Thursday, May 27, 2010

Jeff Hill, Still Dialing Without a Brain

Our old pal, the crazy Canuck:


Here's a clue for Jeff: Molten metal does not equal molten steel.

Update: Some particularly moronic Truthers want to talk about the thermal images taken by NASA on 9/16/01. They're archived here, on Jim Hoffman's site. Notice the temperatures recorded go as high as 1377 degrees fahrenheit. Which is about half the temperature required to melt steel.

Labels: , ,

183 Comments:

At 27 May, 2010 12:54, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Strange, because the RJ Lee reports indicate temperatures far above the melting point of steel, Pat.

Face down in your own bullshit again.

 
At 27 May, 2010 13:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Molten metal does not equal molten steel, but until there is an investigation we cannot know. So why not have a new investigation, Pat? What are you afraid of?

 
At 27 May, 2010 13:38, Anonymous Pat Cowardly said...

He's certainly afraid of answering the hard questions, that's for sure. Then again, he's always been a craven bullshitter, and it's fun to watch him clam up when he can't provide any answers.

 
At 27 May, 2010 14:33, Anonymous Marc said...

All of the WTC steel was accounted for. Just look for the beams that melted, should be easy because NONE OF THEM DID.

Other metals present inside of the WTC towers certainly did melt, as did the polymers, which can be seen pouring out of the damaged section of one of the towers.

There is nothing to investigate when the events are so obvious. All an investigation would reveal, if that is even possible at this point, is that molten metal is largely aircraft aluminum, which was torn up into easily melted strips as the planes tore into the buildings.

There's no point in yet another investigation because it will just lead back to where we are now, and the troofers will still cry cover-up.

 
At 27 May, 2010 15:35, Blogger Billman said...

Fine, I'll sign whatever you want to get a new investigation (as long as it doesn't violate civil liberties like the last few NYC-Can attempts are asking for).

Now, what's the topic of this thread about? Molten Metal, right?

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Molten metal does not equal molten steel

Coming from a dam comic collector...nice.

No genius, the people who were there I'm sure

All of the WTC steel was accounted for. Just look for the beams that melted, should be easy because NONE OF THEM DID.


LOL. Got proof? No? Didn't think so. See the controlled crime scene where photographs and video were very strictly controlled. Sorry, you can google it and find it.

molten metal is largely aircraft aluminum
LOL! Gesus H. Christ, where did you get your brain at? Want to trace the progress of the fires that melted the aluminum that stayed in a clump large enough to make first responders, fire fighters, photographers, structural engineers, state they witnessed molten steel? Better yet, how did your miraculous aircraft ever survive the crush down theory? You see, that aluminum you propose can't make it to the basement because of the idiotic crush down theory the OS depends upon. Nice try though.

Better yet, maybe some can produce some forensic tests from this investigation to determine what exactly was melted? Oh, and why your at don't forget that piece of swiss cheese steel that was melted.
The FEMA report, in fact, increased the mystery, thanks to an appendix written by three professors at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. This appendix reported that a piece of steel from WTC 7 had melted so severely that it had gaping holes in it, making it look like a piece of Swiss cheese. James Glanz, pointing out that the fires in the building could not have been hot enough to melt steel, referred to this discovery as “the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.

Well there is some melted steel for you Pat n' punks. A small piece out of the many many that were observed in a molten state.

Other metals present inside of the WTC towers certainly did melt, as did the polymers, which can be seen pouring out of the damaged section of one of the towers.

How the fuck do you "know" they were "polymers" and other metals when no tests were done? LMAO@U

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Strange, because the RJ Lee reports indicate temperatures far above the melting point of steel, Pat.

Face down in your own bullshit again.


I second that Mr. Anonymous #2. Very well put.

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:09, Blogger Billman said...

There are pictures of steel beams, on google, that show warping... which kind of fits with the whole structural collapse thing. And also sort of, disproves your "strictly controlled" theory, if these photos still showed up on the internet.

Or do I still need to google for something that tells me something else I google for doesn't exist?

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you think Gross had to lie yet again in the first few seconds of the phone call?

Why do you think he choose to remain ignorant about what another govt. agency has discovered in their thermal images??

BTW, Pat, thanks for the truther advertisement because I never would have found out about this latest witness and ground zero rescue worker hero contradicting an entire government agency.

Hmm guys that were there: molten STEEL running down channel like a foundry.

Keep supporting NIST liars Pat and the SLC crew.

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Holy shit, Pat. I thought I had watched enough of the video but more and more eyewitnesses proving NIST as liars! LOL.

Thanks again for this post, Patty. I appreciate it.

RJ Lee reports temperatures far above the melting point. Time and time again the eyewitnesses state they have seen molten steel. The "meteorite" evidence sits in front of your face and a government report finds molten steel.

Only a "dubunker" could sit there and claim...there was no molten steel which begs the question:

ARE YOU INSANE??

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are pictures of steel beams, on google, that show warping... which kind of fits with the whole structural collapse thing. And also sort of, disproves your "strictly controlled" theory, if these photos still showed up on the internet.
Sort of depends on how you define strictly controlled now doesn't it?

Billman, now that we know your on board with a new investigation, can you explain how hot it would have to be for a 6" thick iron beam to be bent into a horse shoe shape as discussed in the video? And perhaps you can theorize what might have caused such a high temperature in a normal office fire? I mean you watched the video until the end right to know the answer?
The proof as they say is in the numbers.

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:35, Blogger Billman said...

I haven't watched the video in this thread yet, no. I'm using my phone to comment right now, since I be at work (and obviously unproductive at the moment).

But I will get back to you when I have watched it, if its as phenomenal as you say.

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hat tip from anyonmous:

Is Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author Alan Hart a anti-Semite?

Catch the lies soon at SLC!

If so, how is it that an anit-Semite can receive such glaring positive reviews by Semites??

 
At 27 May, 2010 16:52, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman, after you honestly admitted you hadn't watched the video, I decided to check out your blog. Interesting to say the least. I did find some latest research from NASA that you might be interested in. I don't think it is Planet X, but it might help you keep up to date on your blog.

Search on for Death Star that throws out deadly comets
Nasa scientists are searching for an invisible 'Death Star' that circles the Sun, which catapults potentially catastrophic comets at the Earth.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7429335/Search-on-for-Death-Star-that-throws-out-deadly-comets.html
I did notice that you didn't wholly agree with the asteroid impact killing the dinosaurs off. Perhaps the article might persuade you:

A similar impact by an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, a major inquest by scientists concluded last week, though that is not being blamed on Nemesis.

A major clue to Nemesis's existence is a mysterious dwarf planet called Sedna that was spotted on an elongated 12,000-year-long orbit around the sun.

Mike Brown, who discovered Sedna in 2003, said: "Sedna is a very odd object – it shouldn't be there! It never comes anywhere close to any of the giant planets or the sun. It's way, way out there on this incredibly eccentric orbit.

The only way to get on an eccentric orbit is to have some giant body kick you – so what is out there?"

Professor John Matese, of the University of Louisiana at Lafayette, says most comets in the inner solar system seem to come from the same region of the Oort Cloud – launched by the pull of a companion star to the sun that scatters comets in its wake.

He suggests it is up to five times the size of Jupiter or 7,000 times the size of Earth.

He said: "There is statistically significant evidence that this concentration of comets could be caused by a companion to the Sun."

-----------

Yeah this comment if off topic, but debunkers really can't say anything about the video from Jeff Shure.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:00, Blogger Triterope said...

Anonymous said...

I second that Mr. Anonymous #2. Very well put.


Great. Now they're breeding.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:17, Blogger avicenne said...

"So why not have a new investigation, Pat? What are you afraid of?"

Because nobody fucking cares, that's why there's no new investigation. This really is madness. An army of frenzied nuts spending their lives researching molten metal online then trying to score points on a blog devoted to mocking frenzied nuts who spend their lives researching molten metal online.

"He's certainly afraid of answering the hard questions, that's for sure."

Molten metal is only a hard question if you're on a hiatus from what some of us like to call 'reality'.

"Coming from a damn comic collector...nice."

What's wrong in collecting comics? It's more productive, and enjoyable, than obsessing about crush down theories and the melting point of steel.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:27, Anonymous Patrick from Cincinnati said...

"Coming from a dam comic collector...nice.:

Best argument from a truther ever.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:33, Blogger Billman said...

I collect Batman Crossover comics. Like with Predator, Spider-Man, etc... maybe its a debunker thing.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:43, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, my verification word is retortle.

Well, Anonymous, thanks for your intrest in my blog and stalking me, so to speak. I have actually been a paleontologist at point, and I went out for 2 summer digs in Montana in my late teens. I was nearly the professors assistant, but I decided to give up geology and paleontology for film. So I do know a little bit about dinosaurs when it comes to the asteroid theory, and can tell you there are other theories that some leading paleontologist perscribe to. I think Bob Backer is found of the plants did it theory. Keith Rigby, my professor, was a fan of the Pele hypothesis, that suggests climate change from volcanoes did it. The asteroid, in my opinion didn't help, but there is record of dinosaurs surviving after the impact (but not VERY long after), so it didn't end ALL of them at once. And I am by no means downplaying the significance or disastrous results of the impact. Just I don't think it was SOLELY responsible for the extinction. However, it is the most mainstream theory. And also, I'm not published or anything, but I think I have a little confidence and experience when it comes to the subject.

Wow, haven't discussed dinos in a while. Anyway, back on topic. Leaving work, will watch this vid in a couple of hours.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:44, Blogger avicenne said...

I was trying to collect The Man from Atlantis 70's comics, except I kept getting outbid at the last second. It happened every time. Coincidence?

Maybe sinister forces are at work.

 
At 27 May, 2010 17:55, Blogger Triterope said...

An army of frenzied nuts spending their lives researching molten metal online then trying to score points on a blog devoted to mocking frenzied nuts who spend their lives researching molten metal online.

Now that's funny. And insightful.

 
At 27 May, 2010 18:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"An army of frenzied nuts spending their lives researching molten metal online then trying to score points on a blog devoted to mocking frenzied nuts who spend their lives researching molten metal online."

Well said. The troofer posters on here are scary. Way off the deep end.
Sad but true: more troofer loons will make the headlines by going postal.

 
At 27 May, 2010 18:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"LOL. Got proof? No? Didn't think so."

Prove it's molten steel.

 
At 27 May, 2010 18:30, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
Strange, because the RJ Lee reports indicate temperatures far above the melting point of steel, Pat."

Prove it was molten steel.

Fucktard.

 
At 27 May, 2010 18:41, Blogger Billman said...

May I ask what the troofer quest for molten steel proves, besides the fires being hot enough?

