Thursday, March 04, 2010

Well, There's Another Semester Down The Drain

A college kid tells us of his three-month stint working for Gage's gaggle:

The most interesting thing about being a journalist is being able to watch the stories you cover develop and grow. The fall semester of my junior year, I took a semester off from school to cover a story that I could not afford to miss. I had been researching the events of September 11, 2001 and felt compelled to take the time to interview eye witnesses, emergency first responders, firefighters, the families of the victims and professionals in various fields to discover for myself the true nature of events that unfolded that day.


As you can probably guess, he did not discover that the 9-11 Truthers are a collection of charlatans, con-men and crackpots. He started verifying petition signatures for Box Boy, and shows a distinct lack of critical thinking:

AE911Truth was a major presence during the revisionary periods of the various reports. Its successful petitioning efforts helped lead to the discovery that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed for a period of over 2.5 seconds. Not noted in NIST's revision was the clear implication that this feat defies the laws of physics if a gravitational collapse did indeed occur.


Yeah, because freefall "speed" (really acceleration) has nothing to do with gravity. Other than the fact that it's the acceleration due to gravity.

We get more of the doltish "misprision of treason" crap:

While there are many lingering (and discomforting) questions surrounding the events of 9/11, Gage and AE911Truth contend that the science behind the collapses is not one of them. In an interview with the Washington Times on February 23, Gage closed with strong words: “Government officials will be notified that ‘Misprision of Treason,’ U.S. Code 18 (Sec. 2382), is a serious federal offense, which requires those with evidence of treason to act,” Gage said. “The implications are enormous and may have profound impact on the forthcoming Khalid Shaikh Mohammed trial.”

62 Comments:

At 04 March, 2010 11:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gabriel Sukenik scribbles, "...AE911Truth was a major presence during the revisionary periods of the various reports. Its successful petitioning efforts helped lead to the discovery that WTC 7 fell at free-fall speed for a period of over 2.5 seconds. Not noted in NIST's revision was the clear implication that this feat defies the laws of physics if a gravitational collapse did indeed occur."

Well, if nothing else, he learned to parrot Box Boy.

For example, the charlatan Richard Gage scribbles, "...NIST were forced to reverse themselves in their Final Report and acknowledged 2.25 seconds of absolute free-fall. Yet they did not reconsider how this was compatible with their analysis. A network of heavy steel girders had to be forcibly removed suddenly across the width of the building for eight floors. However, a free-falling object cannot exert force on anything in its path without slowing its own fall, so the structural support had to be removed by something else—explosives. The free-fall of Building 7 is a smoking gun."

Source: worldarchitecturenews: WorldArchitectureNews: Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas....

Shyam Sunder replies, "...Our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building [column 79 -ed] , had it occurred , we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels, about a half mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or witnesses that we have talked to."

The Db level bears repeating: "...120 to 130 decibels."

That's LOUD, folks. Ear-splitting.

Now, I've watched many videos of the collapse of WTC 7, and I've never heard a sound ("explosion") that approaches that amplitude.

Source: YouTube: Engineering Disasters WTC 7 Collapse Explanation..

Do hear "explosions"?

So who do you believe: Box Boy or Shyam Sunder?

 
At 04 March, 2010 11:54, Blogger Triterope said...

"Reporters are faced with the daily choice of painstakingly researching stories or writing whatever people tell them. Both approaches pay the same." -- Scott Adams

 
At 04 March, 2010 11:56, Anonymous Curley is PAThetic said...

Pat fails miserably again, trumpeting his incompetence while attempting to sound informed.

Sure, folks, there's nothing fishy about acceleration with zero resistance. Pat's there to tell us so! Thanks, Pat! But now can you explain why Sunder said this wasn't possible 'anywhere on planet, not just at ground zero'?

 
At 04 March, 2010 11:59, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"so the structural support had to be removed by something else."

Yes, and in the case of WTC7 that something was fire. Fire cause a weakening of the internal structure, which eventually collapsed leaving little to support the north face of the building. The north face fell in about 6 seconds, BUT the actual total collapse time was more than twice that if you count the internal structure and the much damaged south face. Something you will never see the truther clowns show, you only see the 6 second north face collapse as if that was the total collapse of the building.

