Saturday, October 02, 2010

Steve Alten: Back Pimping the Troof

Despite the failure of his 2008 novel, the unreadable thriller, Shell Game, novelist Steve Alten is now back trying to promote another novel for the troof, called Grim Reaper: End of Days.

A bit of it was posted over at 911 flogger, and it appears as cheesy and poorly researched as before:

Unnerved, Patrick Shepard turns away, staring coldly out the driver's side backseat window. Somewhere in the distance is FDR Drive, beyond that the East River. There is only darkness out there, save for two towering infernos -- the Manhattan Bridge to the north, the Brooklyn Bridge to the south. The two expanses had been destroyed seventeen hours earlier, yet the incendiary thermite used in the blasts still burns, the chemical compound melting right through the steel girders-


I am always perplexed in how troofers seem to think that thermite has some sort of magical properties. Seventeen hours!? OK, I suppose that isn't much, considering they seem to think it burns for up to 6 weeks. I thought it was cool when the Mythbusters guys tried to cut a car in half with a half ton of thermite, and that only lasted a minute or so.



How much freaking thermite would you need to keep burning for 17 hours?

Homeland Security had shutdown all access to Ground Zero effectively preventing any close inspection of the debris; still, resourceful engineers managed to collect plenty of particle samples -- their analysis revealing the presence of a foreign substance that should not have been in the wreckage: Thermite. A pyrotechnic material used by the military and construction engineers to collapse steel structures, thermite generated temperatures at a super hot 4,500 degrees. Thermite also burned for extended periods of time. And it could be applied as a paint.


Nevermind that there was no such thing as "Homeland Security" in 2001, now, of course, thermite is no longer an incendiary, but a pyrotechnic material "used by the military and construction engineers to collapse steel structures". Aside from the fact that construction engineers don't normally do this, Thermite is not used in building demolition! It never has been. If it were, you can guarantee it would be in every YouTube video the troofers made.

So Steve, go back to the giant sharks.

Labels:

71 Comments:

At 02 October, 2010 09:16, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

Homeland Security turned me into a newt in 1987.

 
At 02 October, 2010 09:25, Blogger Jaye said...

a newt??

 
At 02 October, 2010 10:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh come on, admit it. You're among friends. You knew when you were a child that you were a newt.

Probably the reason thermite is not used in demolitions is because it's difficult to ignite and thus difficult to time precisely. This problem is solved neatly, albeit expensively, by using radio-controlled igniters.

 
At 02 October, 2010 10:20, Blogger avicenne said...

"...my tenth and best thriller...a modern day Dante's inferno... it will bring Light into your own life in ways you cannot imagine. It can heal our world."

Humility is evidently not one of this guy's qualities. He's got one thing right though, - "We toss rocks at ponds, never registering a splash."

 
At 02 October, 2010 12:52, Blogger Sheri said...

I think more,and more Americans everyday are starting to suspect that there is some truths out there we have not been told regarding 911

 
At 02 October, 2010 15:42, Blogger Triterope said...

Wow. And a real book company is actually going to publish this Mary Sue crap?

 
At 02 October, 2010 19:26, Blogger angrysoba said...

"Homland Security"

Say what?!?

 
At 03 October, 2010 00:42, Blogger Steve said...

snug.bug said...

Probably the reason thermite is not used in demolitions is because it's difficult to ignite and thus difficult to time precisely.


Not quite. The lack of precision is not merely a result of its method of ignition, but also because of the very nature of how the material reacts once ignited. Watch any video of a thermite reaction and then compare it the detonation of a high-explosive. The difference in the potential for "precision" is obvious.

This problem is solved neatly, albeit expensively, by using radio-controlled igniters.

Wow, you're going to have to do better than that. For the moment, let's forget about the downsides of using a radio firing device (such as the very real possibility of the detonator unit being accidentally triggered by ordinary radio signals or even RADAR). Tell us, snug.bug- how does providing a greater (and more convenient) stand-off distance magically equate to a more precise timing and greater ease of ignition? You do realize that that (a greater/"easier" stand-off distance) is the only benefit of a Radio Firing Device, right?

I'd hate to think that you would be making such claims without having any actual knowledge of, or experience with, such technology. Here's a free pointer for you (from someone who has actually used such a device)- all a RDF does is eliminate the need for a long length of electrical firing wire (or MDI shock-tube) to connect the firing device to the business end of the firing system. That's it!

 
At 03 October, 2010 05:54, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I'd hate to think that you would be making such claims without having any actual knowledge of, or experience with, such technology."

Well seeing as Brian is a 50 something man-child who can't hold down a decent job beyond the occasional janitorial gig and so has to still live with mom and dad. you would be wishing for a lot from him.

 
At 03 October, 2010 08:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

What's wrong with good ol' C4? Can't the NWO just bring down the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges using that stuff?

