Wednesday, March 17, 2010

Bits and Pieces

Remember Sean Fitzgerald, the Truther who killed his father? Not guilty by reason of insanity:

Gilbert placed Sean Fitzgerald in the custody of the State Hospital in Pueblo, where he will remain for an undetermined amount of time until doctors and the courts determine if and when he is well enough to be released.


I am pleased that the reporter got the facts right on Sean's delusions starting before his bicycle accident:

Medical witnesses testified that Fitzgerald’s mental illness surfaced at least 10 days prior to the murder, while he was living in Thailand. He began telling people that the Thai government was following him.

The symptoms began even before he suffered a concussion when the bicycle he was riding collided with a truck. Details of how that accident occurred are unclear, but a forensic psychiatrist who examined Fitzgerald raised the possibility that he might have deliberately veered into the truck.


Meanwhile a Truther proposes a "Debunker Honesty Test":

I tend to think that if an individual finds nothing strange about the case of WTC 7 (and that is just one example), they are likely either dishonest or in denial. This is how I'd summarize it:

The 47-storey WTC 7 was destroyed in a way that rivals a highly skilled controlled demolition. Could office fires (=the final official explanation) replace the time-consuming and expensive practice of controlled demolition? Just light a few fires and expect a highrise to come symmetrically to its foundations into a neat pile of rubble a few hours later? Sounds quite economical to me!


Well it is certainly quite economical. Unless you count the $1.4 BILLION in damage the collapse of WTC-7 caused to the Verizon Building. At that point you might notice that the damage caused by the destruction of WTC-7 amounted to far more than even the value of that building. And that's before we talk about the damage to other buildings, such as Fiterman Hall.

27 Comments:

At 17 March, 2010 20:36, Blogger nes718 said...

Another architect points out how jet fires alone could not bring down the buildings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iob_REw2-yw

 
At 17 March, 2010 21:12, Blogger Billman said...

HOLY CRAP, BATMAN! THAT MUST MEAN 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!

 
At 17 March, 2010 21:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pat, it's not true that there was $1.4 billion damage to the Verizon building. Verizon used the necessary repair work ads an excuse for an upgrade.

 
At 17 March, 2010 22:41, Blogger Pat said...

Oh, okay, if you say so.

 
At 18 March, 2010 01:34, Anonymous Sword of Truth said...

The actual cost of destroying a building the way WTC7 was destroyed are even more than what Pat has calculated.

You'd first need to spend a billion dollars or so building a 1300 foot building across the street and then spend another 130 million dollars for a jet plane full of fuel to know the the 1300 footer over into the building being destroyed.

Where the hell is the profit margin in any of that?

 
At 18 March, 2010 05:34, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"nes718 said...
Another architect points out how jet fires alone could not bring down the buildings!"

Wellllll, there's always the fact that fucking 400,000 pound hijacked airliner ran into the tower at over 600 MPH.

The energy release from that little incident was the equivalent of a small atomic bomb.

Fucking moron.

 
At 18 March, 2010 07:02, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Pat, it's not true that there was $1.4 billion damage to the Verizon building. Verizon used the necessary repair work ads an excuse for an upgrade.

PETGOAT IS BAAAAACK!

I missed you so much, Brian. I thought you had left us permanently this time. But you're right, those eeeevil scheming Verizon executives were probably cheering as WTC 7 collapsed, knowing that they had helped rig it for demolition, so it would come down and damage their headquarters, so they could pull the wool over the eyes of their shareholders and RENOVATE THE BUILDING! MU-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

Enron had nothing on those Verizon guys.

 
At 18 March, 2010 08:52, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Nes718', stop talking shit. This 'debate' about WTC7 is dead and buried. Deal with it:

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250&ei=N0yiS9m2Jsag-AabmIWdDQ&q=Conspiracy+files+WTC7&hl=en#

 
At 18 March, 2010 08:57, Anonymous Anonymous said...

LL,767s are not capable of 600 mph speeds. Max speed is 568 mph, and that's at 35,000 feet. You don't know what you're talking about.

The effect of the plane hitting the building was, according to Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, "like a bullet hitting a tree".

Also, the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 traveling at 60 mph. Since 707s have four engines and a 767 has only two, the 707 has twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns.

