sulfur was from thermite? They didn't, I've read their conclusions.

Idiot troofers like you distorted their findings and came up with that nonsense, and it's been debunked over and over.
Of course anyone introducing 'reality' into your grubby little world is an 'agent of disinformation.'
Even fellow troofers, who criticize your extremism, dishonesty and unbelievable leaps of logic are labelled the same.

You're a charlatan protecting your grubby attempts to make money from 911 victims. You should be ****ing ashamed.

nyuk nyuk
01-22-2013, 03:44 PM
"Marxism" is a word used to push buttons and eliminate any chance of serious discussion.

So the word never fits, anywhere, regardless of the ideology being expressed at the time?

Every time I've mentioned the word, I've explained in what manner it fits the context and how the philosophy has spread like stink to every major aspect of social interaction. Critical theory is heavily what it is, and it is heavily present in certain soft sciences such as sociology. Open any sociology textbook and you'll find out that 2 of the founders of the field were Marxists, with one being Marx himself, and the third being a Socialist. You think that hard-left viewpoint actually has no impact on the field and that it is clean of taint from Marxist philosophical influence?!

Christ, dude.

DenverBrit
01-22-2013, 03:46 PM
Did Brit go to the source? Did he contact the three scientists directly?

Of course not. That would require an ounce of effort --

Post the part of their report that makes the demolition or thermite claim.

Of course you can't, because only idiot troofers like you made that absurd leap.

But go ahead, grow a pair and post their conclusions.

nyuk nyuk
01-22-2013, 03:48 PM
Did Brit go to the source? Did he contact the three scientists directly?

Of course not. That would require an ounce of effort --

How many scientists did YOU contact directly?

BroncoBeavis
01-22-2013, 04:29 PM
Trillions are already offshore, hidden away to avoid taxes....have been for decades. There is a cult of greed in our societies that has been growing rapidly since the industrial revolution.

Nah, there's been more back and forth than people think. Rockefeller in his prime was worth roughly half a trillion bucks in today's dollars. Nobody here touches that level of wealth today.

DenverBrit
01-22-2013, 06:33 PM
Nah, there's been more back and forth than people think. Rockefeller in his prime was worth roughly half a trillion bucks in today's dollars. Nobody here touches that level of wealth today.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2012/07/23/super-rich-hide-21-trillion-offshore-study-says/

Exhaustive Study Finds Global Elite Hiding Up to $32 Trillion in Offshore Accounts
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/7/31/exhaustive_study_finds_global_elite_hiding

DenverBrit
01-22-2013, 06:37 PM
Hey, Gaffney, where's the FEMA report that concludes Bldg 7 was demolished by thermite??

nyuk nyuk
01-22-2013, 08:36 PM
Nah, there's been more back and forth than people think. Rockefeller in his prime was worth roughly half a trillion bucks in today's dollars. Nobody here touches that level of wealth today.

The capitalist pig devil stole it, I'm sure.

mhgaffney
01-23-2013, 02:20 PM
How many scientists did YOU contact directly?

The sources are given in my articles and books. Hundreds of footnotes and links -- many to original sources.

Unfortunately, just as Allen Dulles stated in his defense of the Warren Commission cover up, [stupid] "Americans do not read reports.."

Most do not read. Period.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-23-2013, 02:50 PM
Gaffney, where is the phantom FEMA report you claim vindicates the troofer looney theory that Bldg 7 was brought down by a controlled demolition and traces of thermite were found??

Come on, don't pull your usual stunt of avoiding the issue every time you're schooled.

Step up so we can get back to Gage and why the AIA, disowns him and his crackpot theories.

nyuk nyuk
01-23-2013, 02:52 PM
The sources are given in my articles and books. Hundreds of footnotes and links -- many to original sources.

Unfortunately, just as Allen Dulles stated in his defense of the Warren Commission cover up, [stupid] "Americans do not read reports.."

Most do not read. Period.

MHG

In other words you didn't speak to any scientists like you've demanded that others should. Just checking.

mhgaffney
01-23-2013, 03:35 PM
In other words you didn't speak to any scientists like you've demanded that others should. Just checking.

Wrong. I did. For example, I consulted with Ron Hamburger, who authored one of the chapters of the FEMA report. I also consulted with scientists at NIST.

And many others.

It's all discussed and documented in my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. Some of it is also covered in my critique of the NIST Report.

I've posted the link here many times.

The problem is that clowns like you are not serious about finding out what really happened. You don't give a hoot. You'd rather just suck down beer and watch fooooball.

Same old shyte. MHG

W*GS
01-23-2013, 03:44 PM
Wrong. I did. For example, I consulted with Ron Hamburger, who authored one of the chapters of the FEMA report. I also consulted with scientists at NIST.