Probably the reason thermite is not used in demolitions is because it's difficult to ignite and thus difficult to time precisely.

And the fact that it's not an explosive, so it, um, can't bring down large steel structures, right Brian?

This problem is solved neatly, albeit expensively, by using radio-controlled igniters.

Or by using a death ray beam from space. C'mon, Brian, as long as you're speculating about the impossible, why not have more fun with it. The WTC were brought down by remote-controlled alien spaceships traveling at light speed, not by jetliners!

 
At 03 October, 2010 15:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

"Steve" wrote: Watch any video of a thermite reaction and then compare it the detonation of a high-explosive. The difference in the potential for "precision" is obvious.

The sophisticated sol-gel shaped-charges hypothesized by Ryan et. al could of course be tested tiem and time again until their performance could be precisely predicted.

Steve: the very real possibility of the detonator unit being accidentally triggered by ordinary radio signals

Baloney. If you used very insensitive receivers, only very powerful transmitters would activate them. Add to this a serial activation code and you're set. You guys invent imaginary impediments.

Steve: all a RDF does is eliminate the need for a long length of electrical firing wire

Nonsense. Radio control also allows the detonation order to be altered and even to be controlled in real time, such that the demolition seuquence could be controlled by a joystick as the building came down. I suppose you never heard of MIDI?

Ian wrote: {Thermite is not an explosive, so it, um, can't bring down large steel structures,

Ummm, the FEMA report claimed that a few failed truss "clips" caused a floor to "unzip" and fall, bringing down the next and the next and the whole building. Thermite charges could have melted those truss "clips". Thermite can bring down large steel structures.

Ian: you're speculating about the impossible

There's nothing impossible about radio-controlled thermite igniters.

 
At 03 October, 2010 16:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Anybody who doesn't recognize a Monty Python refference is mentally handicapped.

Thermite isn't used in demolition because it would be stupid to use thermite in demolition and people who work with explosives just aren't stupid. [stupid people who work with explosives die quicky because explosives are self-corrective]

People who do "Black Bag" jobs, "Wet Work", "Black Ops", and general secret squirrel stuff wouldn't use thermite because:

1. You need a shitload of it.
2. There aren't that many people who can work with Thermite on a scale to bring down three of the WTC buildings. Thus the list of suspects would be short.
3. If you are going to strike in your own country you need a solid frame-up. So you cannot use something that screams "USA!" as your compound (that means explosives, blasting caps, det-devices, etc).
4. You need explosives that will work 99% of the time no matter what.

Al Qaeda knew this. After their truck bomb failed in the 1990s, they hit upon the idea of flying hijacked commercial jets into each tower. As it turned out it worked better than they hoped it would.

Also, if it weighs the same as a duck...

 
At 03 October, 2010 16:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Gregory wrote: Thermite isn't used in demolition because it would be stupid to use thermite in demolition

Right, it would be stupid because of the difficulties in precise control, and because of the bad psychology in revealing to the client that you brought thre building down with powdered aluminum and rust. But when you need to bring down a building silently, thermite makes sense.

M Gregory: the list of suspects would be short.

So what? Congress and the media won't touch it even so.

M Gregory: you cannot use something that screams "USA!"

Pray tell, how does aluminum oxide vapor and molten iron scream "USA!"

M Gregory: Also, if it weighs the same as a duck...

Right, a pound of prevention is a pound of cure.

 
At 03 October, 2010 17:45, Blogger Steve said...

The sophisticated sol-gel shaped-charges hypothesized by Ryan et. al could of course be tested tiem and time again until their performance could be precisely predicted.

Oh, well as long as a "hypothesized" device "could" be tested and perfected, I guess that settles things. OK, let's get this new investigation going.

Nonsense. Radio control also allows the detonation order to be altered and even to be controlled in real time, such that the demolition seuquence could be controlled by a joystick as the building came down. I suppose you never heard of MIDI?

Once again, you're talking out of your ass. Again, let me be clear: A Radio Firing Device merely provides a greater stand-off distance! All the timing and sequencing of a blast is independent of whether the detonators are "hard-wired" to the firing device or done by Radio. And the idea that someone would (or could) control the demolition with a joystick in real time, as the building falls, is just idiotic.

By "MIDI", are you referring to MDI (Modern Demolition Initiators), which I mentioned in my previous post? If not, please elaborate.

 
At 03 October, 2010 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve wrote: as long as a "hypothesized" device "could" be tested and perfected

So do you deny that a hypothesized device could be tested? I find that many of the screwloose types, as well as many of the worst of the truthers, have trouble with conditional. logic.

Steve: All the timing and sequencing of a blast is independent of whether the detonators are "hard-wired" to the firing device or done by Radio.

So you're talking electric wire control of detonators? Does anyone use that?

Steve: the idea that someone would (or could) control the demolition with a joystick in real time, as the building falls, is just idiotic.

Right, like the idea that a machine could ever fly. Steam engines are too heavy to fly.