It's funny to hear these idiots ponder the deep meaning of free fall when they most likely never heard of the concept before drinking the 9/11 conspiracy theory Kool-Aid. Ask them to give an explanation of the concept, who developed the idea and how he verified his hypothesis and all you get is the glassy eyed stare of a moron. To them it's a buzz word and nothing more.

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:03, Blogger Billman said...

I would love to see Arhoolie's response to that... though, I would love to see arhoolie ever give a direct response to any question without changing the subject. But troofers are incapable of such things.

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:04, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Sure, folks, there's nothing fishy about acceleration with zero resistance. Pat's there to tell us so!"

Well no, there is nothing fishy because we are smarter than you and understand the concept of free fall.

But by all means, show us you do understand free fall by explaining who developed the idea and how he verified his observations.

By now the idiot is frantically Googling free fall because he doesn't know. But maybe he will learn something in the process.

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I would love to see Arhoolie's response to that...

I think you would have to get him a book on par with the "Books For Idiots" series. A "Physics for Truthers" book, complete with simple cartoons for the less than intelligent.

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:11, Blogger Billman said...

A troofer like asshoolio do research? Nah, he's probably scouring the PrisonPlanet Debunker Response checklist for some goal changing thing to bring up, and an insult for you that he has to translate into Retard-ese and remove any hints at good grammar or punctuation, first.

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:30, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You have to remember thee guys have spent their entire lifetime being beat down by people smarter then them, and that is just about everyone. Actual learning or deep understanding is far to hard for them so they embrace something that requires no intelligence or knowledge, conspiracy theories only require you to memorize the talking points and the to parrot certain buzz words some of them pure made up ideas like "pull it".

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You'll forgive me. My first post is missing a hyperlink. I forgot to include the following interview:

Source: YouTube: Interview: Dr. Shyam Sunder.

Sorry. My bad.

 
At 04 March, 2010 12:55, Anonymous Baby Steps, Kids said...

Teh Stupid is strong today...

PAT: Why don't you tell us why Shyam Sunder said that free-fall acceleration would be IMPOSSIBLE for building 7?

After explaining that, why don't you tell us how WTC 7 achieved free-fall acceleration?

Why do you people find this so difficult?

 
At 04 March, 2010 13:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Baby diaper scribbles, "...PAT: Why don't you tell us why Shyam Sunder said that free-fall acceleration would be IMPOSSIBLE for building 7?"

Source, please.

 
At 04 March, 2010 13:20, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

It's probably for the best that I didn't run into this lil' shitdick when I was in Rochester.

Btw, one website has been defeated: riseuprochester.org

Remember that one?

Those anti-Jew infowarstards gave up.

 
At 04 March, 2010 13:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Have a look at the following:

Source: YouTube: WTC 7 NIST Collapse Video.

"...Our analysis shows that even the smallest explosive charge that was capable of bringing down the critical column in the building [column 79 -ed] , had it occurred , we would have seen sound levels of 120 to 130 decibels, about a half mile away. That would have been an incredibly loud sound, and that sound was not picked up by any of the videos or witnesses that we have talked to." -- Shyam Sunder

 
At 04 March, 2010 13:38, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

uestion: do the twoooofer™ fucktards ever come up with something original, something that hasn't been debunked already by sane people?

 
At 04 March, 2010 13:48, Anonymous Pat Cowardly said...

Source, please.
-GuitarBill

The source is very simple research, Bill. Ask Pat, whose silence here is deafening, as you can see.

...and when you believe Sunder's 'analysis' that explosives HAD to register at 120-130 db, which explosives was he talking about, specifically? Do all explosives make the same level of noise? Did no one report explosions at the scene? Do you think critically in an unbiased way, or are you swayed by credulous idiots like Pat and James?

 
At 04 March, 2010 13:59, Anonymous OMGFREEFALLSPEED said...