Or is that asking for another "well, it OBVIOUSLY couldn't have been caused by fires, so it must have been something else, don't you think? HMMMM?" kind-of-thing where no troofer gives an actual answer of what kind of explosive they think does that?

Around the 0:50 mark, the guy in the video is saying "NASA Pictures show it" and they cut to an overhead veiw of fires (or thermal imaging, I guess). Any way we can get one of those with a graph that shows the actual tempature in those regains?

And so far, John is just a dick, it seems.

Then we get a guy asking someone else "so there's multiple witnesses," but even the guy he's asking is like "I don't know." Not sure how this is helping the troofers, exactly. But we have a guy saying motlen METAL.

Then we get the fire fighters saying molten steel. And guys checking out a chunk of stuff.

Ok, so we have, what appeared to me, at least 3 guys who might have actually seen it? That's new to me.

Ok.. so all of this proves... the fires WERE hot enough to melt steel.

What's the problem here?

This only proves Dylan Avery wrong with his claim that: they COULDN'T have been hot enough, therefore BOMBS had to have been used.

So... is Dylan Debunked, then?

 
At 27 May, 2010 18:42, Blogger Billman said...

The thing is though, all they've shown in this video are qoutes, and a bent iron beam (not melted).... so still, WHERE'S THE PROOF OF MOLTEN.. anything?

This is just all, qoutes.

 
At 27 May, 2010 18:45, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

And can bombs melt steel?

 
At 27 May, 2010 19:08, Blogger Billman said...

Lazarus Long said...
And can bombs melt steel?


That's my question! Exactly. We know Thermite can't do it horizontally. We know Nano-thermite can't do it horizontally. It's been tested. So now what?

 
At 27 May, 2010 19:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"So now what?"


Hush-A-Bombs.

It's the only logical explanation.

Like here:

http://tinyurl.com/39kzfup

 
At 27 May, 2010 19:41, Anonymous paul w said...

Non-explosive, non-heat-producing, non-sound-producing nano-bombs did it.

Simple, really.

 
At 27 May, 2010 19:54, Blogger Billman said...

Facedown in your own bullshit again.

Wait... what?

When referring to the National Geographic special on truth conspiracies, on the Rob Breakenridge show on Sept 10th, Pat said this:

"What did Rosie O'Donnell become famous for? 'Fire can't melt steel', Well guess what? [Referring to the steel beam / jet fuel test] It can."

So Pat HAS SAID the fires could have melted the steel.

NOW, you come on here and say the RJ Lee reports indicate the same thing Pat was saying... and now he's "face down in his bullshit?"

Ok... so when debunker first says something, it's bullshit. Then a troofer says the same exact same thing, and the debunker is proving to be lying when he first said it?

You guys make no logical sense or argument about anything. But pat yourself on the back for it, I guess.

 
At 27 May, 2010 20:00, Blogger Billman said...

Anonymous said about Anonymous # 2:

Very well put.

Ok, did Pat ever say the fires counlt melt steel?

I seem to recall it was Dylan Avery who said that in Loose Change when he compared jet fuel to kerosene.

But now that that damages whatever the troof theory is this week, it now becomes PAT who said that?

Or did he say that, too at some point? Source, please?

 
At 27 May, 2010 20:04, Blogger Billman said...

The point is, shouldn't it be DYLAN AVERY who is "facedown in his bullshit, again?"

Cause that's what you just proved to me.

And in that case, I agree "Very well put."

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ok, did Pat ever say the fires counlt melt steel?

I seem to recall it was Dylan Avery who said that in Loose Change when he compared jet fuel to kerosene.

This discussion is silly. NIST said the fires could not have melted the steel! Don't you guys know the facts of the argument?


“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires. The melting point of steel is about 1,500 degrees Celsius (2,800 degrees Fahrenheit). Normal building fires and hydrocarbon (e.g., jet fuel) fires generate temperatures up to about 1,100 degrees Celsius (2,000 degrees Fahrenheit). NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers…”
--- S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) federal building and fire safety investigation of the World Trade Center disaster, answers to frequently asked questions”, Gaithersburg, MD, August 30, 2006, (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm).

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:22, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of couse the said "due to the fire" sidestepping the question whether the steel did in fact melt.

Frank Gayle was more direct:

"Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt."
--- Frank Gayle, a metals expert working with the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST)

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:23, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One more:

"The fire is the most misunderstood part of the WTC collapse. Even today, the media report (and many scientists believe) that the steel melted. It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true.... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."
---Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials engineering at MIT (who is a defender of the official view of the collapses), 2001.

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Of course Mr Cover-up himself was not clued-in:

What caused the collapse of the buildings, to summarize it, was that the super-heated jet fuel melted the steel super-structure of these buildings and caused their collapse.
--- Lee Hamilton, Co-Chair of the 9/11 Commission, in an interview with Evan Soloman, CBC News (Canadian Broadcasting), August 21, 2006

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:29, Blogger Billman said...

Ok.... but those guys aren't PAT, are they?

I just want to know how Pat is "facedown in his own bullshit," because you're attributing things to him that you agree with, but that also make him a "liar" somehow, even though he agrees.

Or is Pat also the NIST report?

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:33, Anonymous Anonymous said...

So nist is arguing that (1) the fires were not hot enough to melt the steel and (2) that the steel did not melt.

However there is abundant evidence that certainly at least iron melted and the melting point of iron is slightly higher that the melting point on steel. Steel is just and alloy of Iron with carbon added. So if NIST is saying that the fires from the jet fuel, office furnishings etc was not ht enough to melt steel (and they are correct) that the same problem remains: What melted the iron?

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:34, Blogger Billman said...

The discussion is silly, yes. But YOU brought it up, and you seem to think it makes some kind of point, until I started pointing out that its bullshit and rather than admit it, you say it's "silly and not important."

Well, it was important enough to start the entire thread with it, and have other Anonymi agree with you, and self congratulate each other.

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:36, Blogger Billman said...

The Iron doesn't seem to have melted, rather it looks like it lost its strength in a fire and bent due to weight... that's what the NIST is saying, isn't it?

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons. The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. ...A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires ---no one knows from where --- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures."
--- James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards," The New York Times, February 2, 2002, (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E0DE153DF931A35751C0A9649C8B63

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures"
--- Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” By James Glanz, The New York Times, November 29, 2001

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. …in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue.
--- Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies, By Kenneth Chang, The New York Times, October 2, 2001. Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of the University of California at Berkeley, who had received a National Science Foundation grant to spend two weeks at Ground Zero studying steel from the buildings. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63).

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

They are talking about steel that vaporized and evaporated. That is way beyond just melting.

You can't have it both ways

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:42, Blogger Billman said...

And why is it you can take the NIST at it's word when it says something about free fall, or steel melting, but not when it says how those things did or did not occur?

You don't see how you're cherry picking the parts of NIST that you like, and saying the other parts that you dont like are wrong. You're trying to have it both ways here, am I'm sure you're not saying it.

NIST says this, there must be some kind of bomb or something that melted the steel, yet you bitch about something else this NIST says that's "obviously wrong" so then why, to you, and since you already have so many issues with the document, are there suddenly parts you don't have an issue with that you keep pointing out says "inside job?" Shouldn't those parts be suspect in credibility as well?

Then the NIST is just a bad paper. But bad paper doesn't mean inside job.

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

FEMA May 2002:

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible…The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
--- Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” Appendix C of World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA, May 2002 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf)

So in other words, the steel was attached by sulfer and extremely high temeratures and just corroded away. They have no idea where the fuck the sulfer came from.

Does that sound like a fire to you or a chemical reaction?

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:45, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, I'm not trying to have anything any ways. I haven't read NIST and I'm asking why Pat is "face down in his own bullshit" and all you're doing is qouting other people and saying I can't have it both ways.

Ok... but you can't either. Answer my question about Pat, and I'll take a week off to read the NIST and study structural engineering, and then see if I agree with it, and THEN you can determine if I'm trying to have something BOTH ways are not.

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't seem to understand.

NIST is the official dogma. The congress of the United States as a mandate of law empowered NIST (which is part of the commerce department) to explain to the American people (that's you fella!) what the fuckin' buildings came down. And the spent (wasted) 20 million of your tax payer dollars to do it.

It seems to me that as we show you all to inconsistencies in what they are saying, you seem to be running away from them with comments like, "Then the NIST is just a bad paper."

Well yes it is a bad paper, in fact it fraudulent.

The problem with you 9/11 truth deniers is that you are straight jacketed by the OFFICIAL reports.

It really does not matter what Popular Mechanics says or Pat says. The are really only two theories of 9/11. The official story is true or the official story is false.

The 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST reports are the official story.

Our job is not to argue that it was an inside job or who really did it or how it was done. Our job is to show you that the official story is a lie from every direction you want to look at it from.

And when you strip away all the bullshit, all we are asking for is a real investigaton because those investigations can be shown to be clearly not real investigations.

 
At 27 May, 2010 21:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

NIST is 10,000 pages on just the towers alone. It's a TIN RAT
(They'll Never Read All This).

But people like Kevin Ryan and many others have been reading all this and have been anyalizing it for years and documenting they're findings.

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:05, Blogger Billman said...

If you see everything in such black and white, then yes, you'd be right.

The NIST is just a document, and whatever it explains doesn't make it set in stone. If that's the Official Theory, then fine, there are flaws in it. Doesn't it even admit that its not perfect?

And jeez, there are tons of things the government has wasted tax payer money on... how is this new to you? How many people die from vaccines they say we should all get?

How is this kind of thing somehow equal to "the government blew up thw WTC and killed everyone on purpose" inside job style?

You can't even explain what kind of material was used in your controlled demolition theory, but at the same time will bitch why the NIST can't explain free fall without controlled demolition.

By YOUR own logic, YOU are fraudulent.

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And why is it you can take the NIST at it's word when it says something about free fall, or steel melting, but not when it says how those things did or did not occur?

I don't take them at their word. They are liers. They have committed their lies to paper and now they have to stand behind their lies.

You cannot say in August 2008 that the building could not have come down in free fall because it would violate physical laws (which we agree with so there is now no controversy on that point) but say it did not come down in free-fall (which we dispute).............then based on our challenge say in november 2008 (the final report) that it did fall at free-fall for 2.25 seconds (again we agreement, it fell at free-fall, the duratation is besides the point, so this is no longer in dispute).

Yea but, what about the "it would violate physical laws" part of what they said in August?

It did fall at free fall, and ut would violate physical laws...if it was merely a gravitational collapse.

Sorry, your side has a big problem here. NIST has painted themselves into a corner.

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:25, Blogger Billman said...

Well, I can't say enough how I've never read NIST, nor do I know wether or not how much of what I think happened is also what NIST says.