Steve: By "MIDI", are you referring to MDI (Modern Demolition Initiators)

You're showing your ignorance of computer control, Steve.

 
At 03 October, 2010 18:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

The sophisticated sol-gel shaped-charges hypothesized by Ryan et. al could of course be tested tiem and time again until their performance could be precisely predicted.

Right, and the micro-nukes attached to modified attack babboons hypothesized by Deagle, et. al could have been tested at well. How come you don't subscribe to that theory, Petgoat?

Thermite charges could have melted those truss "clips". Thermite can bring down large steel structures.

False.

Ian: you're speculating about the impossible

It's really amusing to see you write this in total sincerity, Petgoat. Maybe you should seek professional help?

 
At 03 October, 2010 18:39, Blogger Steve said...

snug.bug- Trying to carry on a conversation with you is like trying to talk to a severely retarded chimp.

You obviously have no relevant experience or knowledge in even the most basic aspects of explosive demolition, yet you continue your idiotic speculations on the more advanced aspects of it.

 
At 03 October, 2010 18:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian: How come you don't subscribe to that theory, Petgoat?

I don't subscribe to any theory. Do you deny that hypothetical sol-gel demolitions systems could have been tested before being deployed,. smart guy?

Ian: False.

And what is false about the proposition that thermite could have melted the truss "clips" that FEMA says broke apart all by themselves?

Ian: Maybe you should seek professional help?

Maybe you are projecting?

 
At 03 October, 2010 18:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve, you have shown your ignorance about computerized control mechanisms when you obviously never even heard of MIDI.

For you to claim that triggering is an advanced aspect of demolition shows you for a bullshitter.

You're as bad as that Ron Craig guy in Toronto who claims he's an explosive expert at the same time he lies about the Delft University Library fire.

 
At 03 October, 2010 19:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

I don't subscribe to any theory. Do you deny that hypothetical sol-gel demolitions systems could have been tested before being deployed,. smart guy?

I don't deny that. I just wonder what the relevance of it is. You're just babbling about nothing as usual.

And what is false about the proposition that thermite could have melted the truss "clips" that FEMA says broke apart all by themselves?

Because there is no evidence that such a thing occurred. One day, Petgoat, you'll understand that your idle speculation is meaningless.

Maybe you are projecting?

No. I'm not the person who stalks Willie Rodriguez from his parents' basement.

 
At 03 October, 2010 19:14, Blogger Steve said...

For you to claim that triggering is an advanced aspect of demolition shows you for a bullshitter.

The type of firing systems that you are speculating about are most certainly an "advanced" aspect of demolitions. I wouldn't expect you to grasp that fact, especially after you had to ask, "Does anyone use that?" in reference to electric firing systems. That's especially funny considering that the very systems that your theorizing about are, ultimately, electric firing systems (they use an electric charge, transmitted through electric wire, to detonate electric blasting caps).

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian Good--you ignorant slut. Alternative collapse theories are not necessary to explain the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.

There's a reason why structural engineers specify fire retardant to protect a skyscrapers columns and truss assemblies. Fire weakens steel; thus, collapse is a distinct possibility.

The WTC towers column and truss assemblies were protected by a spray-on asbestos fire retardant. The asbestos was blown off the TWC columns and truss assemblies when the airliners slammed into the towers. The impact severed the perimeter box columns, the core columns and the floor truss assemblies. As a result, the building's gravitational load was redistributed to the remaining column and truss assemblies.

Continued...

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

As the steel weakened, the remaining column and truss assemblies couldn't bear the gravitational load; thus, collapse was inevitable.

Your rebuttal is easy to anticipate, so I'll put that crap to rest as well.

You'll claim that the Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain burned for X number of hours and it never collapsed. The analogy, however, compares apples-to-oranges. Why? Because the Windsor Towers column and truss assemblies were encased in concrete. Concrete encased column and truss assemblies are invulnerable to fire--and that's precisely why the Windsor Towers didn't collapse after a long period of intense fire.

Grow up and accept the facts, Brian: You're deranged; you're full-of-shit; you're wrong--period.

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: I just wonder what the relevance of it is.

And you will continue to wonder at least until you take the time to read the entire thread and find out--and probably even after that.

Ian wrote: there is no evidence that such a thing occurred.

There is the evidence of molten iron pouring out of the south tower shortly before its collapse, and molten iron in the rubble after the collapse. And evidence or lack therof has nothing to do with the fact that thermite very demonstrably could cut those truss anchors, and thus thermite has the power to bring down large structures.

Ian wrote: I'm not the person who stalks Willie Rodriguez from his parents' basement.

Me neither.

Steve: The type of firing systems that you are speculating about are most certainly an "advanced" aspect of demolitions.

They may be advanced for demolitions shmoes like you, but for people familiar with the cibceot oif computer control they're real simple.