 
At 18 March, 2010 09:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Idiot scribbles, "...The effect of the plane hitting the building was, according to Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, 'like a bullet hitting a tree'. "

Bullshit!

Source: YouTube: Scientists simulate jet colliding with World Trade Center.

 
At 18 March, 2010 09:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Idiot prevaricates, "...Also, the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 traveling at 60 mph. Since 707s have four engines and a 767 has only two, the 707 has twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns."

UC Berkeley Engineer, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D., Structures, University of Michigan; M.S.E., Structures, University of Michigan; M.S., Civil Engineering, Tehran Polytechnic Institute; P.E. writes, "...If the World Trade Center towers had been built in a more conventional way and in strict accordance with New York City building codes — from which they were exempt because they were built under the auspices of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — the buildings probably would not have collapsed, and thousands of lives might have been saved...This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced...The design contains at least 10 unusual elements...For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other...That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design...in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick...Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

John T. O'Hagan (1925–1991), 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York was critical of the WTC design and safety practices. Wikipedia writes, "...He earned a reputation as a brilliant fire officer and a tough manager, despite his initial lack of knowledge of how to work the levers of city government. Even Chief O'Hagan, commanding a leader as he was, could not thwart a 1968 revision of the building code, drafted in large part by the real estate industry, that he thought thinned the margin of fire safety...Still, Chief O'Hagan did not give up. He returned in 1973 with safety measures added to the code. But they did not apply to the World Trade Center, which, being owned by another government agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was exempt from city codes — and fire inspections."

Ever heard of an investigative journalist named, Jim Scanlon? He contributed to the Marin County Postal Coast, and was widely respected in California.

Scanlon wrote in August 2003, "...The Skyscraper Safety Campaign, composed of parents of families of firefighters and victims of the World Trade Center catastrophe, are actively organizing and campaigning to insure that whatever is built at the site is built strictly according to the City's new international building codes. The New York/New Jersey Port Authority, which owns the site, wasn't and isn't, strictly speaking, required to abide by the City's building codes. The Port Authority is resisting formal commitment to these rules but has said it will obey them voluntarily.

"The reader may remember that the materials and the novel structure of the Two Towers were never subjected to rigorous testing, that they were built without sprinkler systems (or sewage treatment) and their structural steel supports were inadequately fireproofed by a subcontractor with Mafia connections. (The contractor was shot to death during litigation in the early 1990s and his body dumped in the parking lot beneath the Towers.)"


The fact is that those buildings were not built to withstand an impact with an airliner. This is the 911 "truth" movement's big lie and number 1 straw man argument.

 
At 18 March, 2010 09:38, Blogger Triterope said...

I tend to think that if an individual finds nothing strange about the case of WTC 7 (and that is just one example), they are likely either dishonest or in denial.

"If you don't agree with us, you're dishonest or in denial." How typical.

 
At 18 March, 2010 10:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I have a question for the "9/11 truth movement": Who is Leslie Robertson, and why isn't he a member of 911 "truth"?

Leslie Earl Robertson was the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center Towers. Mr. Robertson was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features.

The World Trade Center Towers were Leslie Robertson's crowning achievement--he loved those buildings.

Leslie Robertson, moreover, watched in horror from his lower Manhattan office as the towers collapsed on that fateful day.

That said, if the buildings were indeed demolished by controlled demolition, wouldn't the chief structural engineer be the FIRST member (if not the leader) of the 911 "truth" movement?

Nevertheless, he remains a vocal critic of the 911 "truth" movement.

Source: YouTube: LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT1.

Source: YouTube: LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT2.

Source: YouTube: LESLIE ROBERTSON AND STEVEN JONES DEBATE PT3.


So tell me, why has Leslie Robertson, the buildings chief structural engineer, remained a vocal critic of 911 "truth"?


'9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous' - Al Qaeda.

The Biggest Conspiracy Of The Century.

9/11 TOOTH! 9/11 TOOTH! 9/11 TOOTH!

 
At 18 March, 2010 11:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" Anonymous said...
LL,767s are not capable of 600 mph speeds. Max speed is 568 mph, and that's at 35,000 feet. You don't know what you're talking about."

HOLY FUCK I WAS OFF BY 40 MPH!!!!!!!