As far as I know, it's a document, not the laws of physics themself, so its possible it has errors.

But you seem to be picking and choosing what errors you exploit, and ignoring what errors don't agree with your theory, and you don't see it.

Course, I've never read it, so I'm just basing this observation of what everyone else posts here.

I've only read Stephen Jones and Neils Harrits paper on Active Thermitic Material...

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:26, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NIST is just a document, and whatever it explains doesn't make it set in stone. If that's the Official Theory, then fine, there are flaws in it. Doesn't it even admit that its not perfect?

No, NIST claims they're findings are backed by science!

And jeez, there are tons of things the government has wasted tax payer money on... how is this new to you? How many people die from vaccines they say we should all get?

That is a straw man and an an attempt to side step the issue.

How is this kind of thing somehow equal to "the government blew up thw WTC and killed everyone on purpose" inside job style?

I Don't know who "blew up" the buildings (I have my suspicions), but I am sure the buildings were taken down with cutter charges. That is why we need a new investigation.

You can't even explain what kind of material was used in your controlled demolition theory.

Nano-thermite was discovered in the dust which would explain the molten iron, the micropheres, and the sulfer. It would also explain the free fall speed and all the other observations.

And it's not "my" controlled demolition theory...and it's no longer a theory. The scientific evidence is squarely on our side! An I have 1,200 achitects and engineers standing right behind me and that number is growing.

What do you have? GuitarBill LOL

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“An unusual flame is visible within this fire. In the upper photograph {Fig 9-44} a very bright flame, as opposed to the typical yellow or orange surrounding flames, which is generating a plume of white smoke, stands out."
--- NCSTAR 1-5A Chapter 9 Appendix C NIST Fig. 9-44. p. 344

Basic Thermite is simply a mixture of aluminum powder and iron oxide. It’s important to have it all in powder form so the iron oxide and aluminum particles will be in contact and react quickly. If you mix the powders thoroughly,
and ignite them, the result is molten, white hot iron and a cloud of gray-white aluminum-oxide dust! Other metal oxides can be used, such as copper oxide, and oxidizers – potassium permanganate is a favorite -- to increase the energy yield of the Thermite mixture. Another important additive is Sulfur. Sulfur forms a eutectic with iron so that it will stay liquid at much lower temperatures. Iron melts at around 1538˚C, but with sufficient sulfur added, the melting temperature drops to less than 1000˚C (orange hot). Thus, as the liquid iron plus sulfur pours in the air we expect it will be orange, and we will see white ash which is the aluminum oxide coming off. Projected droplets of the hot molten metal stew (some are expected) will form into spheres in the air due to surface tension. These products carry information regarding the chemical reactions which generated them – very important information. …So what’s happening in this reaction is that oxygen is transferred from the metal oxide to the aluminum:
2Al + Fe2O3 = Al2O3 + 2Fe, ∆H = − 853.5kJ/mole. The aluminum “wants” oxygen a lot more than does iron, and there’s a huge energy release which results in molten iron and aluminum oxide. The molten iron (especially when mixed with sulfur) is hot enough to cut through steel!
--- Dr. Stephen E. Jones, Revisiting 9/11/2001 -- Applying the Scientific Method, Journal of 9/11 Studies, May 2007

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:34, Blogger Billman said...

Thermite, wether it's nano or super, cannot explain any of the properties neccesary to make the WTC collapse the way it did. That is a lie. Your entire movement is claiming that "science is on your side", while ignoring that the same science you're claiming in on your side is saying that you're all stating that essentially, fireworks and ammunition destroyed the WTC. That's laughable.

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:35, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This is my favorite:

Larry Silverstein began spending every morning at the World Trade Center shortly after he inked a 99-year deal to operate the complex in July 2001. The New York developer would have breakfast at Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 107th floor of the North tower, and then meet for several hours with tenants. But on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, he was at home, dressing for a doctor's appointment his wife had made for him, instead of at his usual table at Windows. "I had said to my wife, sweetheart, cancel my doctor's appointment. I have so much to do at the Trade Center," he recalls. "She got very upset and told me I had to go. As it turns out, that saved my life."
--- Rebuilding Ground Zero, By Steve Malanga, The Wall Street Journal, May 12, 2007

After a last-minute breakdown in the front-running bid, Mr. Silverstein’s team won by a hair. His son, Roger, and his daughter, Lisa, were working for him in temporary offices on the 88th floor of the W.T.C. north tower. Regular meetings with tenants in the weeks immediately following their July 26, 2001, takeover of the building were held each morning at Windows on the World. But on Sept. 11, Roger and Lisa Silverstein were running late. Meanwhile, Mr. Silverstein’s wife of 46 years had laid down the law: The developer could not cancel an appointment with his dermatologist, even to meet with tenants at his most important property. If the attack had happened just a little later, Mr. Silverstein’s children would likely have been trapped at Windows.
--- Mike Sees City Taking Control At Ground Zero , By Tom McGeveran, New York Observer, March 13, 2003

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:37, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Significantly, Silverstein's lenders had more than 50 times as much money at risk in the WTC transaction as Silverstein, who invested only USD 14 million in the deal through limited liability investment vehicles," said [Barry] Ostrager [of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, counsel to Swiss Re]. The terms of the lease include a clause that if the WTC were totally destroyed and Silverstein and the other insured parties elected not to rebuild, they are entitled to cash out the insurance proceeds and walk away from the deal. After repaying the lenders the principal of their loans, and paying the Port Authority USD 1.5 billion, Silverstein and his investors arguably could claim the balance of more than USD 1 billion.
--- Press release issued by Swiss Re, an insurance company involved in a dispute with Larry Silverstein on February 4, 2003. This statement, which was on Swiss Re's website, was deleted after the judge imposed a gag order on the opposing sides of the case.

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:39, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The owners of the demolished World Trade Center in lower Manhattan acquired the buildings just two months ago under a 99-year lease allowing them to walk away from their investment in the event of "an act of terrorism." The owners, Silverstein Properties and Westfield America .... purchased the buildings from the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for Dollars 3.2bn in July and completed the financing just two weeks ago"
--- Financial Times (London), September 15, 2001

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:41, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“When thermite reaction compounds are used to ignite a fire, they produce a characteristic burn pattern and leave behind evidence. These compounds are rather unique in their chemical composition, containing common elements such as copper, iron, calcium, silicon and aluminum, but also contain more unusual elements, such as vanadium, titanium, tin, fluorine and manganese. While some of these elements are consumed in the fire, many are also left behind in the residue…
--- Materials Engineering, Inc. (MEi) http://www.materials-engr.com/ns96.html

“Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials.”
--- NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations http://www.interfire.org/res_file/92112m.asp

Question: ““Was the steel tested for explosives or thermite residues? The combination of thermite and sulfur (called thermate) "slices through steel like a hot knife through butter."
Answer: “NIST did not test for the residue of these compounds in the steel.”
--- NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology). "Answers to Frequently Asked Questions." 30 August 2006 (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm).

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:44, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Did NIST interview Larry Silverstein to find out why he said, 'There was so much loss of life we decided to pull it'?"
“No, we did not interview Larry Silverstein.”
--- Lorie Van Auken queston to Shyam Sunder, NIST WTC 7 Technical Briefing, August 26, 2008

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:52, Anonymous Jay said...

Ah, so now the wife of Silverstein is the evil genius behind it all...

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:57, Anonymous Jay said...

And as usual you quote Silverstein wrong.

He said he was on the phone with the fire department and THEY, as in the firedepartment, decided to pull.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

So go back and do your homework, your moron

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:59, Anonymous Jay said...

And about that molten Metal, Aluminum is also a metal, and was a big part of the building, since it was the cladding of the outer columns.

 
At 27 May, 2010 22:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billamn wrote, "...Well, it was important enough to start the entire thread with it, and have other Anonymi agree with you, and self congratulate each other."

Sock puppet!

%^)

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:04, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thermite, wether it's nano or super, cannot explain any of the properties neccesary to make the WTC collapse the way it did. That is a lie. Your entire movement is claiming that "science is on your side", while ignoring that the same science you're claiming in on your side is saying that you're all stating that essentially, fireworks and ammunition destroyed the WTC. That's laughable.

I don't understand your argument. Thermite was found in the dust and iron microsheres which is a byproduct of a thermite reaction was found by three seperate teams of scientists.

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:09, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And about that molten Metal, Aluminum is also a metal, and was a big part of the building, since it was the cladding of the outer columns.

NIST tried to explain away the red-orange flowing metalic materials clearly seen dripping from the inpact zone as molten aluminum from the planes.

Jones heated up aluminum to a molten state and poured it out.

It poured silvery, no red-orange. Sorry it was not aluminum.

And the iron microsheres found in the dust were iron not aluminum.

With all due respect, you guys are running out of straws to grop at.

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:16, Anonymous Anonymous said...

And as usual you quote Silverstein wrong.

That was Lori Van Auken making a misqotation when questioning NIST if they even bothered to ask him what he meant by that statement.

She lost her husband. Go attack her now!? Three of the orginianl four Jersey Girls have endorsed
A911truth.org.

They did not bother to even ask him. ...not did they test for thermite by their own admition.

Again, you guys are gropping at strawmen. You defense of TOS is very weak.

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:18, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Love to hand out and debate. Gotta crash.

Goodnight gentleman and truth deniers ROFL

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:27, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'll leave you with one more thought:

“Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”
--- Excerpt from President's Daily Brief of August 6, 2001: Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US

“One of the interesting things to do is drink coffee and watch Barney chase armadillos. The armadillos are out, and they love to root in our flower bed. It's good that Barney routs them out of their rooting.”
--- George W. Bush, August 22, 2001 to Judy Keen, USA Today.

“I have repeatedly said the only time to use Social Security money is in times of war, times of recession, or times of severe emergency. And I mean that.”
--- George W. Bush, September 6, 2001

“We need to counter the shock wave of the evildoer by having individual rate cuts accelerated and by thinking about tax rebates.”
--- George W. Bush, October 4, 2001
“But all in all, it's been a fabulous year for Laura and me.”
--- George. W. Bush, Dec. 20, 2001

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 May, 2010 23:45, Blogger Billman said...

You don't understand the argument, that's fine.

There are many things wrong with Jones paper. For example, his dust samples, and the peaks he labels thermite, have the exact spectra of kaolinite, and look nothing like the spectra for thermite. Something he never addresses.

Also, thermite in nano form, is currently being used as primers in bullets and fireworks. There's no form of "exploding thermite" and if there were, it wouldn't be thermite anymore, because thermite burns, it doesn't explode.

Also, thermite is used in welding, such as lagre steel structures like building. Plus, there are a ton of the same elements in Jones other works that are commonly found in office computers.