Here's what gaffe claims is the support of a NIST or FEMA or other scientist:

"Ring ring"
NIST scientist: "Hello?"
gaffe: "I'm Mark Gaffney and I'm doing some research and I've figured out that the earth is pretty much a sphere. Is that correct?"
NIST scientist: "Yes, it is."
gaffe: "Thanks!"

How gaffe reports it:

"I contacted a NIST scientist and they verified my analysis."

DenverBrit
01-23-2013, 04:28 PM
Wrong. I did. For example, I consulted with Ron Hamburger, who authored one of the chapters of the FEMA report. I also consulted with scientists at NIST.

And many others.

It's all discussed and documented in my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. Some of it is also covered in my critique of the NIST Report.

I've posted the link here many times.

The problem is that clowns like you are not serious about finding out what really happened. You don't give a hoot. You'd rather just suck down beer and watch fooooball.

Same old shyte. MHG


FEMA report Gaffney, where is it??

Can't handle having your bluff called? You run away like a scolded little girl? :curtsey:

Step up, put your report where your mouth is, or admit, that you fabricated the lie, just like very other lie you've told here.

mhgaffney
01-23-2013, 04:33 PM
FEMA report Gaffney, where is it??

Can't handle having your bluff called? You run away like a scolded little girl? :curtsey:

Step up, put your report where your mouth is, or admit, that you fabricated the lie, just like very other lie you've told here.

I just sent R R Biederman an email. He was one of the three materials scientists who did the appendix for the FEMA report. The three scientists documented an anomalous eutectic phenomenon.

We will see if he responds.

You clowns are too lame to lift even a finger to find out the truth.
MHG

W*GS
01-23-2013, 04:57 PM
I just sent R R Biederman an email. He was one of the three materials scientists who did the appendix for the FEMA report. The three scientists documented an anomalous eutectic phenomenon.

Copy your email and his reply verbatim here.

None of your typical **** about how scientists "verify" your analysis when in fact nothing of the sort took place.

DenverBrit
01-23-2013, 05:14 PM
Back to the hero of this thread, Gage.

For years, this con man has been spouting nonsense while promoting his membership in AIA (American Institute of Architects). He is one of Gaffney's main sources whenever he needs an idiot to validate his own crackpot theories. Gage had been low grade architect and primarily a renovation supervisor of schools and strip centers until 911 when he saw an opportunity to make money with the troofer scam.

Finally, AIA had enough of his con and attempts to use AIA as a 'cover' and implied endorser of his lunacy. So on July 19th, 2012, they published an article in 'Architect,' the associations magazine.

Here are some of the 'highlights.'

Architects Shy From Truther 9/11 Conspiracy Theory
Architects didn't show up for a 9/11-architecture-conspiracy documentary screening—and the AIA doesn't want its name associated with Trutherism
The accusations of Gage’s organization are the typical hodgepodge of pseudo-scientific claims. Along with other esoteric and debunked technical arguments.......All of Gage’s so-called evidence has been rebutted in peer-reviewed papers, by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, by the National Institute for Standards and Technology, by the American Society of Civil Engineers, by the 9/11 Commission Report, and, perhaps most memorably, by the 110-year-old engineering journal Popular Mechanics.

“I can’t tell you how grateful we were to have been accepted to be here in the boardroom at the national headquarters,” Gage said. “We hope this is the beginning of a very productive relationship.”

Aside from Gage, though, there was not a single other architect in the room, much less an official from AIA, or even another member. The 80-strong crowd was made up largely of members of the local 9/11 Truth movement and other political activists.

Gage was once warned by AIA not to spread the misimpression that there is a relationship between the two organizations, after he wrote a letter to Congress stating that more than 100 members of AIA who signed his petition were demanding a new investigation into 9/11.
“It is somewhat troubling that he sort of portrays the notion that we have a relationship when we certainly do not,” Frank said

Gage should not expect those invitations any time soon, according to Frank: “There is absolutely zero relationship … [between our groups], nor will there ever be in the future.”

The full article.
http://www.architectmagazine.com/architecture/architects-shy-from-truther-conspiracy-theory_2.aspx

DenverBrit
01-23-2013, 05:17 PM
I just sent R R Biederman an email. He was one of the three materials scientists who did the appendix for the FEMA report. The three scientists documented an anomalous eutectic phenomenon.

We will see if he responds.

You clowns are too lame to lift even a finger to find out the truth.
MHG

Couldn't find it in the FEMA report? The report you claim I didn't read? Ha!

Didn't think so.

mhgaffney
01-24-2013, 03:34 PM
What did the FEMA Report say? Read on.