Is this dumb-ass really still rambling on about free-fall acceleration in WTC7 and Shyam Sunder? Is that the only straw truther's have left to grab?
Clearly Pat is suppressing evidence

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The troofer™ scribbles, "...The source is very simple research, Bill. Ask Pat, whose silence here is deafening, as you can see."

Thanks for 100% fact-free non-answer.

Let's try again, shall we troofer™ ?

I want the source for your "Shyam Sunder said that free-fall acceleration would be IMPOSSIBLE"
for building 7" assertion.

It's simple really. I want to read Sunder's alleged statement in context, not through the filter of your paraphrasing.

Why?

I don't trust troofers™ to tell the truth--ever.

Put up, or shut up.

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The troofer™ 'tard whines, "......and when you believe Sunder's 'analysis' that explosives HAD to register at 120-130 db, which explosives was he talking about, specifically? Do all explosives make the same level of noise?"

Yeah, tell us about your super nanothermite "explosives" (never mind that "nanothermite" is an incendiary, not an explosive), which just happen to be silent.

Silent explosives--I'm impressed.

Idiot.

Does it hurt when try to think, troofer™?

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:07, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Bilbo,since your butt is still so sore from having it kicked all over the place,I understand your anger.Hit the beach and get some salt air because your whine is really showing.And the there's the superbad Doctor Detroit and his ridiculous "I'm smarter than you" blarney.Stoned,no doubt.Repeat after me,DogBoy:"Hundreds of earwitnesses AT THE EVENTS That DAY heard big explosions".It's only a cult mentality that could just dismiss that out of hand.And you do it in the most ham-fisted and obvious way.

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:09, Anonymous Gnat Birdley said...

2 SECONDS OF FREEFAW!!!1!

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:12, Anonymous Curley the Craven said...

"Put up, or shut up" -Guitar Bill

Wow, you're tough.

Sunder not only said it was impossible, but he said it didn't even happen at WTC 7...until he had to admit that it did. It was in this Curley-esque scholarly statement, which you couldn't even expend 3 clicks of effort to find for yourself, "researcher":

"Well...um...the...first of all gravity...um...gravity is the loading function that applies to the structure ...um ...at...um ...applies....to every body...every...uh...on...all bodies on...ah...on...um... this particular...on this planet not just...um...uh...in ground zero...um...the...uh...the analysis shows a difference in time between a free fall time, a free fall time would be an object that has no...uh... structural components below it. And if you look at the analysis of the video it shows that the time it takes for the...17...uh...for the roof line of the video to collapse down the 17 floors that you can actually see in the video below which you can't see anything in the video is about...uh... 3.9 seconds. What the analysis shows...and...uh...the structural analysis shows, the collapse analysis shows that same time that it took for the structural model to come down from the roof line all the way for those 17 floors to disappear is...um... 5.4 seconds. It's...uh..., about one point...uh...five seconds or roughly 40% more time for that free fall to happen. And that is not at all unusual because there was structural resistance that was provided in this particular case. And you had...you had a sequence of structural failures that had to take place and everything was not instantaneous."

No more hiding Bill, put up your analysis, or shut up and be a Pat.

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:14, Blogger Pat said...

What part of "unsupported over 8 floors" don't you "Truthers" understand? And the old "Truth" bit used to be freefall for the entire collapse; whatever happened to that nonsense?

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arsehoolie whines, "...Bilbo,since your butt is still so sore from having it kicked all over the place,I understand your anger."

Gosh Arseholie, I don't see one word from you, or anyone else, that challenges my post at the top of this thread. Come on, truther scum, give it a try--you lame brained scat muncher.

When will you learn, Arseholie, that your opinion, speculation and wild-eyed conspiracy theories are NOT evidence?

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Wow, you're tough."

I want a hyperlink to the source, asshole.

How many times must I tell you--you illiterate fucktard--I don't trust you.

Got it, Jackass?

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:25, Blogger Billman said...

When did this imaginary "butt kicking" happen, Assfaceyio? Cause I don't seem to recall anybody but you being made to look like a little bitch... I'm certainly not kept awake at night by anything you moron troofers have ever posted.