GuitarBill: Fire weakens steel; thus, collapse is a distinct possibility.

But NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating above 480 F.

Bill: The asbestos was blown off the TWC columns and truss assemblies when the airliners slammed into the towers.

You can't prove that.

Bill: the building's gravitational load was redistributed to the remaining column and truss assemblies.

Oh wow, that sounds so sciency! I bet the little high school chickadees are so impressed! Asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical weakening can not bring about symmetrical collapse.

Bill: the remaining column and truss assemblies couldn't bear the gravitational load;

The trusses have nothing to do with it. The core columns were built with a substantial safety factor. The perimeter columns were rated for 20X their dead load.

Bill: You'll claim that the Windsor Tower in Madrid Spain burned for X number of hours

The core of the Windsor Towers was concrete. You're poorly informed.

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

snug.bug dissembles, "...The core columns were built with a substantial safety factor. The perimeter columns were rated for 20X their dead load."

Bullshit. The columns were rated to bear 3 to 5 times their normal static load.

Typical "truther." If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

A gravitational collapse model teaches us that as the building began to collapse, the upper section accelerated to a speed of about 19 MPH before it stuck the next floor. Thus, the upper section hit the building with an impact of approximately 30 times the static weight of the upper section.

The World Trade Center Towers were built to withstand approximately 3 to 5 times the static weight of the next floor; however, the building was not able to withstand 30 times the static weight.

Continued...

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

As a result, the columns and floor trusses were overwhelmed by the force of the upper section and snapped.

As the collapse progressed, the upper section did meet resistance from the remainder of the building. In fact, the upper section slowed from 19 MPH to 18 MPH; however, the next floor was crushed in half the time required to crush the first floor that was struck by the upper section because it is traveling not at 0 MPH, but 18. Now the upper section is traveling at 26 MPH, which means the upper section slammed into the next floor at 40 times the static weight of the upper section. As the upper section slammed into the next floor it met resistance and was slowed down to 25 MPH. As the upper section slammed through the next floor it accelerated up to 31 MPH and struck the next floor at 50 times the static weight, etc. Are you starting to get the picture?

Thus, the accelerations were very brief--a couple of milliseconds each. They were, however, at least 30 G's each. As a result, the average acceleration was 2/3 of the acceleration of gravity.

Continued...

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

A 9/11 troofer named David Chandler measured the acceleration; however, his calculations are in error. His results show a dynamic force that's 1/3 of the static weight. This is the fundamental flaw of 9/11 "truth" "physics". Chandler underestimated the huge impact of the upper floors.

For example, if you place a brick on your foot it will likely not injure your foot; however, if you raise the brick 12 feet in the air and drop it, what happens? The answer is simple: The brick will crush your foot.

And that's precisely what happened to the Twin Towers. And that's why the total collapse of the building was inevitable--because every floor that met the upper section added more dynamic force. In other words, as each floor is crushed by the upper section, the dynamic force increases in a cumulative fashion.

 
At 03 October, 2010 20:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go for it, Brian, spew more pseudo-physics and outright lies. I'll return soon to crush you--you lying jackass.

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:02, Blogger Steve said...

They may be advanced for demolitions shmoes like you, but for people familiar with the cibceot oif computer control they're real simple.

Wow. Please educate a "shmoe" like me, by telling me what would be considered "advanced" in the field of demolitions?

Once again, you're so completely ignorant of the most basic skills involved in the use of explosives (have you figured out what an electric firing system is yet, and whether anyone still uses them?), it's hilarious to hear you spout off like you know what you're talking about. Hell, you're still unable to grasp the fact that the computer controls you refer to and RFDs are not the same thing. They can be (and are) used independently of each other.

But by all means, continue portaying RFDs as some sort of magic bullet to prop up your insane truther theories. Just keep in mind, the world is laughing at you, not with you.

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:10, Blogger Steve said...

BTW snug.bug, you do realize that a RFD doesn't eliminate the need for a massive amount of wire, shock-tube, det-cord and blasting caps (or wire and detonators for you're "hypothetical sol-gel superthermite charges"), not to mention the remote firing devices which would still be required in the buildings, right?

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve: what would be considered "advanced" in the field of demolitions?

Well apparently, according to you, radio detonators are high tech.

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, the article "How Columns Will Be Designed for 110-Story Buildings" in the Engineering News Record of 4/2/64 quotes John Skilling:

"live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs."

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:19, Blogger Steve said...

Well apparently, according to you, radio detonators are high tech.

Do you have a reading comprehension problem, or are you just intentionally snipping half a sentence out of my post, ignoring the rest, and constructing a strawman? You know damn well that I was referring to the computer controls used to sequence a complex demolition project. But it is apparent that something as basic as RFDs are way beyond your understanding.

BTW, your lack of an answer to the question (what would be considered "advanced" in the field of demolitions?), is noted. Coward.

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Steve shmoe, I answered your question.