The 2002 FEMA report can be downloaded here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fema_wtc/index.html

Chapter Five was devoted to WTC-7.
Download here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fema_wtc/fema403_ch5.pdf

On page 5-31 the chapter concluded:

The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue.

In other words, FEMA was unable to show how fires caused the collapse -- and called for further study. But the "best fire hypothesis" in FEMA's view had only a low probability.

The important metallurgical analysis by Barnett, Biederman and Sisson can be downloaded here:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/fema_wtc/fema403_apc.pdf

On page C-13 the authors concluded:

The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure.


The authors thus were at a loss to explain the eutectic phenomenon. Something lowered the melting point of steel by ~700 degrees F

Notice, the authors state that the corrosion of the steel may have occurred BEFORE the collapse. This leaves the door wide open to explosives.

They called for further research -- yet -- NIST conspicuously ignored their analysis.

In a post above I incorrectly stated that thermate includes sodium. I meant sulfur. It is the presence of sulfur that causes the eutectic phenomenon -- lowering the melting point of steel.

Even though the use of explosives was the most obvious and logical explanation, NIST refused event to consider it. The NIST report was biased from the get go -- and thus cannot be considered conclusive or comprehensive.

It was in fact a cover up.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-24-2013, 05:17 PM
Gaffney, you're posting the conclusion I already posted. This is all you have?? Hilarious!

Where's the FEMA report that mentions 'demolition' or 'thermite'??

Only the uneducated and unqualified troofers, motivated by greed, invented the 'demolition' and 'thermite' story, a fairy tale that has been debunked repeatedly and years ago.

Your fellow con man, Gage has been outed and disowned by AIA, yet here you are, the organic gardener, spouting and speculating about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.

You're a joke.

As usual, you chose to ignore the conclusions of the report that dealt with the twin towers. Why?

It's obvious, the report blows the troofer conspiracy bull**** out of the water.

From Chapter 8.

The large quantity of jet fuel carried by each aircraft ignited upon impact into each building. A significant portion of this fuel was consumed immediately in the ensuing fireballs. The remaining fuel is believed either to have flowed down through the buildings or to have burned off within a few minutes of the aircraft impact. The heat produced by this burning jet fuel does not by itself appear to have been sufficient to initiate the structural collapses. However,as the burning jet fuel spread across several floors of the buildings, it ignited much of the buildings’ contents, causing simultaneous fires across several floors of both buildings. The heat output from these fires is estimated to have been comparable to the power produced by a large commercial power generating station. Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.[69]

Nice try, Gaffney.

mhgaffney
01-25-2013, 02:21 PM
Gaffney, you're posting the conclusion I already posted. This is all you have?? Hilarious!

Where's the FEMA report that mentions 'demolition' or 'thermite'??

Only the uneducated and unqualified troofers, motivated by greed, invented the 'demolition' and 'thermite' story, a fairy tale that has been debunked repeatedly and years ago.

Your fellow con man, Gage has been outed and disowned by AIA, yet here you are, the organic gardener, spouting and speculating about things of which you have absolutely no knowledge.

You're a joke.

As usual, you chose to ignore the conclusions of the report that dealt with the twin towers. Why?

It's obvious, the report blows the troofer conspiracy bull**** out of the water.

From Chapter 8.



Nice try, Gaffney.

We have been talking primarily about Building 7 -- which suffered no plane impact -- hence no jet fuel.

The metallurgical paper was a study of steel samples from WTC-7. As I have just shown, the authors were at a loss to explain how steel was melted -- even evaporated. The samples looked like Swiss cheese.

You have posted claims that the sulfur causing the eutectic phenomenon came from burning organic compounds in the building.

You pulled this material from your favorite debunker site -- without even giving the name of a scientist. So which expert reached this conclusion?

Anonymous experts are a joke. Serious scientists attach their names their work.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 03:03 PM
One question, Gaffney.

Is FEMA correct about the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Simple question, give a direct answer to it.

mhgaffney
01-25-2013, 03:33 PM
One question, Gaffney.

Is FEMA correct about the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers?

Simple question, give a direct answer to it.

If you read the FEMA report you know that FEMA never resolved how the WTC collapses occurred. FEMA did its report on a shoestring budget.

FEMA did conclude that the best fire scenarios for the collapse of WTC-7 had only a low probability of occurrence.

Did you hear what I just said? It's right there in the FEMA report.

You should also know that FEMA's experts also did not have free access to the WTC site. THis shocking fact ought to make clowns like you question your own leaders -- but I suppose this is why you are a clown in the first place.

FEMA was only allowed on site in a very controlled and supervised manner. This was totally outrageous. This is why FEMA had few to none samples of steel to examine.