So the thing is, Jones is mislabling things and giving these things properties they can not posess even if they were labeled right.

Then, he's also claiming things that actually could be present (such as thermite in welds, microspheres, etc..) because of the materials used to construct the buildings and objects used inside those buildings, as indicators of explosives of some kind, that use the same non-explosive materials.

Thermic materials are non explosive, and completely unreliable for any kind of "cutting" in a controlled or timed fashion.

But you ignore all that because he waves a magic phd-in-physics wand in your face.

Nevermind that the editor of the vanity paper he published in, an expert in nano-technology and thermite, resigned over his paper because even she didn't believe in it, and did not sign off on publishing it, yet it got published without her permission. And that raises NO red flags with you people about Jones credibility?

That same paper's parent company published a nonsense paper written by a computer, proving the peer review process is dubious at BEST. And that raises no questions with you people.

Plus, Jones and Harrit STILL refuse to reveal who the damn peers even ARE that allegedly reviewed their work. Something NO legitimate scientist or paper has ever gotten away with.

AND, Jones himself has since stated, he now believes the thermite was just a "fuse" for some regular explosive, which is basically what thermite fucking is in everything else it's used for and makes SOME actual sense.

Ok... stil, were now back to "where's the evidence for EXPLOSIVES?"

Yet you'll push the thermite IS an explosive. No, its not.

 
At 28 May, 2010 00:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...It poured silvery, no red-orange. Sorry it was not aluminum."

Horseshit! The color of molten aluminum depends on the temperature of the molten aluminum.

The color of the molten metal (Aluminum) pouring from the side of WTC 2 was orange, as the following video will prove:

Source: YouTube: WTC2 South Tower on 9/11 Molten Metal North-East Corner.

Now that we have our colors straight, sans your bald-faced lies, let's continue, shall we?

Yes, molten aluminum is silver at low temperatures; however, the hydrocarbon-rich fires exceed 1800 degrees F.

At 1800 degrees F, molten aluminum is orange, as the following video proves:

Source: YouTube: Industrial Foundry--Pouring molten aluminum into sand molds.

Furthermore, molten steel is white to light yellow, not silver--you cretin.

Care to provide us with another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your intellectual dishonesty and brain-dead ignorance, 'tard?

And remember, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 28 May, 2010 00:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Billman wrote, "...Yet you'll push the thermite IS an explosive. No, its not."

That's correct. Thermite is an incendiary, not an explosive.

Well said, Billman.

 
At 28 May, 2010 01:17, Anonymous sackcloth and ashes said...

'Is Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author Alan Hart a anti-Semite?'

Yes, he is an anti-Semite:

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/05/27/911-the-troof-is-out-there/

But no he is not, and has never been, a 'Senior BBC MidEast Correspondent'. He worked for ITN, and did also present on the BBC's 'Panorama' programme for a bit.

He's also a fucking loon:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/05/26/the-canadian-charger-magazine-honours-another-911-conspiracy-theorist/

 
At 28 May, 2010 04:42, Anonymous Anonymous said...

No new investigation is needed because there are no legitimate, material questions about what happened on 9/11. The science is settled. The buildings collapsed. Get over it.

 
At 28 May, 2010 05:31, Blogger Bill said...

Appendix C of the FEMA report indicates that the temperatures of the steel sample (1800 F) were nowhere near the range of thermite (4500 F).

Plus even professional investigators are cautioned to not eye ball the composition of molten metals or temperatures.

"Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution."

http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

Plus this whole thread is another stellar example of truthers cherry picking their way through the reports and stamping only what they choose as trustworthy.

 
At 28 May, 2010 05:40, Blogger Triterope said...

Thermite was found in the dust and iron microsheres which is a byproduct of a thermite reaction was found by three seperate teams of scientists.

Then why won't they submit their findings for legitimate peer review?

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:39, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

“Perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation involves extremely thin bits of steel collected from the trade towers and from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story high rise that also collapsed for unknown reasons."


BRRRRRTTTTT!!!!!

There's a lie.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:40, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"That's not how a building would fall if it was attacked."

Walter Peterson, Former Governor of New Hampshire

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:43, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

The whole internet including the guys at JREF have been "peer reviewing" the paper, apart from the perfectly legitimate peer review process (including the department head of physics @ BYU) that had already occurred.

So the question is: apart from accusing the authors of conspiring to fabricate nanothermite and insert it into WTC dust samples, what valid scientific criticism rebuts the paper? It's not "testing in air", because that's what Tillotson did, and Jones called him to verify that.

Fact: the material produced elemental iron upon ignition.

Now if publishing a peer reviewed paper is so easy, and if you can buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal, I suggest you do so. They hired an Israeli gatekeeper as editor-in-chief now, so it shouldn't be too hard. GuitarBill offered up the money. I'm sure he's good for it. After all, he never lies.

In the mean time, would anybody like to discuss the "faulty peer review" of the RJ Lee reports? If I recall correctly RJ Lee clearly states "extremely high temperatures during the collapse".

Cheers.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:44, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Thermite was found in the dust and iron microsheres which is a byproduct of a thermite reaction was found by three seperate teams of scientists."

No it wasn't.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

You deniers are gropping at straws but in reality you have a serious problem here.

You're trying to defend the indefensible.

Salmon only swim in one direction. Find me anyone out there who says, "ya now, i originally had thought Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did it, but now I thing OBL, KSM and atta did it"

Ain't gonna happen. They go from your side to our side.

Winning hearts and minds

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:47, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"ya now, i originally had thought Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz did it, but now I thing OBL, KSM and atta did it"

Apart from the nanothermite thingy, I say they BOTH did it. Except, one half of the perpetrators didn't know about the other half. It was a set-up.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:48, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"if you can buy your way into the Open Chemical Physics Journal, I suggest you do so. They hired an Israeli gatekeeper as editor-in-chief now, so it shouldn't be too hard."

Sniff....sniff....

Ah, the sweet, sickening stench of anti-semitism.

WTG, fucktard.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:48, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"No it wasn't."

Yes it was.


(No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - ....)

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:49, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It was a set-up."

Yeah, to prove that you're a moron.

Worked, too.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the mean time, would anybody like to discuss the "faulty peer review" of the RJ Lee reports? If I recall correctly RJ Lee clearly states "extremely high temperatures during the collapse".

And both RJ Lee and the US geological survey fould the microsheres which proves iron melted. Iron does not melt till 2800F. Hydrcarbon fires even in a controlled situation which those fires were not can only reach 1825F.

What melted the iron?

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:49, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Ah, the sweet, sickening stench of anti-semitism."

Ah, the gag-inducing effluvium of a zionist neocon.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
You deniers are gropping at straws but in reality you have a serious problem here."

Yeah, dealing with insane people is a pain in the ass. No matter how much truth and reason you have on your side, you cannot convince the crazies that they are, well, crazy.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:51, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"(No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - No it wasn't - Yes it was - ....)"

See what I mean?

Completely insane.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:51, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Yeah, to prove that you're a moron.

Worked, too."


All that unsuccessful, quixotic effort to prove I'm a moron, while with you it's just self-evident.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:52, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"See what I mean?

Completely insane."


No I don't.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:52, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Salmon only swim in one direction."

How do they get to the ocean, then?

See, completely clueless.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
"See what I mean?

Completely insane."

No I don't."

See, completely clueless.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ah, the sweet, sickening stench of anti-semitism.

"Criticism of Israel is not anti-semitism"
---Colin Powell

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:54, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Yeah, dealing with insane people is a pain in the ass. No matter how much truth and reason you have on your side, you cannot convince the crazies that they are, well, crazy.

Nobody's here to cure you either. Your brand of stupidity is terminal.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:56, Anonymous Anonymous said...

How do they get to the ocean, then?

On direction at a time you total Yutz

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:57, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"See, completely clueless."

I don't know, but denying AGW with some cockamamie right wing conspiracy theory is clueless if you ask me. (Or anybody also not as moon barking insane as you clearly are)

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:57, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Your brand of stupidity is terminal."

No, I'm very healthy.

Your brand of insane stupidity, on the other hand, is called Darwanism in action.

Culling the gene pool of the intellectually deficient like you is always a good thing.

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:59, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah, dealing with insane people is a pain in the ass. No matter how much truth and reason you have on your side, you cannot convince the crazies that they are, well, crazy.

“We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, imprudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite period of time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.”
--- George Orwell, 1946, taken from his essay “In Front Of Your Nose”

 
At 28 May, 2010 09:59, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous said...
How do they get to the ocean, then?

On direction at a time you total Yutz"?

That's not what he said, you mental midget.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:02, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
"See, completely clueless."

I don't know, but denying AGW with some cockamamie right wing conspiracy theory is clueless if you ask me. (Or anybody also not as moon barking insane as you clearly are)"

Oooo, here we go again with the fucktard making accusations of non-existant conspiracies.

No wonder no one around here takes you seriosly, you're a lightweight, a mental midget, and and insane mental midget at that.

BTW, there is non "consensus" about AGW.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:03, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Culling the gene pool of the intellectually deficient like you is always a good thing.

Talk about culling the gene pool, have your considered sterilization? It's cheap and we'll all sleep better at night, knowing one less hatemongering, warmongering, militaristic arab hating, extreme right wing, Nazi, knuckle-dragging douche bag piece of shit is physically able to procreate.

Let me know when you start walking upright. I'll send word to Darwin's heirs.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"He was born stupid, and greatly increased his birthright."

-Samuel Butler

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:05, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"He never open his mouth without subtracting from the sum of human knowledge."

-Thomas Brackett Reed

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"What's on your mind? If you'll forgive the overstatement."

-Fred Allen

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"You've got the brain of a four-year-old boy, and I bet he was glad to get rid of it."

-Groucho Marx

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Being attacked by him is like being savaged by a dead sheep."

-Dennis Healy

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:07, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"He had delusions of adequacy."

-Walter Kerr

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:08, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"He is one of those people who would be enormously improved by death."

-H. H. Munro

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:09, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilization should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

— Albert Einstein

(Talking about Loathsome Lazarus Long and his war criminal offspring)

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Talk about culling the gene pool, have your considered sterilization?"

100,000,000 sperm and your's won?

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:11, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"(Talking about Loathsome Lazarus Long and his war criminal offspring)"

You're not good enough to lick the sand from my sons combat boots.

BTW, weren't you banned? What are you doing polluting this blog again?

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:12, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Are you talking about that lethal virus, threatening the survival of the human species, exclusively produced by your prostate gland, Lazarus?

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:12, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

— Albert Einstein"

6 million Jews are crying from the crematoria "You're a fucking idiot, Albert."