 
At 03 October, 2010 21:40, Blogger Steve said...

snug.bug said...

Steve shmoe, I answered your question.


Again, it's like talking to a retarded chimp. Are you so delusional that you think you actually answered my question? OK.

Obfuscation noted. I'm done with you.

 
At 03 October, 2010 22:19, Blogger victorholmes02 said...

Very nice and impressive article you have posted. Its very helpful, i have read and bookmark this site and will recommend it to more other peoples.
How to seduce a woman

 
At 03 October, 2010 22:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...'live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs.'"

That's a quote mined statement. The source, moreover, can't be verified because a Google search leads back to 911 "truther" websites, and 9/11 "truther" websites only. Thus, your evidence is highly suspect--that is, bullshit.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Alleged "evidence" sourced from conspiracy websites isn't evidence--it's a circle jerk.

What's this, fucktard?

Oakland, CA--I-580 collapses as the result of fire.

Now, what were you saying, Mr. Dissembler for da troof?

 
At 03 October, 2010 23:16, Blogger Steve said...

victorholmes02 said...

How to seduce a woman


Hmmm...such spamming might be more productive at the various twoofer web sites, where the average visitor is looking for a "solution" for their virginity.

Then again, unless your link contains the latest techniques for stalking that "special someone" in a truther's life, they may not be interested (Does your site sell binoculars and Night Vision Goggles?).

 
At 03 October, 2010 23:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, the the Engineering News Record of 4/2/64 can be verified in any reputable college library, for instance, the U of Santa Clara. There's nothing "quote-mined" about it. That's the spec.

Thanks for bringing up the freeway collapse. I love it when people do that. There's no comparison. On the freeway we had 8,000 gals of fuel all under one un-fireproofed beam, with plenty of oxygen. In the WTC we had maybe 5,000 gals of fuel spread out over 4-6 floors, and clear oxygen starvation. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said there was no melting in the freeway, but "I saw melting of steel at Ground Zero".

 
At 04 October, 2010 00:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...Dr. Astaneh-Asl said there was no melting in the freeway, but 'I saw melting of steel at Ground Zero'."

You're misrepresenting Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's opinion, scumbag.

Here's the truth:

"...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

BUSTED AGAIN, SCUMBAG!

When will you learn, Brian, that you're no match for me?

 
At 04 October, 2010 01:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...Bill, the the Engineering News Record of 4/2/64 can be verified in any reputable college library, for instance, the U of Santa Clara. There's nothing 'quote-mined' about it. That's the spec."

Bullshit!

The quote is un-sourced; thus, it's not worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Furthermore, "truthers" are notorious for removing the context of a statement; hence, nothing the "truthers" source can be trusted.

The fact is that all references to the quote you provide point back to "truther" websites; hence, the quote isn't worth the bandwidth you waste to post it.

Try again, chump--and this time source the bullshit or get the Hell out.

 
At 04 October, 2010 01:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...and clear oxygen starvation."

Clear? Says whom? You?

ROTFLMAO!

Black smoke is NOT an indication of alleged "oxygen starvation"--you jackass.

Black smoke is an indication of a hydrocarbon-rich fire--and a hydrocarbon-rich fire only.

For example, have a look at any oil field fire--the smoke is BLACK.

Oil--you jackass--is a hydrocarbon; thus, oil produces thick black smoke. The WTC buildings, on the other hand, are a HYDROCARBON-RICH ENVIRONMENT; thus, they produced thick black smoke.

Got it, retard?

You're so full-of-"da troof" your eyes are brown.

 
At 04 October, 2010 02:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...Bill: The asbestos was blown off the TWC columns and truss assemblies when the airliners slammed into the towers...You can't prove that."

I can't prove the fire retardant fell off during impact?

Really? No kidding?

The following photographs prove the asbestos was falling off the columns and trusses before the attacks on 9/11.

Asbestos fire retardant coating gaps in coverage photo I

Asbestos fire retardant coating gaps in coverage photo II

Asbestos fire retardant coating gaps in coverage photo III

Asbestos fire retardant coating gaps in coverage photo IV

Clearly, the fire retardant was falling off the structural members without the benefit of impact--you jackass.

No, the airliners couldn't possibly have blown the asbestos coating off the structural members. Right, genius?

There's a reason why you're an unemployed janitor, Brian. You're brain-dead.

 
At 04 October, 2010 06:49, Blogger James B. said...

Truthers don't understand the difference between a live load and a dead load.

 
At 04 October, 2010 08:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

There is the evidence of molten iron pouring out of the south tower shortly before its collapse

False.

and molten iron in the rubble after the collapse.

False.

And evidence or lack therof has nothing to do with the fact that thermite very demonstrably could cut those truss anchors, and thus thermite has the power to bring down large structures.

And so could death-ray beams from space and micro-nukes delivered by modified attack baboons. Again, Brian, stop speculating and provide some evidence for this.