Even as FEMA attempted to make the best of this bad situation -- the WTC steel was being shipped to China on a fast boat.

Thus most of the crucial evidence that would have answered all of the questions about the collapse was being destroyed.

The destruction of evidence is itself a very serious crime -- yet one that the clowns on this board have never protested.

Fortunately, FEMA did acquire a very few steel samples from WTC-7 -- and these were the basis for the important metallurgical paper which you cited -- by Barnet and Biederman.

Their conclusions ought to make you question everything you thought you knew - but of course -- being a clown you swallowed all the lies.

MHG

W*GS
01-25-2013, 03:53 PM
Wasn't FEMA part of the conspiracy?

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 04:03 PM
If you read the FEMA report you know that FEMA never resolved how the WTC collapses occurred.

MHG

Gaffney, you're an idiot of epic proportions. Hilarious!

They had no difficulty resolving the collapse, had YOU read the report, you would know this.

I posted a paragraph from the FEMA report on Towers 1&2 right here: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3788331&postcount=191

Over a period of many minutes, this heat induced additional stresses into the damaged structural frames while simultaneously softening and weakening these frames. This additional loading and the resulting damage were sufficient to induce the collapse of both structures.[69]

Now, is FEMA correct or not?? Simple question, so answer it.

mhgaffney
01-25-2013, 05:31 PM
Gaffney, you're an idiot of epic proportions. Hilarious!

They had no difficulty resolving the collapse, had YOU read the report, you would know this.

I posted a paragraph from the FEMA report on Towers 1&2 right here: http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3788331&postcount=191

Now, is FEMA correct or not?? Simple question, so answer it.

If FEMA resolved the issue of the WTC collapse -- then why did NIST take up the issue again in late 2002 -- just after the FEMA report was released?

You need to admit that you never read either report. You're spewing out of your a-hole.

The only thing worse than a stupid American is a stupid American on steroids (hint: like you, Brit).

MHG

W*GS
01-25-2013, 06:02 PM
Since a GUT doesn't yet exist, the moon is made of cheese. It has to be.

orangeatheist
01-25-2013, 06:51 PM
"Stupid American!"

"Bwaaaaaak!"

"Stupid American!"

"Thermite!"

"Twin Towers!"

"Bwaakkkk!"

"Zionist Conspiracy!"

"Mini Nukes!"

"Bwaaaaakkk!"

"Stupid American!"

Wassa matter, Gaffie? Gaffie wanna cracker?

"Stupid American!! Bwaaaaakkkkkk!!!!"

W*GS
01-25-2013, 06:55 PM
gaffe's spew is an insult to anything with a brain.

DenverBrit
01-25-2013, 07:30 PM
If FEMA resolved the issue of the WTC collapse -- then why did NIST take up the issue again in late 2002 -- just after the FEMA report was released?

You need to admit that you never read either report. You're spewing out of your a-hole.

The only thing worse than a stupid American is a stupid American on steroids (hint: like you, Brit).

MHG

LOL
http://www.soulscode.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/steaming-mad4.jpg

This isn't about DenverBrit, DenverBrit is just the messenger. Hilarious!

You not only didn't read the FEMA report, now it's obvious you didn't read the NIST report either.

Again, are the FEMA conclusions correct.??

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:12 AM
"Stupid American!"

"Bwaaaaaak!"

"Stupid American!"

"Thermite!"

"Twin Towers!"

"Bwaakkkk!"

"Zionist Conspiracy!"

"Mini Nukes!"

"Bwaaaaakkk!"

"Stupid American!"

Wassa matter, Gaffie? Gaffie wanna cracker?

"Stupid American!! Bwaaaaakkkkkk!!!!"

What? He hasn't blamed the Jews?

OH I am seriously disappointed here.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:16 AM
It's all discussed and documented in my book The 9/11 Mystery Plane. Some of it is also covered in my critique of the NIST Report.

I've posted the link here many times.


You gotta understand something, here. I'm not paying for that ****. Link for a free copy? I'll be happy to look at it.

nyuk nyuk
01-26-2013, 08:18 AM
Since a GUT doesn't yet exist, the moon is made of cheese. It has to be.

No, I found a gut. In Hawaii. Hanging out with Jeff Saturday.

http://cdn0.sbnation.com/imported_assets/1408899/t2mHczu.jpg

mhgaffney
01-26-2013, 05:50 PM
Lone Bolt was a bit sloppy. What he meant to say was "Did this building also suffer major structural damage due to impact with a large commercial jet or from debris from the collapse of another building?"

As has already been discussed in this very thread, WTC7 took major structural damage from the fall of WTC1&2.

Yes but according to NIST the damage to WTC-7 from falling debris played no role in its collapse. This according to NIST's final report on WTC-7 released in 2008.