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:31, Anonymous Pas Scholarly said...

What part of "unsupported over 8 floors" don't you "Truthers" understand? And the old "Truth" bit used to be freefall for the entire collapse; whatever happened to that nonsense? -Pat Cowardly

I'm asking you specific questions, Pat, and you're babbling about 'Truther bits' that are immaterial (shocker!). Now you've turned from saying 'the column failed over 8 floors' to the more weasel-y, vague "unsupported over 8 floors", as if that applied to all of the columns.

Which is it, Pat? Did failure of one column cause all 83 columns lose their resistance within a fraction of a second, and if so, where does the NIST report corroborate your analysis? You didn't even attempt to address why Sunder would insist GA was not possible, and then reverse course completely when the report came out. Please be specific, Pat, or everyone will continue to see the total failure of your analysis.

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:38, Blogger nico said...

Nico Haupt [media scientist and comedian] March 4 at 5:32pm
Jim Fetzer and Nico Haupt [we live in public etc... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3426316/] http://ewing2001.blip.tv/file/3273847/ one-way communication only, 2 way-mp3 is up on friday on revere radio Both Way communication- mp3 will be available on friday, right after the show on http://www.revereradionetwork.com/Friday.html +++ and here is my other, more entertaining new videomashup at : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhZbRIWW7z0 'Nico Endhol' presents: Inside the Spectacle ["Multi-Matrix WLIP/WORLD ON THE WIRE-Soundcloud-Tribute NoiseStep Mashlivism mc nicomedy2010 ReMixx"] ;

 
At 04 March, 2010 14:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squidly scribbles, "...Which is it, Pat? Did failure of one column cause all 83 columns lose their resistance within a fraction of a second..."

That sentence alone proves that you know absolutely nothing about the design of WTC 7.

Go read the NIST on WTC 7, and come back when you have a clue, trooftard.

Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

 
At 04 March, 2010 15:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squidly scribbles, "...No more hiding Bill, put up your analysis, or shut up and be a Pat."

I'm not hiding, jackass. In fact, I've written on this subject on several occasions, as you're about to discover.

WTC 7 didn't fall at free-fall speed, as the 911 deniers claim. The building fell in 18 seconds, as I'll prove below. The collapse ensued when the east penthouse fell in on the building, and the parapet wall did not begin to fall for at least another 8 seconds. This observation is fully supported by the NIST's computer simulations, which confirm their progressive collapse hypothesis.

Source: YouTube: WTC 7 Collapse Chandler Debunked Pt 1.

Source: YouTube: WTC7 Collapse Chandler Debunked pt 2.

From the NIST Report on WTC 7 we find the following:

"...For discussion purposes, three stages were defined, as denoted in figure 3-15:

"[1] In stage 1, the descent was slow and less than that of gravity. This stage corresponds to the initial buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the North face. By 1.75 sec. the North face had descended approximately 2.2 meters (7 feet).

"[2] 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. The free fall drop continued for approximately 8 stories or 32.0 meters (105 feet), the distance traveled between times t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds.

"[3] In stage 3, the acceleration decreased somewhat as the upper portion of the North face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below. Between 4.0s and 5.4s, the North face corner fell an additional 39.6 meters (130 feet).

"As noted above, the collapse time was approximately 40 percent longer than that of free fall for the first 18 stories of descent. The detailed analysis shows that this increase in time is due primarily to stage 1. The 3 stages of collapse progression described above are consistent with the results of the global collapse analysis discussed in Chapter 12 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9."


Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.


WTC 7 was also uniquely designed in that its entire upper section, above the 7th floor, was supported by three main trusses. Exposed to fire for seven hours and critically weakened, Truss1--in the Northeast corner--failed at 5:20 PM. This initial collapse progressed vertically all the way to the roof via column 79a, as evidenced by the collapse of the East Penthouse.

Once column 79a failed, the weight supported by that column WAS REDISTRIBUTED TO THE REMAINING TWO COLUMNS, which were also weakened by fire.