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:13, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"BTW, weren't you banned? What are you doing polluting this blog again?"

What? So you want me banned huh? Coward.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Billman Come on now, stalking you?? I clicked on your name and found a similiar intrest in your blog. Don't worry, I won't show up to your house...yet. It's ok, you can share a similiar interest with a truther that is outside the study of 9/11.

I too have taken a few courses of geology and archeology. The consenus from my professors was that a massive volcanic eruption (many across the globe in this case) could kill them off but it was unlikey that there wasn't an outside influence that might trigger such a cataclysmic event be it asteroid passing nearby or smashing into the earth. The record shows dramatic climate change that is natural can and does happen rapidly.


Ok.. so all of this proves... the fires WERE hot enough to melt steel.

What's the problem here


In normal office fires then throughout history we should see temperatures reaching above the melting point of steel. But we don't. In other words, something else caused the massive temperatures observed by tghe indidviduals in and around ground zero.

Steel beams in the shape of a cross melted together??
I think that is conclusive proof enough without anything else that something melted the steel beams.
The fused 'metorite' with steel melted in it as stated by the witness? Again, enough evidence to call for a forensic investigation into the melted steel.

Where is the molten steel? Did you not see the cross? The bent beams that required 1000's of degrees to bend without cracking the steel??

I'm not sure what your missing Billman.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:16, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
Are you talking about that lethal virus, threatening the survival of the human species, exclusively produced by your prostate gland, Lazarus?"

Boots.....sand.....

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:17, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"What? So you want me banned huh? Coward."

You really can't read, can you, fucktard?

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:21, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

6 million Jews are crying from the crematoria "You're a fucking idiot, Albert."

Albert Einstein is a "fucking idiot"

Shine your light, Lazarus, shine your light ;-)

Like I said, your stupidity is self-evident.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Oh well, enough of playing "Slap the Fucktard Around" for today.

It's been fun, but beating up on the insane seems kinda unfair.

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:25, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Oh well, enough of playing "Slap the Fucktard Around" for today.

It's been fun, but beating up on the insane seems kinda unfair.


It all depends on your perspective I guess. Do you walk on your hands?

 
At 28 May, 2010 10:45, Blogger Billman said...

Well, Anonymous, at least were in agreement about the dinosaur thing.

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:03, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"BTW, there is non "consensus" about AGW."

Yes there is, which proves ones again that the only conspiracy theories allowed are the ones cherrypicked to be promoted by the right wing establishment.

Other such exclusively right wing conspiracy theories include the so-called "liberal" media, Iranian nukes, WMD in Iraq, Iraq and Al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, Iraq and anthrax, global communism, a global, invisible, omnipotent terrorist network we should be at perpetual war with, and president Obama's birth certificate and alleged "muslim faith".

Except, although they are wildly promoted via the mainstream media, especially Fox News, the right wing conspiracy theories are *always* kooky, wide-eyed lies and fabrications, and serve merely as instruments for the rich elites to manipulate public opinion for an extremist agenda.

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous scribbles, "...After all, [GuitarBill] never lies."

What's this, Anonymous? The first time you've told the truth in your entire life?

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:19, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

What's this, Anonymous? The first time you've told the truth in your entire life?

Can I get a hug? I know you need one.

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Can I get a hug? I know you need one."

I'll give you a "hug".

Unfortunately, you'll need a dental surgeon when I finish "hugging" you, Pinocchio.

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:46, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Unfortunately, you'll need a dental surgeon when I finish "hugging" you, Pinocchio.

Feel the love. ;-)

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Feel the love. ;-)"

No, feel the novocaine.

 
At 28 May, 2010 11:59, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"No, feel the novocaine."

Oxymoron.

 
At 28 May, 2010 15:06, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder." — Albert Einstein"

6 million Jews are crying from the crematoria "You're a fucking idiot, Albert."

You know LLong, with all do respect, it always amazes me that 6MIL jews were murdered by the most extreme right wing fascist evil regime in history and jews like you have learned absolutely nothing from it. Yet you follow the extreme right wing of both this country (cheney)and israel (sharon/netanyahou)? You know, back in WWII (my father landed on the beaches of Normandy), the Jews were the scapgoats. You seem to have no problem with fascim this time around so long as this time the jews ain't the ones being scapegoated.

I shudder when I look at Israel captured by an extreme right wing government. It's just so so sad and depressing because in my opinion Israel is not acting in their best self-interest. They are following the worst most vile demagoges like Netanasshole over a fucking cliff. They are going to have to lie in the bed that they are making for themselves.

And this right wing government over there is not supported by all Israelis or jews here for that matter....only the vile right wingers.

You should listen to al einstein, (I can assure you he was smarter than you) when he said, "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder."

That goes for anybody.

He was jewish by the way, and a better jew that you'll ever be.

 
At 28 May, 2010 15:15, Anonymous Anonymous said...

“Force always attracts men of low morality.”
--- Albert Einstein

“...private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is this extremely difficult and in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions.”
--- Albert Einstein 1949

Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are not even capable of forming such opinions.
--- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Heroism on command, senseless violence, and all the loathsome nonsense that goes by the name of patriotism -how passionately I hate them!
--- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

The ruling class has the schools and press under its thumb. This enables it to sway the emotions of the masses.
--- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.
--- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

 
At 28 May, 2010 15:19, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Peace cannot be kept by force.
--- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

With all the force exerted by Israel in fighting off all it's enemies, has it achieved any peace yet?

 
At 28 May, 2010 15:24, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I destroy my enemies when I make them my friends.
--- Abraham Lincoln

 
At 28 May, 2010 15:41, Blogger Triterope said...

"It's fun to cut and paste lengthy lists of vague quotes." -- Triterope

 
At 28 May, 2010 16:54, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It's fun to cut and paste lengthy lists of vague quotes." -- Triterope

I really did not think you would have an intelligent response ---anon

 
At 28 May, 2010 17:30, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I use to collect comics too...in middle school.

Billman-Now that we again know your on board with a another investigation as long as it doesn't violate your civil liberties, how in the world can you trust what NIST states when the video itself showed over and over that Gross is a liar and practicing willful ignorance of the facts?? That alone no matter what you believe should raise some eyebrows. And the guy apparently isn't an asshole as one debunker claimed.

No need to dodge the point. What in the heck caused the highlights of Jeff Shure's video to even be in existence.

Official: A chuck of fused elements, molten steel..
Debunker: Its not molten steel.

An iron cross made of beams not initially attached, melted together.
Debunker: Its not melted iron.

Firefighters state they witnessed molten steel flowing like lava down the channel.
Debunker Its not melted steel.

Pile Worker: Iron beam bursts into flames. Strangley enough sounds like some other exotic material.
Debunker: Its not melted iron.

First responder fire fighter: I saw big quantities of molten metal!Confirms multiple witnesses saw it.
Debunker: Its not steel or iron.
(aluminum foil?LOL?)

Eyewitness at 4:25 says its so hot and sees molten steel and beams in pile.
Debunker: Its not steel or iron.

Ken Holden: Molten metal dripped down the sides of building 6.
Truther? Huh? Building 6??
Debunker: Its not steel or iron.

Mayor of New York: Fires that are 2000 degrees.
Debunker: Those fires didn't melt iron or steel.


Do you guys even begin to understand how ridiculous your statements, logic, and powers of observation and investigation are in the face of the facts presented by the people that were THERE?

It doesn't matter what your political belief are, but willful denial in the face of these certain facts is truly incomprehensible. I wonder what exactly causes someone to force themselves into that position because of their political beliefs.

Is one's love of one's own Federal government the source of this mysterious debunker mentality?

 
At 28 May, 2010 18:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous lies like a rug, and scribbles, "...Billman-Now that we again know your on board with a another investigation as long as it doesn't violate your civil liberties, how in the world can you trust what NIST states when the video itself showed over and over that Gross is a liar and practicing willful ignorance of the facts??"

On the contrary, the liars are Jeff Hill and the Anonymous jizzmop.

Proof?

Here's a transcript of the conversation between Dr. Gross and Jeff Hill:

Jeff Hill: [Mumbles something about steel residues]

Dr. Gross: "First of all, let's go back to your basic premise, that there was a pool of molten steel..."

Notice that Dr. Gross said molten steel, not molten metal; thus, it's obvious that Jeff Hill's question concerned molten steel.

Now, I'll transcribe Jeff Hill's 26 May 2010 phone call to Dr. Gross.

Dr. Gross: "Hello?"

Jeff Hill: "Hi, Mr. Gross?"

Dr. Gross: "Yes, speaking."

Jeff Hill: "My name is Jeffrey Hill. The reason I'm calling you, sir, is because I was just looking at a video where you were talking about Ground Zero. You said in that video that there was no witnesses or reports of molten metal at Ground Zero."

Dr. Gross: "Actually, no I didn't, but go ahead."

Notice that Hill is talking about molten metal now. Thus, Dr. Gross was not lying, because he didn't talk about molten metal, he talked about molten steel.

Now, who's lying?

BUSTED!

Fuck you, Jeff Hill. And fuck you and the horse you rode in on, Anonymous jizzmop for 9/11 troof.

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:17, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Notice that Dr. Gross said molten steel, not molten metal; thus, it's obvious that Jeff Hill's question concerned molten steel.

There goes Fretboard Fool again with intellectually dishonest and irrelevant argument.

Whether it's steel or iron (it was not aluminum as that is silvery not red-orange as seen dripping from the building or from the end of a beam pulled up by a crain) would not matter as steel melts at around 2700F and Iron 2800F.

By Gross's own admition, fire could not do that (to either).

Now PUTZHEAD, you want me to list out the 35 quotations of testimony to molten metallic material in the ruble pile? Hummmm?

Or would wo like me to post Thomas Egar's (Do you even know who he is schmuck?) explain how combustion science works?

Go ahead...make my day

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:25, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The steel apparently melted away, but no fire in any of the buildings was believed to be hot enough to melt steel outright. ...A preliminary analysis of the steel at Worcester Polytechnic Institute using electron microscopes suggests that sulfur released during the fires ---no one knows from where --- may have combined with atoms in the steel to form compounds that melt at lower temperatures."
--- James Glanz and Eric Lipton, "A Search for Clues In Towers' Collapse; Engineers Volunteer to Examine Steel Debris Taken to Scrapyards," The New York Times, February 2, 2002, (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E0DE153DF931A35751C0A9649C8B63


" ---no one knows from where --" ...we have a pretty fucking good idea don't we now Billbo?