All the early speculation was wrong.

Not to suggest that I agree with NIST's collapse scenario. It was a scam. NIST used a computer model that remains secret to this day. NIST refuses to share it with other scientists. We have to take them at their word -- since there is no way to verify their work. Hence no accountability.

This is BS - and another reason why the NIST report was a fraud.

MHG

The Lone Bolt
01-27-2013, 12:59 AM
Since we're back to the subject of the NIST report, I though I'd take a moment to re-introduce the greatest ass-whoppin' Gaffney ever got on this board.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=89354

Folks, take some time to read through it. It's some solid entertainment! :~ohyah!:

Oh, and to address Gaff's recent post

Yes but according to NIST the damage to WTC-7 from falling debris played no role in its collapse. This according to NIST's final report on WTC-7 released in 2008.

I found this

No, Mark. NIST did not say that "the damage from the collapses was not a factor".

They said that "the structural damage from the collapses was not the precipitating factor in the collapse".

They also said that the damage from the falling debris started the fires in WTC7. This WAS a factor.

It's that "reading with comprehension" thingy again, Mark.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2753978&postcount=214

As always, Gaff ignores the inconvenient facts no matter how often they are pointed out to him. :oyvey:

(Read the whole post too -- it's a hoot!)

mhgaffney
01-27-2013, 03:35 PM
Since we're back to the subject of the NIST report, I though I'd take a moment to re-introduce the greatest ass-whoppin' Gaffney ever got on this board.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=89354

Folks, take some time to read through it. It's some solid entertainment! :~ohyah!:

Oh, and to address Gaff's recent post



I found this



http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=2753978&postcount=214

As always, Gaff ignores the inconvenient facts no matter how often they are pointed out to him. :oyvey:

(Read the whole post too -- it's a hoot!)

Your expert seems to have vanished -- I suppose back to that jerk Randi forum where he belongs.

The two hour video by A & E -- backed by 1700 architects and engineers -- has now set the standard for WTC debate. Here's the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YW6mJOqRDI4&feature=player_embedded

mhgaffney
01-27-2013, 03:38 PM
Brit now on iggy

He has disqualified himself by virtue of his sheer stupidity. He is now in the same bag with W*gs.

If he posts something intelligent (probably by accident) I might respond.

MHG

W*GS
01-27-2013, 03:57 PM
Brit now on iggy

He has disqualified himself by virtue of his sheer stupidity. He is now in the same bag with W*gs.

If he posts something intelligent (probably by accident) I might respond.

MHG

Who gives a **** about whom you have on iggy?

Damned if you're not an egotistical prick.

orangeatheist
01-27-2013, 04:35 PM
Your expert seems to have vanished...

Jeez, if only you'd take a page from that same book and disappear as well.

By the way, why don't you grow a pair and show up on the Randi forum to peddle your nonsense? It's easy enough to find: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

Brit now on iggy

He has disqualified himself by virtue of his sheer stupidity. He is now in the same bag with W*gs.

If he posts something intelligent (probably by accident) I might respond.

MHG

And how are you going to know if Brit "posts something intelligent" if you've got him on "ignore"? You just can't keep your own lies from leaking out your asscrack, can you?

DenverBrit
01-27-2013, 05:22 PM
Brit now on iggy

He has disqualified himself by virtue of his sheer stupidity. He is now in the same bag with W*gs.

If he posts something intelligent (probably by accident) I might respond.

MHG

DenverBrit is crushed.

http://www.benzworld.org/forums/attachments/off-topic/459458d1343768011-conclusive-proof-french-superior-dancing_fool.gif

mhgaffney
01-27-2013, 06:20 PM
Jeez, if only you'd take a page from that same book and disappear as well.

By the way, why don't you grow a pair and show up on the Randi forum to peddle your nonsense? It's easy enough to find: http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64



And how are you going to know if Brit "posts something intelligent" if you've got him on "ignore"? You just can't keep your own lies from leaking out your asscrack, can you?

I've been waiting for YOU to post something intelligent.

Did you watch the two hour video by A&E about the WTC collapse?

If not, why not?

W*GS
01-27-2013, 08:37 PM
gaffe is in full dazzle-em-with-bull**** mode.

He's a sick ****, fer sure.

DenverBrit
01-27-2013, 09:07 PM
I've been waiting for YOU to post something intelligent.

Did you watch the two hour video by A&E about the WTC collapse?

If not, why not?

http://www.calbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/wagging-finger.jpg

You tell 'em, Gaffney, wag that ****ing finger.

You've got a new kind of crazy going on, I could see assisted living in your near future.