At this point, the building was no longer able to support the redistributed weight, the two remaining trusses gave way approximately 8 second later, which caused the failure of the remaining two columns, resulting in the complete collapse of the building.

Any questions, squidly?

 
At 04 March, 2010 15:15, Anonymous Curley the Incompetent said...

You're welcome to dazzle us with your relevant, incisive analysis anytime, Pat, particularly on the evolution of Sunder's analysis.

Whenever you're ready.

 
At 04 March, 2010 16:19, Anonymous U.S. District Court • Southern District of New York said...

Whenever you're ready.

 
At 04 March, 2010 16:38, Anonymous Russia Today said...

Does anyone know an insane person we can interview?

 
At 04 March, 2010 16:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Doctor Detroit and his ridiculous "I'm smarter than you"

Well that is a given, I am smarter than you. I know what free fall means. Being a knowledgeable person it is not just a word I saw on a conspiracy theorist site as it is with you.

I understand quite well there are low born people like you who are inferior to the rest of the world in the thinking department, you will buy the conspiracy theorist lies and play the fool for the rest of us to laugh at. We need people like you to do the shit jobs, who would wash the dishes, mop the floors if not for your type?

Basically, leave the thinking up to people who are qualified to do so.

 
At 04 March, 2010 17:37, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

Scooter Boyle may be gone but his batshitcrazy friends stuck around:

http://spookyweather.blogspot.com/

Read the 3/5/10 post - CLASSIC!


Where's that douchebag Emory that use to spew on here?

http://news.yahoo.com/video/world-15749633/taliban-operations-center-captured-18438038

Old Roid must be sleeping off one major hangover today!

 
At 04 March, 2010 18:08, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Like most twoofers, this "reporter" was probably a conspiratoid before he hopped on the twoof bandwagon. Dick Gage, et al merely give him "evidence" to support what he wants to believe anyway. The biggest lie in the twoofer vernacular is "...I used to believe the official story until the science convinced me otherwise..."

 
At 04 March, 2010 18:40, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

About this Pentagon shooter - looks amateur hour to the extreme, which makes me think troofer.

I'm guessing one of Rudkowski's crew. If I'm wrong, people will forget. If I'm right, there's a new soothsayer in town.

 
At 04 March, 2010 22:22, Anonymous paul w said...

OT,again.

The Aussie truthers are getting excited by the February issue of the American Behavioral Scientist, as it has published 'papers' about 9-11.

And, whom are the 'papers' from?

"The papers extensively quote the independent academic researchers who have been studying the 9/11 problem for years, including Dr. David Ray Griffin; Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Steven Jones, Chemist Kevin Ryan, and the rest of the team that studied nanothermite in the World Trade Center dust; and Dr. Peter Dale Scott, Dr. Michel Chossudovsky, Barrie Zwicker, Dr. Nafeez Ahmed, and The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein."
http://www.911oz.com/

You do understand, this will never end?

 
At 04 March, 2010 22:37, Anonymous Roman Craig said...

There were signs, however, that Bedell may have harbored resentment for the military and had doubts about the facts behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

In an Internet posting, a user by the name JPatrickBedell wrote that he was "determined to see that justice is served" in the death of Marine Col. James Sabow, who was found dead in the back yard of his California home in 1991. The death was ruled a suicide but the case has long been the source of theories of a coverup.

The user named JPatrickBedell wrote the Sabow case was "a step toward establishing the truth of events such as the September 11 demolitions."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_pentagon_metro_shooting

Fucking more batshitcrazy troofers!

Didn't some asshole try to rip on Pat a week or so ago who was a big fan of the Sabow BS story?

 
At 04 March, 2010 23:55, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

HOLY CCRAP GUYS: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,588074,00.html

 
At 04 March, 2010 23:57, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

my bad, didnt read that far down. Anyway, its some effed up shit!

 
At 05 March, 2010 05:26, Anonymous Bikerman said...

They plainly said on my local news show that the fuknut who shot at the Pentagon was a 911 twoofer. No surprise.

http://www.wjla.com/news/stories/0310/712887.html

 
At 05 March, 2010 05:43, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Wow, a 9/11 nutcase shooter.