Me neither.

False. You are Brian Good and you stalk Rodriguez constantly.

In the WTC we had maybe 5,000 gals of fuel spread out over 4-6 floors, and clear oxygen starvation.

"Clear" oxygen starvation, because obviously those huge holes in the side of the building could not have allowed oxygen in. C'mon, Brian, start babbling about smoldering carpets again....


Again, it's like talking to a retarded chimp. Are you so delusional that you think you actually answered my question? OK.

Steve, this is Brian Good we're dealing with. He's an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents at the spry age of 57, and he spends most of his time stalking other "truthers". He's clearly insane enough to think himself a genius, and that his "theories" will someday be validated. For more on that, see below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x205525

"Petgoat" is snug.bug (Brian Good). I love the "just you wait gentlemen" line, as if his absurd scribbles will someday be the basis for some scientific explanation of the towers' collapse.

 
At 04 October, 2010 08:58, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Anyone who knows what they’re talking about (that leaves out Brian) would know any length of wire can create it's own electrical charge, that connected to a fast reacting blasting cap would spell disaster. It is the reason controlled demolition companies don't use wire but use non-electrical detonation cord.

And of course a blasting cap would never get hot enough to start the burning of thermite. And once you did get it started you could never accurately predict when it will burn through the steel.

But this is exactly the kind of stuff the idiot class (Brian) can be fooled into thinking will work. Guys like Brian because he is so lacking in IQ and knowledge will believe anything.

Guys like Brian by his very existence and his utter lack of thinking ability that manifest itself in his low class janitorial life work prove what we have said about truthers all along, low life people of sad abilities pretending to be heros.

 
At 04 October, 2010 09:18, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You guy realize you are arguing with Brian Good? A guy who get little respect from truthers because even they realize what a low life dirt bag he is.

Brians biggest intellectual accomplishment is deciding whether to mop the floors in a clockwise or counter clockwise direction. If it were not for mom and dad propping him sad little life he wouldn’t even have a computer to pretend he is a truther hero with.

You can judge a cause by the people it attracts, So here you have Brian Good 'Janitor for Truth". Compare him to the rest of us and you get a clear demonstration of the fate of 9/11 truth.

 
At 04 October, 2010 09:27, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

A classic bit of idiocy.

"Why should I waste them on those who can't see the obvious significance in rake on rake? nt"
Brian Good:

Guess Brian also does landscaping.

 
At 04 October, 2010 11:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B, I understand the difference between live load and dead load just fine. It just happens that they are equivalent in the case of the perimeter columns.

Guitar "scumbag" Bill, if I were a match for you I would be ashamed of myself. Dr. Astaneh said of the freeway fire on PBS: "There was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

GB, Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT wrote: "the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke." Fuel-rich means oxygen-starved.

Your pictures taken before 9/11 do not prove that the planes took off the fireproofing. Were your pictures taken before or after the fireproofing was upgraded?

Dave, Steve said everyone knows that electric wires are used in demolition, and you seem to be saying they are not. I'd guess you're both wrong.

 
At 04 October, 2010 11:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

James B, I understand the difference between live load and dead load just fine. It just happens that they are equivalent in the case of the perimeter columns.

False.

Guitar "scumbag" Bill, if I were a match for you I would be ashamed of myself. Dr. Astaneh said of the freeway fire on PBS: "There was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

Nobody cares.

GB, Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT wrote: "the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke." Fuel-rich means oxygen-starved.

False.

I give you credit Brian. At least you're no longer denying that you're Petgoat.

 
At 04 October, 2010 12:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.bug dissembles, "...Guitar 'scumbag' Bill, if I were a match for you I would be ashamed of myself. Dr. Astaneh said of the freeway fire on PBS: 'There was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.'"

There you go again, Mr. Meatball on a fork. Is obfuscation all you have, "truther"?

Read it again, idiot:

"...Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down." -- UC Berkeley Engineer, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D.

What more more do you need, Mr. Meatball on a fork? Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statement is clear and unambiguous: explosives didn't bring the towers down--period.

And yes, Brian, you're a scumbag. After all, you're a compulsive liar.

Deal with it, Pinocchio.

 
At 04 October, 2010 12:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...Fuel-rich means oxygen-starved."

Bullshit!

"Fuel rich" means hydrocarbon rich--you God damned liar.

 
At 04 October, 2010 12:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug dissembles, "...Your pictures taken before 9/11 do not prove that the planes took off the fireproofing. Were your pictures taken before or after the fireproofing was upgraded?"

Bullshit!

The Washington Post wrote, "...NEW YORK, April 5 -- The hijacked airplanes that struck the World Trade Center hit with such force that the resulting explosions blew the fireproofing off the steel columns, accelerating heat buildup and weakening the structural core -- contributing to the towers' eventual collapse, according to a report issued Tuesday...The process was hastened by fires outside that consumed the buildings' face and caused the exterior columns to bow in, according to the report..."