INSIDE JOBBY JOB!!!!!!!!

You are well and truly a moron, boron.

"The effect of the plane hitting the building was, according to Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, "like a bullet hitting a tree". "

Then, like you, Dr. Thomas Eagar (whoever the fuck HE is) is a moron just like you, boron.

"Also, the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 traveling at 60 mph."

What, the 707 was going to taxi into the lobby?

You are well and truly a moron, boron.



"Since 707s have four engines and a 767 has only two, the 707 has twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns."


Ummmm......

[sits blinking at computer screen at the abysmal, bottomless, plumbless, unfathomable depths of utter ignorance displayed by that statement]


ok, if you say so, boron.

 
At 18 March, 2010 11:04, Anonymous John E. Smoke said...

My motorcycle has a smaller engine than a car, which means if I crash into some pedestrian, there's a smaller chance that they'll die of their injuries. It's science bitches. Truther science (a.k.a batshit insanery).

 
At 18 March, 2010 11:08, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Yeah, John but you don't have FOUR engines!!!!!!

 
At 18 March, 2010 15:01, Anonymous Pat shits his Depends said...

"One word: Al Franken"
-Lazarus Long.

All you need to know about Lazarus, folks. Less than nothing to see here.

 
At 18 March, 2010 15:02, Anonymous Pat shits his Depends said...

"One word: Al Franken"
-Lazarus Long.

All you need to know about Lazarus, folks. Less than nothing to see here.

 
At 18 March, 2010 17:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Pat shits his Depends said...
"One word: Al Franken"
-Lazarus Long.

All you need to know about Lazarus, folks. Less than nothing to see here."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAA!!!!!!

OH HOLY FUCK, ASSHOLIO IS SO FUCKING STOOOOOPID HE DOESN'T GET IT!!!!

OH, SWEET JEEBUS ON A POGO STICK!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

BBBBWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!!!!!

Oh, shit, I think I just hurt myself laughing at the retard.

HAHGAHAHAHAHAAGGAAAA!!!eleventy!!!!

Thank you, assholio, I was feeling kinda depressed and you are just the short-bus riding, window licking moron I needed to cheer me up.

Seriously.

EVEN BETTER, HE POSTED IT TWICE!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

Oh you retard, you fucking moron, don't ever change, always stay what you are: a heaping bowl of Fail, drowned in Weak sauce.

 
At 18 March, 2010 19:09, Anonymous New Yorker said...

LL,767s are not capable of 600 mph speeds. Max speed is 568 mph, and that's at 35,000 feet. You don't know what you're talking about.

False. Stop lying, Petgoat.

The effect of the plane hitting the building was, according to Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, "like a bullet hitting a tree".

False. Stop lying, Petgoat.

Also, the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 traveling at 60 mph. Since 707s have four engines and a 767 has only two, the 707 has twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns.

Please take a middle school-level physics course, and then see a psychiatrist, Petgoat. It's unbelievable how ignorant you are sometimes.

 
At 19 March, 2010 07:59, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Also, the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 traveling at 60 mph. Since 707s have four engines and a 767 has only two, the 707 has twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns."

What an idiot, as if the engines alone were the only thing capable of inflicting damage. The greatest damage came for all that fuel not only from fire but the mass of that much fluid traveling at 450MPH is incredible. These aircraft carried up to 23980 gallons!

So let see 23000 gallons going 450 plus hits building bending steel structure and breaking attachment points. OH and starting truly massive fires.

The test of the 707's was done purely with calculations alone and And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.

Of course the building did survive the impacts but not the fires.

 
At 19 March, 2010 08:04, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"So tell me, why has Leslie Robertson, the buildings chief structural engineer, remained a vocal critic of 911 "truth"?"

Well because he unlike Richard Gage is an experts in tall structure engineering.

And if anyone would want to blame the failures of the buildings structure on an deliberate controlled demolition it would be the man who designed the building. But he knows better.

 
At 19 March, 2010 08:27, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The effect of the plane hitting the building was, according to Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT, "like a bullet hitting a tree".

The "bullet" the hit the towers were almost as wide as the tower (tree). That would be one big bullet. And as far as I know trees are not hollow like the towers. I could lecture you on the scale issue again but that is apparently way over your head.