What a sutprise.

Here's more:

http://patterico.com/2010/03/04/pentagon-shooter-anti-bush-nut-case-and-911-truther/

 
At 05 March, 2010 05:50, Blogger 奇奇怪怪 said...

請繼續發表好文!加油加油加油!........................................

 
At 05 March, 2010 06:00, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

Can't believe that I'm relying on prison planet for info, but here you go:

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=162267.0

Towards the end you can see what is probably his wikipedia account information, which has apparently been deleted.

Federal Reserve conspiracy? Check
Mises? Check
Science mixing? Check
DARPA? Check
A love for weed? Check
Extreme narcissism? Check
911 trooferness? Check

 
At 05 March, 2010 06:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Kinda OT, but this is for all the anti-semitic truther clowns:

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/the_way_we_live/article7039572.ece

A heroic eyewitness to the Holocaust.

 
At 05 March, 2010 06:35, Anonymous Pathos Ignoramous said...

Guitar Imbecile: you, Pat, and other failures will do anything to avoid addressing the critical 2+ seconds. Couching it as a small part of the total collapse is just another dodge. You're claiming that floors 7 through 47 rested on 3 columns. Who built it? Baba Yaga? Pat Curley? Where can I find a diagram of these 3 super-columns, and why would they build a reinforced emergency command center there? Or were you just trying to mislead by equating trusses with columns in your post? Oooh...I see. Point to where NIST explains how nothing was being flexed, sagged, or crushed for over 2 seconds. And seriously: alienentity? Shart Roberts tried the same thing: claiming that alienentity actually addresses, explains, or 'debunks' anything. Except that he doesn't, and you can't point to anything in his video, or in NIST's models, that justify gravity-driven disappearance of all resistance for 32 meters. You know why, and so do Pat and James. None of you is very good at addressing the specifics of the case, and you put up the same silly arguments every time.

 
At 05 March, 2010 07:05, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Pathos Ignoramous said...
Guitar Imbecile: you, Pat, and other failures will do anything to avoid addressing the critical 2+ seconds"

Nobody cares, Krazee.

 
At 05 March, 2010 07:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Crazee whines, "...You're claiming that floors 7 through 47 rested on 3 columns. Who built it? Baba Yaga? Pat Curley? Where can I find a diagram of these 3 super-columns..."

Are you calling me a liar, Crazee?

That's not a good idea, shit-for-brains.

Here's your answer, idiot:

Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

 
At 05 March, 2010 08:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Crazee whines, "...You're claiming that floors 7 through 47 rested on 3 columns. Who built it?"

Pay attention, Crazee.

The engineer of record is Irwin G. Cantor P.C., Structural Engineer.

Read the NIST Report, stupid.

Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

 
At 05 March, 2010 08:46, Anonymous AnotherSLCfail said...

How about a simple quote or a page number, coward? You know you have nothing, and posting the same link doesn't help you at all. You can't show how GA was reached, and neither does the report or the simulations. You can't even point to where Alienentity actually refuted any of these questions, so you ran away from that argument. You've revealed your lack of understanding, and it's pathetic with a capital "PAT".

 
At 05 March, 2010 09:11, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

Cmon Man" A love for weed? Check
"

Dont blame the weed, it doesnt make people do shit like this.

 
At 05 March, 2010 09:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Krazee whines, "...You can't show how GA was reached, and neither does the report or the simulations. You can't even point to where Alienentity actually refuted any of these questions."

On the contrary, shit-for-brains.

Did you read my post? How do you survive with fifth grade-level reading comprehension skills, Krazee?

It's not my job to hold your hand and point out every jot and tittle in the NIST Report at your request. Clearly, you've never read the report; thus, you need to get busy, Krazee, because until you've read the NIST Report, you're just another uninformed neo-fascist liar for "9/11 truth".

Get to work, Krazee.

Source: NIST: NIST NCSTAR 1A: Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7.