What were you saying, Mr. Meatball on a fork?

Bite me, liar.

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

The compulsive liar, Smug.mug, dissembles, "..."...Guitar 'scumbag' Bill, if I were a match for you I would be ashamed of myself. Dr. Astaneh said of the freeway fire on PBS: 'There was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.'""

That's not what the PBS article says, and you know it, Pinocchio.

Once again, I've caught you red-handed misrepresenting your source.

Here's what Dr. Astaneh-Asl said about both incidents.

The PBS Newshour wrote, "...ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures."

BUSTED AGAIN, PINOCCHIO!

You'd lie to your mother if you thought you could gain an advantage form the lie, Brian.

You're scum, Pinocchio.

 
At 04 October, 2010 12:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Hey, you know what would have been perfect for bringing down the WTC? Flying two 767s loaded with fuel!

If they had really thought it all out they would have hit each tower around the 40th floor which could have caused them to come down instantly killing even more people. As it was the second tower came down faster because it was hit lower and off-center.

Gravity is not hard for normal people to understand, Bwian.

Also, if it weighs the same as a duck...then she's a witch. You fail again.

 
At 04 October, 2010 14:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

So do you deny that a hypothesized device could be tested? I find that many of the screwloose types, as well as many of the worst of the truthers, have trouble with conditional. logic.

I missed this gem earlier. Brian, Bill Deagle hypothesized about micro-nukes and modified attack babboons. Obviously, such micro-nukes could be tested and such babboons could be trained. So obviously, the WTC was destroyed by micro-nukes deployed by modified attack babboons, right?

What was that about "conditional logic" again? You should really learn what big boy words mean before you make yourself look like an idiot misusing them.

 
At 04 October, 2010 15:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go back and read my responses to Brian (aka, Smug.mug). How many times did I catch him lying like rug?

He's scum.

 
At 04 October, 2010 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: At least you're no longer denying that you're Petgoat.

I do not deny that I am anybody. It's a waste of time. Nobody would believe it, and then I would have to spend my life denying that I am David Duke, George Metesky, and Judy Wood.

GooferBall wrote: Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statement is clear and unambiguous: explosives didn't bring the towers down--period.

I never said he did. I said he said he saw melting of girders at the WTC. As a PhD civil engineer, he knows full well that office fires and jet fuel can not melt steel.

GB: "Fuel rich" means hydrocarbon rich

Yes, which means oxygen poor. And as to your WaPo, they're simply reporting what NIST claims. And NIST, of course badly needs all that fireproofing blown off because otherwise they can't explain why the building fell down. I did not lie about what Dr. Astaneh told PBS. He said "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." You are dishonestly trying to refute that by arguing everything but what he said.

M Gregory: you know what would have been perfect for bringing down the WTC? Flying two 767s loaded with fuel!

Actually, not perfect at all. Asymmetrical damage leads to asymmetrical collapses. The arrested rotation of the top block on WTC2 can be explained only by the fact that it exploded. Otherwise it would have kept on rotating until it fell off.

M Greg: Gravity is not hard for normal people to understand

I understand it just fine, Mauween.

Ian: the WTC was destroyed by micro-nukes deployed by modified attack babboons, right?

Thanks for proving my point about your logical incompetence. Your argument seems to be: A can be tested and B can be tested. Therefore if A is true B is true also. Since B is not true, A is not true either. Fallacy upon fallacy!

 
At 04 October, 2010 17:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl

"...Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl

Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction

Which part of "fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed" don't you understand, shit-for-brains?

Where does Dr. Astaneh-Asl claim that anything other than fire caused the collapse of I-580 or the Twin Towers?

The short answer: He doesn't.

You're quote mining and making wild assumptions without the benefit of evidence or a statement to support you're idiotic conspiracy theory.

I stand by my statement: You're a compulsive liar--scum.

 
At 04 October, 2010 17:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

I do not deny that I am anybody. It's a waste of time. Nobody would believe it.

Right. It was high comedy time when you used to pretend you're not Petgoat.

I said he said he saw melting of girders at the WTC.

Except...he didn't say that. You need to learn what words mean, Petgoat.

Yes, which means oxygen poor.

False. Again, learn what terms mean before you go babbling ignorantly about them. Remember when you hilariously insisted that there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC?

And NIST, of course badly needs all that fireproofing blown off because otherwise they can't explain why the building fell down.

False.

I did not lie about what Dr. Astaneh told PBS. He said "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." You are dishonestly trying to refute that by arguing everything but what he said.

False, false, and false.

The arrested rotation of the top block on WTC2 can be explained only by the fact that it exploded. Otherwise it would have kept on rotating until it fell off.

This is too funny for words. Please, Brian, seek professional help. Your mind is obviously not well.