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:31, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is argued that the jet fuel burns very hot, especially with so much fuel present. This is not true... The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual... In combustion science, there are three basic types of flames, namely, a jet burner, a pre-mixed flame, and a diffuse flame... In a diffuse flame, the fuel and the oxidant are not mixed before ignition, but flow together in an uncontrolled manner and combust when the fuel/oxidant ratios reach values within the flammable range. A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000˚C [about 1,832˚F]... But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke....
--- Thomas Eagar and Christopher Musso, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 53.12 (2001), 8–11 (www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM /0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html).

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:34, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks. The beam, so named because its cross-section looks like a capital I, had clearly endured searing temperatures. Parts of the flat top of the I, once five-eighths of an inch thick, had vaporized. …in some places, the fireproofing melted into a glassy residue.
--- Scarred Steel Holds Clues, And Remedies, By Kenneth Chang, The New York Times, October 2, 2001. Professor Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of the University of California at Berkeley, who had received a National Science Foundation grant to spend two weeks at Ground Zero studying steel from the buildings. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63).

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures"
--- Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. “Engineers Suspect Diesel Fuel in Collapse of 7 World Trade Center,” By James Glanz, The New York Times, November 29, 2001

Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible…The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
--- Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” Appendix C of World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA, May 2002 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf)
Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfidation with subsequent intergranular melting, was readily visible…The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 [WTC7] and 2 [Towers] are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.
--- Jonathan Barnett, Ronald R. Biederman, and R. D. Sisson, Jr., “Limited Metallurgical Examination,” Appendix C of World Trade Center Building Performance Study, FEMA, May 2002 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf)

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous the jizmop prevaricates, "...Whether it's steel or iron (it was not aluminum as that is silvery not red-orange as seen dripping from the building or from the end of a beam pulled up by a crain) would not matter as steel melts at around 2700F and Iron 2800F."

That's right, jizzmop, change the subject.

The fact is that Jeff Hill lied. Another deceptive video from da troof.

LOL!

Now, aren't you forgetting Aluminum, which was abundant in the towers?

And what's the melting point of aluminum, jizzmop?

Unfortunately, the troofers conveniently fail to mention that aluminum was abundant at ground zero owing to its use in the WTC facade, the two 767s, and hundreds of vehicles in the WTC's underground parking lot. Aluminum melts at between 800 degrees F and 1184 degrees F--depending on the composition of the alloy.

Additionally, underground fires burned for weeks at temperatures approaching 1700 degrees F--which is more than hot enough to account for POOLS OF MOLTEN ALUMINUM, not steel, which melts at a much higher temperature (~2750 degrees F).

Finally, there is NO EVIDENCE of "molten steel" at ground zero NOR WOULD NANOTHERMITE ACCOUNT FOR ITS PRESENCE IF IT WERE. However, conditions in the pile--tons of aluminum and super hot fires--were perfect for large pools OF MOLTEN ALUMINUM TO FORM.

Again, as Dr. Gross pointed out, there's absolutely no evidence for molten steel at ground zero--period.

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous the jizzmop for 9/11 troof misrepresents Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's opinion, and scribbles, "...One piece Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw was a charred horizontal I-beam from 7 World Trade Center, a 47-story skyscraper that collapsed from fire eight hours after the attacks."

So, now you're resorting to lies about Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, jizzmop?

Here's his real opinion:

"...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." -- 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.

Any more lies for us, jizzmop?

 
At 28 May, 2010 19:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous tells the same lie over-and-over again, and scribbles, "...it was not aluminum as that is silvery not red-orange as seen dripping from the building or from the end of a beam pulled up by a crain."

Sorry jizzmop, but that's a lie. Aluminum at 1800 degrees F is orange.

Source: SLC: The color of molten aluminum depends on the temperature of the molten aluminum.

Any more 100% fact-free nonsense for us, jizzmop?

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:02, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes, molten aluminum is silver at low temperatures; however, the hydrocarbon-rich fires exceed 1800 degrees F. At 1800 degrees F, molten aluminum is orange, as the following video proves:

Except Fretboard Fool, NIST admits it has no evidence for temeratures above 1,112F. Wrong again Billbo.

"....no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600˚C [1,112˚F]..."
---NIST. Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers. September 2005 (http://wtc.nist.gov/ NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf)88.

And even that would have been a gross exaggeration as Thomas Eagar explains:

A fireplace is a diffuse flame burning in air, as was the WTC fire. Diffuse flames generate the lowest heat intensities of the three flame types... The maximum flame temperature increase for burning hydrocarbons (jet fuel) in air is, thus, about 1,000˚C [about 1,832˚F]... But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio. This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500 °C to 650 °C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke....
--- Thomas Eagar and Christopher Musso, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," JOM: Journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society 53.12 (2001), 8–11 (www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM /0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html).

So even if your argument that at 1800 degrees F, molten aluminum is orange, it does not matter as there is no evidence that the fires never reached within almost 700F of what you are falsely claiming.

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:09, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"..., it always amazes me that 6MIL jews were murdered by the most extreme right wing fascist evil regime in history"

Nazis were leftists.

Not right wing.

Try leaning some history.

" You seem to have no problem with fascim..."

Gee, do the insane always stereotype indiscriminately? Or are they just too fucking stupid to breathe without help?

"(I can assure you he was smarter than you) when he said, "It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.""

"Since pacifists have more freedom of action in countries where traces of democracy survive, pacifism can act more effectively against democracy than for it. Objectively, the pacifist is pro-Nazi."

-George Orwell

"Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay--and claims a halo for his dishonesty."

-Robert A. Heinlein


So pacifists are parsites on the men and women who defend them.

So take your Einstien quotes, fold it until it's all corners, and shove it up your ass.

"He was jewish by the way, and a better jew that you'll ever be."

I never claimed to be Jewish, you anti-semitic cocksucker.

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:12, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Peace cannot be kept by force."
--- Albert Einstein (1879-1955)

Tell that to Nazi Germany.

Or Imperial Japan.

Or the Soviet Union.

Or the Confederate States of America.

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue--and thoroughly immoral-- doctrine that 'violence never solves anything' I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The Ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon. Violence, naked force, has settled more disputes in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."

-Robert Heinlein



Ok, I'm done cockslapping you around. Again.

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:13, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"An iron cross made of beams not initially attached, melted together."

Prove it.

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:13, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...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,

Except FEMA and NIST say otherwise:

"many structural and fire protection features of the design and construction were superior to the minimum code requirements."
--- FEMA: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, p 2., May 1, 2002, www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

“Both WTC 1 and WTC 2 were stable after the aircraft impact, standing for 102 min and 56 min, respectively. The global analyses with structural impact damage showed that both towers had considerable reserve capacity”
--- S. Sunder, W. Grosshandler, H. S. Lew, et al. “Final report on the collapse of the World Trade Center towers, NIST NCSTAR. Gaithersburg”, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology, September 2005.

"The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
--- NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers (Draft). (www.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTARldraft.pdf) 195.

"Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said Wednesday. Engineers with the National Institute of Standards and Technology have conducted preliminary tests on some of the 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, said Frank Gayle, who is leading NIST's review of the steel. The tests found that, typical for construction steel used in the 1960s when the World Trade Center was erected, the steel beams exceeded requirements to bear 36,000 pounds per square inch. Often they were capable of bearing around 42,000 pounds per square inch. "
--- Steel Not Seen As Factor in WTC Collapse, By DEVLIN BARRETT, The Associated Press, August 27, 2003

"…because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure."
---Thomas Eagar, a professor of materials engineering at MIT who supports the official view of the collapses, 2001.

“The floor framing system for the two towers was complex and substantially more redundant than typical bar joist floor systems.”
--- Report #403, World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), May 1, 2002, www.fema.gov/library/wtcstudy.shtm

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Anonymous prevaricates, "...Except Fretboard Fool, NIST admits it has no evidence for temeratures above 1,112F. Wrong again Billbo."

Lie.

"....no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600˚C [1,112˚F]..."

Quote mined fragment.

"...So even if your argument that at 1800 degrees F, molten aluminum is orange, it does not matter as there is no evidence that the fires never reached within almost 700F of what you are falsely claiming."

What's this, jizzmop?

Source: USGS: USGS Thermal Data Analysis of Ground Zero.

Wrong again.

In fact, NASA reports a temperature range of 800 degrees F to 1350 degree F for the pile. In any case, these temperatures are consistent with a smoldering pile of steel--the fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F, which is well below 2800 degrees F.

"....no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600˚C [1,112˚F]..."

So, you're trying to tell me that the temperature went up with time?!?!?!? After all, NASA reports a temperature range of 800 to 1350 degrees F. Quote mining again, jizzmop? Of course you are.

Any more lies for us, jizzmop?

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:20, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nazis were leftists

Oh yea...here the definition of Nazism from Wikipedia, first paragraph:

Nazism (Nationalsozialismus, National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and anti-Semitism.[9] Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.[10]



Lets repeat that last line:

in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.

again

in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.

one more time

in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.

You dumb shit

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'll return later. I'm busy.

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:46, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"....no evidence that any of the samples had reached temperatures above 600˚C [1,112˚F]..."

So, you're trying to tell me that the temperature went up with time?!?!?!? After all, NASA reports a temperature range of 800 to 1350 degrees F. Quote mining again, jizzmop? Of course you are.



You know, you're unbelieveable.

That's NIST who says they have no evidence that the steel had reached above 1,112F

John Gross in that video said the fires could not have been hot enough....so did Thomas Eagar.

Yet the evidence is that extremely high temperatures...even higher than 1,800F as evidenced by molten metal flowing from a great many MULTIPLE reports had been reached.

THATS THE FUCKING PROBLEM ASSHOLE! Are you just think? ...or just stupid?

You claim it is aluminum but you have no evidence to back that up. And the aluminum could not have been orange as you claim because NIST says the have no evidence that the steel attained anywhere near that temperature. If steel did not attain that temperature than aluminum certainly did not either. ...and NIST is correct when it says that normal hypdrocarbon jet fuel fire cannot reach temperatures that can melt steel... ..........Except molton iron and/or steel melted!!!!!! We know Iron melted and iron has a slightly higher melting point than steel...

We claim it is steel or at least Iron and we have the iron microsperes to back that up found by three different sets of scientists.

You are correct about the temperatures in the pile so I guess to argue your point you will need to call NIST a bunch of fucking liers that they are.

 
At 28 May, 2010 21:49, Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and Fretboard Fool writes:
I'll return later. I'm busy.


It's like that scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail

RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY....

ROFL

chicken

Anonymous #2, we got em on the run...

 
At 28 May, 2010 23:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I never claimed to be Jewish, you anti-semitic cocksucker.

I never claimed not to be Jewish you dumb stupid shithead!

LLong, On a serious note: I apologize for that remark I made. That was out of line. I am certainly not an anti-semite..........that might be kind of difficult.....

All my other insults to you still stand of course.