DenverBrit
01-27-2013, 09:08 PM
gaffe is in full dazzle-em-with-bull**** mode.

He's a sick ****, fer sure.

He's in full 'loony mode' right now, should we call someone, or let the paramedics handle it?.

SoCalBronco
01-27-2013, 11:27 PM
You gotta understand something, here. I'm not paying for that ****. Link for a free copy? I'll be happy to look at it.

Free copy? Lulz. That goes against the very fiber of Gaff's existence. Dude lives to profit from tragedy.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aDTwO0TlwOU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

TDmvp
01-28-2013, 01:10 AM
Free copy? Lulz. That goes against the very fiber of Gaff's existence. Dude lives to profit from tragedy.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/aDTwO0TlwOU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



LOLOL ... Thx Socal , I been wanting to drop that in this thread and you saved me a moment lol ...


And well played.

orangeatheist
01-28-2013, 10:43 AM
I've been waiting for YOU to post something intelligent.

Did you watch the two hour video by A&E about the WTC collapse?

If not, why not?

Gaffe, I have absolutely NO interest in your 9/11 claptrap. I'm one of those stupid Americans who is perfectly satisfied with the official report.

Now, VENUS, on the other hand. THAT interests me. When are you going to grow a pair of balls to address that question, huh?

Rohirrim
01-28-2013, 11:07 AM
Gaffe, I have absolutely NO interest in your 9/11 claptrap. I'm one of those stupid Americans who is perfectly satisfied with the official report.

Now, VENUS, on the other hand. THAT interests me. When are you going to grow a pair of balls to address that question, huh?

I keep seeing posts about the Venus thing, but didn't catch the original discussion. What's it about?

orangeatheist
01-28-2013, 01:46 PM
I keep seeing posts about the Venus thing, but didn't catch the original discussion. What's it about?

Apparently, Gaffe has implied or suggested that Venus is a rather new addition to our solar system. It isn't a planet formed along with the rest some 4 1/2 billion years ago. I think he's taking his lead from Immanuel Velikovsky or Zecharia Sitchkin or some other such fruit loop.

W*GS
01-28-2013, 01:52 PM
I keep seeing posts about the Venus thing, but didn't catch the original discussion. What's it about?

gaffe apparently believes in Velikovsky, who believed that Venus is in fact a giant comet ejected from Jupiter a few thousands of years ago, and which played pinball around the inner solar system (and was responsible for the events described in Exodus and other parts of the OT) before settling down into its current orbit.

One of Velikovsky's funniest beliefs is that the oil present in the Middle East was shed by Venus on one of its passes by earth, and also that Venus provided the manna that fell from the heavens onto the Israelites. He seems to think that hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are similar.

Sagan did a takedown of Velikovsky in one of this books.

orangeatheist
01-28-2013, 01:56 PM
Sagan did a takedown of Velikovsky in one of this books.

Do you happen to remember which one that was?

W*GS
01-28-2013, 02:25 PM
Do you happen to remember which one that was?

Broca's Brain: Reflections on the Romance of Science.

Gotta re-read that someday.

Requiem
01-28-2013, 02:48 PM
This thread is like a WWF Royal Rumble. Gaff still going strong.

mhgaffney
01-28-2013, 07:06 PM
This thread is like a WWF Royal Rumble. Gaff still going strong.

I have not even begun to fight....

mhgaffney
01-28-2013, 07:09 PM
Gaffe, I have absolutely NO interest in your 9/11 claptrap. I'm one of those stupid Americans who is perfectly satisfied with the official report.

Now, VENUS, on the other hand. THAT interests me. When are you going to grow a pair of balls to address that question, huh?


Exactly. I agree with you.

You are one of many stupid ignorant Americans who have their heads a million miles up their *****

I am the avenging angel. I am here to stick a burr in your butt. I am here to kick you in the head -- to make you think.

In your case it may take a baseball bat -- to shake the cobwebs loose.

MHG

orangeatheist
01-28-2013, 08:17 PM
Exactly. I agree with you.

You are one of many stupid ignorant Americans who have their heads a million miles up their *****

I am the avenging angel. I am here to stick a burr in your butt. I am here to kick you in the head -- to make you think.

In your case it may take a baseball bat -- to shake the cobwebs loose.

MHG

So, let's do this, Avenging Angel! Since I'm already so close-minded and stupid about the 9/11 Truth, why don't you soften me up with a topic I'm already interested in? Take me to school on the issue of Venus and convince me that you really are a intellectual Juggernaut who commands serious attention. You see, you have to meet people where they ARE if you want to lead them somewhere else. Well, right now, I'm AT the Venus question. So, have at, Avenging Angel! Display that powerhouse intellect of yours regarding the history of the solar system's second planet. I'm ready to take notes!