PS. And since when are your idiotic questions (no matter how many times they've been answered) evidence?

I want you to answer the question: Since when are questions evidence, Krazee?

 
At 05 March, 2010 10:04, Anonymous Pat is a Coward said...

You've hit rock bottom, Bill. 'Debunkers' always get this far, and then fizzle like PAThetic idiots. Gravitational Acceleration means no energy was used to deform anything for 105 feet of drop, and NIST's models sag and deform every which way with A.) no depiction free-fall acceleration whatsoever, and B.) no explanation for the free-fall they say was reached. This agonizes you, Pat, Alienentity, and the other dolts. It's simple physics, son, and despite your insults & protests, you're either desperately failing to grasp it, or intentionally trying to obscure the issue. Either way, you're a loser, matching Pat in your ineffective failure, and making a laughable farce of yourself for all to see. Congratulations!

 
At 05 March, 2010 10:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Krazee whines, "...Gravitational Acceleration means no energy was used to deform anything for 105 feet of drop, and NIST's models sag and deform every which way with A.) no depiction free-fall acceleration whatsoever, and B.) no explanation for the free-fall they say was reached."

Don't lecture me, Krazee, because I've forgotten more about physics than you'll ever know.

Moreover, gravitational acceleration was explained by the failure, over a period of approximately 8 seconds, of the three truss and column assemblies.

I rest my case, Crazee. You can't read.

Go for it, Crazee, give us another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your ignorance and incompetence.

 
At 05 March, 2010 10:54, Anonymous Bill Surrenders, crying said...

"I rest my case, Crazee. You can't read." -Guitar Shill

Translation: "Golly, I can't answer any of your questions, and Alienentity's videos and the NIST report don't help at all. I just threw them up to distract you. Now I'll puff out my chest like Dave Kyte and say I know more physics than you, while failing to point to a single time-stamp or written passage that fully explains the specifics of my indefensible faith. I will join Pat and James, cowering in terror as our simple tactics are exposed yet again.

You're welcome, coward.

 
At 05 March, 2010 11:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Crazee whines, "...Translation: "Golly, I can't answer any of your questions, and Alienentity's videos and the NIST report don't help at all. I just threw them up to distract you."

I already answered your question's, Crazy.

It's not my fault that you can't read, and I'm not responsible for your refusal to acknowledge reality.

Tell us, Crazee, how many 9/11 conspiracy videos were you required to watch in order to become a fully-qualified civil engineer?

One? Two?

 
At 05 March, 2010 11:32, Anonymous Pat is a mental cripple said...

I already answered your question's, Crazy. -Imbecile


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Why can't you or anyone else point to those answers, then? And learn to use apostrophes, imbecile. It makes your scientific credentials seem spurious, much like Pat's analysis.

 
At 05 March, 2010 11:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's called a typo, numbnuts. People who type fast, like me, often make typos.

In any case, it's clear that you still haven't learned to read.

In fact you're so ignorant that you believe that WTC 7 had 83 load bearing columns.

Would you like to give us another hilarious demonstration of the breadth and depth of your ignorance, Krazee?

 
At 06 March, 2010 12:18, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Another bail out from the Debunker Cult:Dan K. loves weed!! Ga hey brofee!

 
At 06 March, 2010 12:26, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Moron Bilbo baggins calls me out,fishing for a comment from me and then feigns total indifference!! DogBoy,I'm tired of handing you your ass on a silver tray.It's like shooting fish in a barrel!Just get busy providing a link to a scientific paper refuting Harritt and Jones' study showing athat explosive residues were found in the dust.Yea,I know this is all a conspiracy by activists to frame the CIA etal.Sackdiapers has already clued me in.But still,there's been no refutation excepting the hysterical spewing of guys like Shyte and PornBoy.

 
At 23 January, 2011 17:22, Blogger SG said...

To the person who was rhetorically asking whether to trust Sunder or someone else: Should you trust science based on fallacious reasoning?

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ZrcDTjkIh­I

This is just one of many examples of Sunder ON CAMERA explaining how NIST ruled out controlled demolition.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home