 
At 29 May, 2010 00:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Okay, I'm back.

Anonymous prevaricates, "...That's NIST who says they have no evidence that the steel had reached above 1,112F"

Oh I see, you're still trying to change the subject.

Good work, Glenn. It's good to know that some things never change: You're a perpetual liar.

Now, let's get on with it, shall we, jizzmop?

Normally, in your typically duplicitous fashion, you disagree with the NIST Report and refer to the report as a pack of lies.

Correct, jizzmop?

However, when the NIST Report suits your hidden agenda, suddenly the NIST Report becomes an absolute authority.

ROTFLMAO!

Hypocrite.

LOL!

You can't have it both ways, jizzmop.

Is the NIST Report correct, or not?

You'll recall, jizzmop, the SATELLITE DATA I provided confirms that the pile reached a temperature well above "1,112F".

So, did the temperature of the pile rise over time?

LOL!

And if so, can you explain the source of the energy that produced temperatures in excess of "1,112F"?

ROTFLMAO!

You're a clown, jizzmop. But that's common knowledge, isn't it?

But I digress.

So, when will you address Jeff Hick's deceptive video, jizzmop?

Now get to work, jizzmop, and stop trying to change the subject.

 
At 29 May, 2010 01:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Since you refuse to address the Jeff Hick's lies, and instead resort to misdirection tactics, let's try again, shall we, jizzmop?



Anonymous lies like a rug, and scribbles, "...Billman-Now that we again know your on board with a another investigation as long as it doesn't violate your civil liberties, how in the world can you trust what NIST states when the video itself showed over and over that Gross is a liar and practicing willful ignorance of the facts??"

On the contrary, the liars are Jeff Hill and the Anonymous jizzmop.

Proof?

Here's a transcript of the conversation between Dr. Gross and Jeff Hill:

Jeff Hill: [Mumbles something about steel residues]

Dr. Gross: "First of all, let's go back to your basic premise, that there was a pool of molten steel..."

Notice that Dr. Gross said molten steel, not molten metal; thus, it's obvious that Jeff Hill's question concerned molten steel.

Now, I'll transcribe Jeff Hill's 26 May 2010 phone call to Dr. Gross.

Dr. Gross: "Hello?"

Jeff Hill: "Hi, Mr. Gross?"

Dr. Gross: "Speaking."

Jeff Hill: "My name is Jeffrey Hill. The reason I'm calling you, sir, is because I was just looking at a video where you were talking about Ground Zero. You said in that video that there was no witnesses or reports of molten metal at Ground Zero.

Dr. Gross: "Actually, no I didn't, but go ahead."

Notice that Hill is talking about molten metal now. Thus, Dr. Gross was not lying, because he didn't talk about molten metal, he talked about molten steel.

Now, who's lying?

BUSTED!


NOW ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, JIZZMOP.

Now, get to work, liar.

 
At 29 May, 2010 05:50, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Lets repeat that last line:

in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics."

Okey-dokey, retarded twoooofers learn history from Wikipedia.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

Nazism was born of the left, lived of the left, and died of the left.

Why do you think "The National Socialist German Workers' Party" had "Socialist" and "Workers Party" in the fucking name, you ignotant chimp, for shits and giggles?

OH, and do you want to know where the myth that "Nazis are right-wing" comes from?

Joseph Stalin.

Now THERE'S a source of information a twooooofer™ can trust, right fucktard?

 
At 29 May, 2010 09:35, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Ah, there we have Obersturmführer Lazarus Long again and his revisionist history lessons straight from the Texas Education Board.

Bravo! Hitler would be proud!

Here's a challenge. An interesting challenge. Please quote me one German newspaper that calls neo-nazis "left wing".

One.

Do you accept?

After all, sizing up Nazi ideology is as easy as cherrypicking one word from an acronym right? After, since the GDR has the word "democratic" in it, it must ergo have been a democracy.

Bravo!

So, do you accept my challenge Laz? One quote from any German mainstream media outlet calling Nazis or Neo-Nazis "left wingers". Books from knuckledragging Americans such as Jonah Goldberg do not count.

The liberal Wikipedia conspiracy is apparently expanding... they're lying to us about anthropogenic global warming, Nazism, health care.. Laz, you are a conspiracy theorist!

(Of course, right wing extremist conspiracy theories are always okay ;-)

Tell you what: here's another challenge. Go to www.stormfront.org and convince the Nazi regulars there Hitler was left-wing. Or better yet: just approach some Nazis on the street with the camera and discuss Hitler's "leftism" with them.

Good luck!

Cheers =)

 
At 29 May, 2010 15:21, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Anonymous #2 said...
Ah, there we have Obersturmführer Lazarus Long again and his revisionist history lessons straight from the Texas Education Board."

No, from the study of history, not the leftist poopooganda you apparently are too stupid to realize is a lie.

"Bravo! Hitler would be proud!"

Huhn? Of what? That you're a gullible fool?

"Here's a challenge. An interesting challenge. Please quote me one German newspaper that calls neo-nazis "left wing".

One.

Do you accept?"

WTF does that have to do with anything?


"After all, sizing up Nazi ideology is as easy as cherrypicking one word from an acronym right?"

More than one word, fucktard. Along with their ideology and practice.

You really DO have a problem with reading comprehension, don't you?


"After, since the GDR has the word "democratic" in it, it must ergo have been a democracy." "

Only to a puling lackwit like you who believes communist propaganda.

"So, do you accept my challenge Laz? One quote from any German mainstream media outlet calling Nazis or Neo-Nazis "left wingers"."

Once again, what the fuck does that have to do with anything? You really are insane, aren't you?

"Books from knuckledragging Americans such as Jonah Goldberg do not count."

So the truth from an intellectual, someone who knows what he's talking about after years of research, aren't good enough for the crazy conspiracy fuck who'll believe any screaming street corner nutbag. Right.

"The liberal Wikipedia conspiracy is apparently expanding... they're lying to us about anthropogenic global warming, Nazism, health care.. Laz, you are a conspiracy theorist!"

No, you're insane.

Stupid and insane.

It's the ol' Alinsky rule: charge your opponents with whatever it is you do.

Only insane freaks like you believe in conspiracy theories.

"(Of course, right wing extremist conspiracy theories are always okay ;-)"

Like what, fucktard? And no, I don't believe in conspiracy theories.

"Tell you what: here's another challenge. Go to www.stormfront.org and convince the Nazi regulars there Hitler was left-wing."

Don't have to, it's thier ideology.

"Or better yet: just approach some Nazis on the street with the camera and discuss Hitler's "leftism" with them.

Good luck!"

I wouldn't piss on a nazi if he were on fire, let alone talk to him.

Anti-semitism and hatred are you're thing, not mine.

 
At 30 May, 2010 12:50, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"WTF does that have to do with anything?"

So you decline.

Thought so, you kooky, mendacious, revisionist Nazi clown. You can't even produce ONE German source.

You know why? Because your entire belief system has no basis but talk radio KKK circle jerk fantasy land and selective, tendentious distortion of history by professional revisionist "authors" like Goldberg, whose book was laughed at by every single serious intellectual and historian.

Just like the Texas Education Board.

Great job at making yourself look like a historically oblivious dumbbell again, douche. Epic fail.

 
At 30 May, 2010 13:45, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, another
supporter of the official story and the first structural
engineer given access to the WTC steel, told PBS, “I
saw melting of girders in [the] World Trade Center.”

Debunkers: Those girders weren't made of iron or steel.

How fucking dumb do you have to be to ignore facts that don't add up for the official story?

Do tell, what would cause melting of girders (plural, debunker, more than one) in a normal office fire? Mind your physics and reality now.

 
At 31 May, 2010 18:05, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It may have looked like "melting" to Dr. Astaneh-Asl (who is not a metallurgist) but others who observed the same steel and determined it was eutectic corrosion.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5901785&postcount=803

Old news.

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:23, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

JREF is not a source, Anonymous, it's a forum. A forum full of deranged government apologist masquerading as "skeptics".

Astaneh-Asl is one of the world's foremost experts on structural failures. When he examined the overpass collapse, he explicitly noted that there, the steel only weakened, while at the WTC, he actually say "melting" of girders. Whatever he thinks about the reasons for the collapse of the WTC towers (and who knows, he may be right, as far as I'm concerned), that does not explain the temperature anomalies he confirms. That means, while natural collapse may be a distinct possibility, the high temperatures indicate highly exothermic reactions occurred.

There is no indication whatsoever that Astaneh-Asl is referring to Appendix C of the FEMA report, but every indication that he saw "melting of girders at the World Trade Center" with his own fucking eyes.

His observations are corroborated by many others. #1 #2

Those "others" include the RJ Lee Group which states, and I quote:

“An additional characteristic of WTC dust is the presence of coated particles and fibers.… The presence of lead oxide on the surface of mineral wool indicate the existence of extremely high temperatures during the collapse which caused metallic lead to volatilize, oxidize, and finally condense on the surface of the mineral wool.”

There is no way out from under this conundrum, the pitiful excuses of prevaricating, pseudoskeptic scum notwithstanding.

You can't shoehorn Astaneh-Asl's comment into a fabrication or fantasy in which you invent that his comment was in direct relation to the WTC 7 sample (which is extremely odd in itself) examined by Barnett et alia.

Cheers =)

 
At 31 May, 2010 20:48, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

And by the way, I'm in no way interested in hobbyist NASA debunker Mackey's "opinion" of Astaneh-Asl's claim. Mackey baselessly claims that (1) Astaneh-Asl saw the exact same steel as NIST did and (2) if NIST denies that steel melted, Astaneh-Asl was wrong.

Both are tenuous, pseudoskeptic fabrications by a desperate, 9/11 denialist loon from JREF with an axe to grind. Mackey is not a source, Mackey is a denialist clown with an opinion. And as you know, "debunker" cultist, opinions are like assholes, because everybody's got one.

I don't give a rat's ass about clown Mackey's colored "opinion" of Astaneh-Asl's corroborated, indisputable, factual claim of melted steel. It baffles me to no end that fucktard "debunkers" will cite Mackey as if it has the slightest of meaning. Mackey has made some sense in the past, but if you think it's going to be satisfactory to be relying upon a flawed, deeply biased "interpretation" on some denialist forum you are off your fucking rocker my friend.

You might as well cite John Gross again, saying that "we have no eyewitnesses [of molten steel], nobody who said so". Is this it? The best you've got? We're supposed to take Mackey's word for it that Astaneh-Asl was mistaken? Mackey?! The JREF denialist clowntard with delusions of grandeur? You've got to be kidding me.

Ut Veniant Omnes, as Mackey puts it, in deeply flawed pig Latin of course.