SoCalBronco
01-28-2013, 10:07 PM
I am the avenging angel.

Wow Gaff...does your messiah complex know no bounds?




Pro tip: "Avenging angels" don't bust out Jergens in response to tragedies.

mhgaffney
01-29-2013, 04:09 PM
Wow Gaff...does your messiah complex know no bounds?
Pro tip: "Avenging angels" don't bust out Jergens in response to tragedies.

Are you a moderator, So Cal?

If so, please do your job.

W*gs who posted a thread about scamming has been doing that very thing.

Scamming this thread with his off - topic BS. It's outrageous.

When are you and Taco going to call him on it -- Either he stops scamming or he should be outa here. Simple as that.

MHG

mhgaffney
01-29-2013, 04:13 PM
So, let's do this, Avenging Angel! Since I'm already so close-minded and stupid about the 9/11 Truth, why don't you soften me up with a topic I'm already interested in? Take me to school on the issue of Venus and convince me that you really are a intellectual Juggernaut who commands serious attention. You see, you have to meet people where they ARE if you want to lead them somewhere else. Well, right now, I'm AT the Venus question. So, have at, Avenging Angel! Display that powerhouse intellect of yours regarding the history of the solar system's second planet. I'm ready to take notes!

Your country has been stolen from the people and you don't give a hoot.

This is the extent of my displeasure with you.

9/11 is key here because 9/11 was another coup by the banksters. Their power increased dramatically after 2001. They run America.

200 years ago our forefathers fought a war of independence from the Bank of London. King George was merely the puppet king. The real power then as now was with the bankers.

We gained our freedom -- and now have lost it again.

And you don't care. This is why I take you to task. You wimp.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-29-2013, 04:28 PM
Are you a moderator, So Cal?

If so, please do your job.

W*gs who posted a thread about scamming has been doing that very thing.

Scamming this thread with his off - topic BS. It's outrageous.

When are you and Taco going to call him on it -- Either he stops scamming or he should be outa here. Simple as that.

MHG

So now the leach, liar, fraud and con man wants to censor the board and remove anyone who disagrees with his lies?

Gaffney,get some ****ing help, you lost all sense of reality a long time ago.

When even troofers think your a liar and extremist, it's time to stop digging that hole. :loopy:

The only person 'scamming' here, is YOU!!

W*GS
01-29-2013, 04:56 PM
Are you a moderator, So Cal?

If so, please do your job.

W*gs who posted a thread about scamming has been doing that very thing.

Scamming this thread with his off - topic BS. It's outrageous.

When are you and Taco going to call him on it -- Either he stops scamming or he should be outa here. Simple as that.

MHG

Here I thought I was on iggy.

gaffe, you're a hypocrite.

And the original thread of mine regarding spamming (not scamming) was addressed at lonestar and his endless cut-n-paste jobs from proto-fascist circle jerk accumulator sites.

Those threads are pure spam, not intended to spark conversation or debate, just spewage.

W*GS
01-29-2013, 04:58 PM
Remember, folks: In gaffe-speak, "banksters" == "Jews".

orangeatheist
01-29-2013, 09:49 PM
Your country has been stolen from the people and you don't give a hoot.

This is the extent of my displeasure with you.

9/11 is key here because 9/11 was another coup by the banksters. Their power increased dramatically after 2001. They run America.

200 years ago our forefathers fought a war of independence from the Bank of London. King George was merely the puppet king. The real power then as now was with the bankers.

We gained our freedom -- and now have lost it again.

And you don't care. This is why I take you to task. You wimp.

MHG

Hey Gaffe; may surprise you but I don't give a hoot what you think of me personally. Your thoughts about whether I'm a wimp or just another stupid American is worth about a bucket of spit to me. I asked you a direct question and you're doing everything you can to avoid it. I told you you need to meet people where they are. You don't just stand on a street corner with a sandwich board and a megaphone and shout your brains out calling everyone who disagrees with you names. That isn't going to work. So, I told you were I stood. Now, if you have the intellectual courage to meet me there, we can begin a discussion. Who knows? The Avenging Angel may actually be able to convince this simpleton that he really does have something worthwhile to preach.

So cut the dramatics and get to business. What is your theory involving the planet Venus? Come on, Angel, let's hear it.

mhgaffney
01-30-2013, 05:24 PM
Hey Gaffe; may surprise you but I don't give a hoot what you think of me personally. Your thoughts about whether I'm a wimp or just another stupid American is worth about a bucket of spit to me. I asked you a direct question and you're doing everything you can to avoid it. I told you you need to meet people where they are. You don't just stand on a street corner with a sandwich board and a megaphone and shout your brains out calling everyone who disagrees with you names. That isn't going to work. So, I told you were I stood. Now, if you have the intellectual courage to meet me there, we can begin a discussion. Who knows? The Avenging Angel may actually be able to convince this simpleton that he really does have something worthwhile to preach.