Thanks for proving my point about your logical incompetence. Your argument seems to be: A can be tested and B can be tested. Therefore if A is true B is true also. Since B is not true, A is not true either. Fallacy upon fallacy!

Um, Brian? You're the one who treats idle speculation about magical thermite charges as if it's some smoking gun, remember? Hey, if your idle speculation (with zero evidence to back it up) is compelling evidence, why not mine? I have as much evidence for the micro-nukes and modified attack baboons as you do for thermite.

So once again, tell me why you don't subscribe to the micro-nukes theory.

And also, please seek professional help.

 
At 04 October, 2010 17:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Boy am I glad you two aren't truthers!

GB you're turning all purple over stuff I never said.

Ian, you just lie and lie and lie and lie--just like New Yorker. Sick stuff. I never said thermite was a smoking gun.

 
At 04 October, 2010 17:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I have as much evidence for the micro-nukes and modified attack baboons as you do for thermite."

LOL! So true, Ian.

Saturday Night Live's Jon Lovitz replies for Brian Good, "...Hey, maybe it was government trained adamantium beavers that chewed through the World Trade Centers' column and truss assemblies.

"We know the government has the technology and we "know" the government trained the adamantium beavers. Inside Job!

"Yeah, that's the ticket..."


%^)

 
At 04 October, 2010 17:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian Good dissembles, "...GB you're turning all purple over stuff I never said."

It's not what you say, twit, it's what you're so careful to omit.

 
At 04 October, 2010 18:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

Boy am I glad you two aren't truthers!

I'm glad I'm not too. It would indicate that there's something seriously wrong with my mental health if I were a "truther".

Ian, you just lie and lie and lie and lie--just like New Yorker

There you go again, babbling about "lies". How come you haven't called me a squealing girl yet?

I never said thermite was a smoking gun.

Then why do you keep babbling mindlessly about it? If you have no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, why are you a "truther"? It just makes you a target of ridicule.

 
At 04 October, 2010 20:49, Blogger Steve said...

Dave Kyte said..

Anyone who knows what they’re talking about (that leaves out Brian) would know any length of wire can create it's own electrical charge, that connected to a fast reacting blasting cap would spell disaster. It is the reason controlled demolition companies don't use wire but use non-electrical detonation cord.


I gotta disagree with you, Dave. Det-Cord is certainly used, and non-el shock tube can be a great alternative, but electric is still used by both civilians and military. Yes, electric firing wire does pose certain risks, but there are simple precautions that can be taken to limit those risks. As I mentioned earlier, Radio Firing Devices (which are widely used) are electric devices (most use a battery to charge a capacitor which is then discharged to detonate an electric blasting cap) and require the use of electric firing wire.

 
At 05 October, 2010 00:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Yes, electric firing wire does pose certain risks, but there are simple precautions that can be taken to limit those risks."

That's correct.

For example, twisted pair reduces inductive and capacitive coupling in detonation devices.

 
At 05 October, 2010 06:04, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

My goodness, brian is getting worse and worse.

Could it be a degenerative mental condition?

Or has he stopped taking his meds again?

 
At 05 October, 2010 06:10, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"GB: "Fuel rich" means hydrocarbon rich

Yes, which means oxygen poor."

Well, no, it doesn't, boron.

If you look at pictures of the WTC towers, you'll notice enourmous (that means really really big)airplane shaped holes on ones side of each building, and an enourmous (that means really really big)hole on the other side of the building.

And, and this is the tricky part, if you look realllll carefully at some film footage of the attack, you'll notice.......fires burning merrily away, putting out black smoke, grey smoke, and white smoke.

Now, boron, go take your meds and have a nice long nap, 'mkay?

 
At 05 October, 2010 06:14, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Remember when you hilariously insisted that there was a pyroclastic flow at the WTC?"

Oh, man that was funny.

In a pathetically insane, completely, totally, abysmally ignorant sort of way

 
At 05 October, 2010 07:16, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I gotta disagree with you, Dave. Det-Cord is certainly used, and non-el shock tube can be a great alternative, but electric is still used by both civilians and military"

For small jobs yes, but imaging running literally miles of wire in an operating office building full of electrical power lines, internet and phone lines and people using all sorts of wireless devices. Imaging some IT guy mistakes your wire for an Ethernet cable and plugs it into a computer. So in real controlled demolition power is cut, only essential people are allowed in when charges are set, cell phones are forbidden.

In real controlled demolitions det cord is used for the bulk of the connections, these are run out side the building before being connected to electrical initiator at the final stage. these can be set to set off in groups of det cord at precise time or remotely triggered.

 
At 05 October, 2010 14:27, Blogger Steve said...

Dave, I agree. Maybe I misunderstood your initial post, as I thought you were claiming that electric initiators weren't used at all.

Personally, I didn't even like using electric. I got spoiled in the Army, where we had plenty of shock-tube (and other MDI) available. Det-Cord is just great stuff though, as it's so versatile.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home