 
At 31 May, 2010 21:03, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Oh, and you'll note, that the sources labeled "#1" and "#2" are compilations of primary sources.

 
At 01 June, 2010 07:14, Anonymous Anonymous said...

GuitarBill said...

So your saying that Gross doesn't KNOW that steel is a metal?

Or better yet, you don't know that steel is metal and your making an excuse for an outight liar.

Hill made it EASIER on the guy to be honest.

Here you go Guitar, enjoy your learning:

1.any of various modified forms of iron, artificially produced, having a carbon content less than that of pig iron and more than that of wrought iron, and having qualities of hardness, elasticity, and strength varying according to composition and heat treatment: generally categorized as having a high, medium, or low-carbon content.
2.
a thing or things made of this metal.

Again, JEFF HILL, made it easier for Gross to be honest but instead Gross waves the hand and states no eyewitnesses to molten metal which includes steel, Guitarbill.

So take your fascination with sperm-mops and get back to computer security becase you are outclassed and outsmarted here by simple facts alone.

And stop molesting your daughters too.

 
At 01 June, 2010 16:08, Blogger Triterope said...

And by the way, I'm in no way interested in hobbyist NASA debunker Mackey's "opinion" of Astaneh-Asl's claim.

He is a regular poster at JREF's 9-11 Conspiracy forum. Why don't you go there and ask him?

 
At 02 June, 2010 16:37, Anonymous Arhoolioe said...

The Debunker Cult is taking such a shellacking that my boots keep melting.I gotta change pairs every couple of hours.As Babe Ruth said to President Coolidge:"It's hot as hell,ain't it Prez?"

 
At 02 June, 2010 19:47, Blogger Archibald said...

Did he record this guy on the phone without his permission? I believe that's a possible violation of wiretap laws. He probably didn't want to give his email address to some fruitbat. That's understandable.

 
At 02 June, 2010 20:02, Blogger Archibald said...

anonymous said "... can you explain how hot it would have to be for a 6" thick iron beam to be bent into a horse shoe shape as discussed in the video?"

I can. Ever seen a "Sherman Bowtie?" OK...let me explain. When the Union Army was marching through the south, they would derail a section of railroad track, build a fire under it, and proceed to tie the tracks into a knot. You really don't have to get steel anywhere close to melting point to deform it.
Oh yeah. You referred to this inferno as a "normal office fire." Not many "normal offices" have at least 10 diesel tanks in it. Just an observation.

 
At 03 June, 2010 02:12, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

I can. Ever seen a "Sherman Bowtie?" OK...let me explain. When the Union Army was marching through the south, they would derail a section of railroad track, build a fire under it, and proceed to tie the tracks into a knot. You really don't have to get steel anywhere close to melting point to deform it.

Brilliant analysis. In fact, you don't even have to heat steel to deform it. Case in point: the plane impacts. Ergo, the buildings should have collapsed at random, way before 9/11. What is my point here? Although you may be ultimately right about collapse initiation being possible, I'm hella sure you don't know what the *fuck* you're talking about.

"Oh yeah. You referred to this inferno as a "normal office fire." Not many "normal offices" have at least 10 diesel tanks in it. Just an observation."

Here's another observation. If you are referring to WTC 1 & 2, then please source us and point out the location of these 10 diesel tanks. I can't recall them at the moment.

If, however, you mean WTC 7, you should have known that NIST explicitly rules out the diesel tanks as a contributor to the collapse in their WTC 7 report.

Have you even read it, you sick, demented, pathologically lying fuckface?

If you haven't, then why are you shooting your fucking mouth off, you arrogant, stupid, terminally ignorant fucktard?

 
At 03 June, 2010 05:27, Blogger Archibald said...

"I'm hella sure you don't know what the *fuck* you're talking about."

Might be a good idea to find out who the *fuck* you're talking to. I worked for 9 years in an industrial environment where I got to observe a lot about the properties and characteristics of metals, especially under high-temp conditions. I am a technology education teacher and spent four years teaching children how trusses work and doing exercises with them where we all got to observe how trusses behave and how they fail. There is a reason firefighters use the phrase "Don't trust the truss." Trusses, when they fail, do so quickly and violently. Steel trusses can be even more unpredictable, since they can deform (and thus, fail) somewhat quickly in a fire (that's why they use fire-protective coatings on them to buy some time).

"Here's another observation. If you are referring to WTC 1 & 2, then please source us and point out the location of these 10 diesel tanks. I can't recall them at the moment."

Now you're just intentionally obfuscating. I was explicitly replying to an earlier Anon post about building 7. WTC 1 and 2 had a couple of large jets loaded with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, so no diesel tanks were needed. Are you going to start kicking the dead horse about how "no steel frame buildings ever collapsed from a fire" (which has already been debunked several times)?

"Have you even read it, you sick, demented, pathologically lying fuckface?"

And judging from the lack of intellectual sophistication evident in your reliance upon ad hominem attacks, neither have you (or if you did, you had no clue what it meant). Call me names all you want, internet tough guy and mighty keyboard warrior. I would love it if you could point out any evidence whatsoever that I am a pathological liar (or any kind of liar), I would be glad to hear it. You don't know me. I only started posting yesterday. I will gladly compare education and technical aptitude with you any day (BSE in Technology Education with a minor in History, and AST (Associate of Specialized Technology) in Electronic and Computer Technology. Nine years of industrial technology experience (most of it spent as lead technician) and four years of experience as a Technology Education teacher. Judging from the posts of the Anon and his sock-puppet Anon#2, I detect someone who barely graduated hs, and maybe had a semester or two at a liberal arts college (which would more than explain the know-it-all attitude).

 
At 03 June, 2010 05:40, Blogger Archibald said...

One more point. The whole thing about the thermite/thermate argument is ridiculous on its face. First off, it's never used for controlled demolition (cannot work sideways since it relies on gravity as it burns downward...youtube a couple of videos showing thermite in action if you don't believe me). It's also a horrible choice for cd, since it does not work instantaneously (it burns, meaning it does not explode) thus you can't time its action (for cd, the explosions must be timed just right). The implausible/impossible scenarios, the leaps of faith, and the outright scuttling of logic needed to believe in a vast conspiracy carried out by a super-competent government defies credibility. All you do, when faced with the facts is: Change the subject, attack the messenger, and move goalposts further down the field.

 
At 03 June, 2010 05:41, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

Except, the truss failure theory was abandoned in favor of the column failure theory.

All you need to know, is that I've studied 9/11 far longer than you have, and this evident immediately from the above. You can't even get your official narrative straight. You probably don't reports. You're simply more bloviating cannon fodder.

QED: quote me the NIST WTC 7 report, saying that the diesel tanks contributed to the collapse at all. Do it now, beacon of sophistication, or recant.

You idiots... yes of course I'm rude. Do you know for how long I've been putting up with your shameless, arrogant, incorrigible attitudes? Yet, somehow, you're as dumb as a horse's ass, some of you with multiple masters degrees. It's unbelievable.

Now quote me the goddamn NIST report re: the diesel tanks, sophist. This is going to be fun.

 
At 03 June, 2010 05:48, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"One more point. The whole thing about the thermite/thermate argument is ridiculous on its face."

Since nanothermite was found in WTC dust, I say you just landed on your face, ridiculously.

I could link you this and this, but the truth of the matter is, you're a foolhardy, cretinous fucktard and I have better things to do.

I'm not interested in speculating about use case scenarios, I'm interested in *you* (A) explaining the temperature anomalies and (B) explain nanothermite in WTC dust.

Now if you're going to dust of any of the old cheesy cliche protestations and prevarications I'm going to have to bow out because I am not wasting any of my time debating ill-informed lower ladder debunker trolls, sorry. You can visit the regular, lower division truther lairs to get your silly little ass wooped there. No amount of use case scenario subterfuge, evasion and peevish quixotic dodgery is going to magically make nanothermite disappear from WTC dust, nor does it change the RJ Lee and USGS reports.

In short: surprise me. Prove to me you have something better to offer than the standard sniveling, groveling, JREF parroting debunker script, because I'm tired of you lemmings and I really, really don't want to keep repeating myself.

 
At 03 June, 2010 06:18, Blogger Archibald said...

Ok. Took a pretty good look at the NIST report (goddamnit, my coffee got cold). Yes, it does say that the diesel fuel did not play a role in the collapse. I am conceding this point in the face of evidence - something troofers rarely (if ever) do.

That being said, the next bullet point of the report states that "Blast events did not play a role in the collapse of WTC 7." I love how y'all can pick and choose depending on your agenda.

Seems that the cause was a progressive collapse due to damage to a critical column (column 79, tp be exact) and fires that burned unabated (due to the failure of the sprinkler system) for 7+ hours.

Your point?

 
At 03 June, 2010 07:25, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"Your point?"

...

Yeah.

 
At 03 June, 2010 07:43, Blogger Archibald said...

MY POINT IS THAT YOU CANNOT FUCKING CHERRY-PICK YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE!
GTFO MY INTERNETS!

 
At 03 June, 2010 07:59, Anonymous Anonymous #2 said...

"MY POINT IS THAT YOU CANNOT FUCKING CHERRY-PICK YOUR FUCKING EVIDENCE!"

False dilemma fallacy.

Whereas you, official story supporter, must defend the NIST report's foundational contentions, because otherwise, you're a "truther". Conversely, if you bat the firefighter quote mining against the NIST report, you must choose, and in either case, you are a "truther".

You haven't even fucking read the NIST report, you fucking tool, so your place is to get your dirty paws off the CAPSLOCK key and shut up. (Until you've brushed up)

 
At 03 June, 2010 08:42, Blogger Archibald said...

You know why I started researching? I have a friend who is a troofer. She is a sweet person, and very intelligent. The problem is, she is also incredibly gullible and believes everything she reads on the internet because she is prone to highly paranoid thinking.
It really doesn't matter how long you've been "researching" (and "researching" is not defined as reading a bunch of conspiracy kook websites which do nothing but quote other conspiracy kooks). It's a psychotic echo chamber. Frankly, I have better things to do than try to have an intelligent debate with a brainwashed retard fuckwit.
Good day and good bye. I have learned everything I need to know about your movement just by conversing with you and your sock puppet. You bring nothing to the table. Oh, are you a "planer" or a "no-planer?" Do you believe in the reptilians or the greys? Is it all part of the aspartame/fluoride conspiracy? Enjoy your descent into insane fucktardary. Go fap to Alex Jones. You can go ahead and "claim victory." A wise man once said that you shouldn't argue with an idiot because an observer might not be able to tell which is which.

 
At 05 June, 2010 11:43, Anonymous Arhoolie said...

Isn't that special,mmm,hey Archie!?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home