So cut the dramatics and get to business. What is your theory involving the planet Venus? Come on, Angel, let's hear it.

You're spamming this thread. You are off topic.

This is symptomatic of your denial about 9/11.

Go start a Venus thread if like -- fine. But while you are here -- the issue is 9/11.

MHG

DenverBrit
01-30-2013, 05:55 PM
You're spamming this thread. You are off topic, idiotic theories for $200, Alex....that's what I'm about.

This is symptomatic of my denial about 9/11.

Go start a Venus thread if like -- fine. But while you are here -- the issue is my book, buy it!!

MHG

That's better.

W*GS
01-30-2013, 06:21 PM
gaffe is just a chicken****.

But all of us already knew that.

The Lone Bolt
01-30-2013, 06:56 PM
You're spamming this thread. You are off topic.

This is symptomatic of your denial about 9/11.

Go start a Venus thread if like -- fine. But while you are here -- the issue is 9/11.

MHG

If he starts a Venus thread will you pledge to respond to his question on it (in a timely fashion)?

orangeatheist
01-30-2013, 07:19 PM
If he starts a Venus thread will you pledge to respond to his question on it (in a timely fashion)?

I was going to ask the very same question. No point in me creating a thread for Mark to enlighten us if he refuses to participate. I started one before which Mark ignored so I've been burned by the Avenging Angel once already.

So, how about it, Mark? If I open a thread for you to post your theories on Venus, will you join it?

W*GS
01-31-2013, 08:08 AM
I already tried a thread about Venus, months ago.

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=104506

gaffe chickened out, as usual.

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:00 AM
You are one of many stupid ignorant Americans who have their heads a million miles up their *****

I am the avenging angel. I am here to stick a burr in your butt. I am here to kick you in the head -- to make you think.

Calling people names when you're challenged isn't going to cut it.

So are you going to cough up a free copy of your 9/11 book or what, or should I expect to find it in finer libraries everywhere? :yayaya:

nyuk nyuk
01-31-2013, 10:11 AM
Free copy? Lulz. That goes against the very fiber of Gaff's existence. Dude lives to profit from tragedy.

He's either retarded or a con artist, imo. Reminds me of when I was a teenager looking at Nostradamus books with all these scary prophecies in them. The time would pass and nothing would happen and the same con artists would simply release a new scary Nostradamus book with another set of prophecies to replace the previous ones.

I'm waiting to see if he joins the Aurora/Sandy Hook false flag/mind control crowd. Perhaps he already has, but I'm too disinterested to look into his activities.

Requiem
01-31-2013, 10:34 AM
Gaffney, I'll buy two copies of your book if you send me a hand drawn picture explaining what Venus.

DenverBrit
01-31-2013, 12:57 PM
Calling people names when you're challenged isn't going to cut it.

So are you going to cough up a free copy of your 9/11 book or what, or should I expect to find it in finer libraries everywhere? :yayaya:

It's really all Gaffney has.

He plagiarizes from other troofers, or just invents, so he really doesn't understand his own conspiracy theories. Actually, not his own, he's just repackaging old, discredited nonsense.

It's all about making a buck. It's easier than doing an honest days work, he gets to stay in his bathroom, in his shack, in the Oregon woods.

I expect to see him on the 10pm news some night.

Fedaykin
01-31-2013, 01:50 PM
Wow, gaff-o seems to be losing his grip more and more. Avenging ****ing angel? Might be time to call in the nice men in the white coats...

mhgaffney
01-31-2013, 02:32 PM
Gaffney, I'll buy two copies of your book if you send me a hand drawn picture explaining what Venus.

I will send you a private message.

Requiem
01-31-2013, 02:34 PM
I will send you a private message.

People here treat you like Judas, but you are just giving your side of the story. You travel to the beat of a different drum. I like it!!!

W*GS
01-31-2013, 02:34 PM
Wow, gaff-o seems to be losing his grip more and more. Avenging ****ing angel? Might be time to call in the nice men in the white coats...

gaffe's about ready to stomp off and sulk for a while, then come back and spew the same discredited **** he always does.

We'll hear all the same crap all over again.

W*GS
01-31-2013, 02:37 PM
I will send you a private message.

Tired of this, eh?

http://www.ellaskitchencompany.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/disaster_chicken.jpg

StugotsIII
01-31-2013, 04:05 PM
Hey mhgaffney....


Muslims flew planes into building killing thousands of people.


Get the **** over it...