If I were going to make an analogy I would say imagine firing a gallon of gas at a tree at high speed. It's going to do some damage.

 
At 19 March, 2010 20:14, Anonymous New Yorker said...

Also, the building was designed to take a hit from a 707 traveling at 60 mph. Since 707s have four engines and a 767 has only two, the 707 has twice the chance to inflict damage on the core columns.

A few more things, Brian. I built a model airplane out of wood and cloth that has 8 engines. It's about 4 feet wide. It would inflict much greater damage than a 747 impacting the towers because engines is all that matters, right?

Also, a 707 traveling at 60 mph? What, did they simulate a 707 taxiing along the west side highway crashing into the base of the towers? I don't know too many jetliners that remain airborne at 60 mph.

 
At 21 March, 2010 14:29, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Guitarbill: "I have a question for the "9/11 truth movement": Who is Leslie Robertson, and why isn't he a member of 911 "truth"?

Leslie Earl Robertson was the chief structural engineer of the World Trade Center Towers."

Me: Incorrect. Robertson was an assistant to lead engineer John Skilling. What was the name of the firm?

GuitarBill: "That said, if the buildings were indeed demolished by controlled demolition, wouldn't the chief structural engineer be the FIRST member (if not the leader) of the 911 "truth" movement?"

Me: Perhaps because he doesn't believe it. Perhaps he's right. Who knows. He was involved in a secret retrofit of the Citibank tower, though.

The Secret Retrofit of the Citibank Tower in 1978

...Which in turns makes Robertson's straw man arguments against Jones about a "rucksack with explosives" look especially disingenuous.

New Yorker: "I built a model airplane out of wood and cloth that has 8 engines. It's about 4 feet wide. It would inflict much greater damage than a 747 impacting the towers because engines is all that matters, right?"

Me: Obviously a model plane and a commercial aircraft aren't comparable in any way. Forget 747, by the way, the WTC was designed with a 707 in mind. A 707 and a 767 are comparable, however, although they have some differences in mass, fuel capacity and cruise speed. And of course, a 707 does have four engines instead of two, and the engines do represent a big danger to the core columns. A 707 crashing into the WTC would probably have caused more core damage. Given what happened on 9/11, it seems as though Skilling and associates were simply wrong in their prediction that the WTC could withstand a 707 crashing into it. That's the only possibility except for something more sinister, such as thermitic materials that assisted in the demise of the building in some yet undetermined way. I'm keeping an open mind either way.

 
At 21 March, 2010 17:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous scribbles, "...Me: Incorrect. Robertson was an assistant to lead engineer John Skilling. What was the name of the firm?"

Wikipedia writes, "...Leslie Earl Robertson (born 1928) was one of the chief engineers of the World Trade Center in New York, which was destroyed in the September 11, 2001 attacks and was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features. He has since been structural engineer on numerous other projects, including the Shanghai World Financial Center and the Bank of China Tower in Hong Kong...As an 'up-and-coming engineer', Robertson was contracted by Worthington, Skilling, Helle, and Jackson (WSHJ) to participate in the design of the World Trade Center Twin Towers (1966-1971), his first high rise construction. In 1973 Robertson was made a partner and SWMB was renamed Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson. The firm split its operations in 1982 with Robertson renaming the East Coast office Leslie E. Robertson Associates R.L.L.P."

Source: Wikipedia: Leslie E. Robertson.

No, Robertson was "one of the chief engineers of the World Trade Center in New York", who was responsible for the design of the buildings' sway-reduction features. Thus Robertson's name appears on the blueprints, which makes him the engineer of record.

So what's your point, pedantic one?

Anonymous whines, "...Me: Perhaps because he doesn't believe it. Perhaps he's right. Who knows. He was involved in a secret retrofit of the Citibank tower, though."

And that proves what, besides the fact that you're an idiot?

 
At 21 March, 2010 19:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill: "And that proves what, besides the fact that you're an idiot?"

It proves that Leslie Robertson is deliberately understating the possibility of making modifications to a high-riser with the help and permission of security without informing the tenants about the nature of such modifications, since Robertson himself was involved in such an operation.

Apart from that, thanks for the flattering epithet. Is it that difficult to focus on the subject matter?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home