Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Box Boy Rakes in $75,000

Our buddy Joseph Nobles (aka Boloboffin) reports:

$75,450

Richard Gage’s salary in 2009 from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. That’s according to the 2009 Form 990-EZ available right now at Guidestar.org, an online organization that helps track non-profits.


That's about $75,450 more than James and I made on SLC last year. I confirmed the information myself at Guidestar. Gage claims to spend 80 hours per week on the Troof; that's about 11.5 hours per day, every day. It sure does not show in his presentations.

Apparently the CFO of AE911Troof is J. Marx Ayres; he's about to celebrate his 88th birthday.

Labels: ,

111 Comments:

At 09 November, 2010 22:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

$75 k. After working free for years and paying expenses out of his own pocket?

Wow! I bet you guys think that's a lot of money.

 
At 09 November, 2010 23:43, Blogger Greg said...

snug.bug,

I bet you think he deserves it. Maybe you should send him more. He's done a great job so far getting the truth out to the sheeple.

 
At 09 November, 2010 23:53, Blogger eromitlab said...

Yeah, keep making excuses for your troof leaders, snug. They need followers like you to keep paying them for their invaluable service of drawing attention to themselves.

 
At 10 November, 2010 00:10, Blogger Joseph Nobles said...

He got paid back for the loan he floated to AE911Truth in the beginning, snug.bug.

It's all in the Form 990's.

 
At 10 November, 2010 03:59, Blogger Triterope said...

He got paid back for the loan he floated to AE911Truth in the beginning, snug.bug. It's all in the Form 990's.

Without looking at the form, I'm going to take a wild guess and say that interest was paid.

 
At 10 November, 2010 06:51, Blogger Garry said...

'$75 k. After working free for years and paying expenses out of his own pocket?

Wow! I bet you guys think that's a lot of money'.

It's a lot of money for recycling a combination of misinformation, bullshit and outright lies.

 
At 10 November, 2010 06:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

I sometimes feel like I went into the wrong business. I should have become a charlatan: the pay is good and one doesn't actually have to do any significant work so long as gullible idiots like Brian Good continue to exist.

 
At 10 November, 2010 07:07, Blogger Pat said...

Snuggy, I'm sure his earnings are on the low side for professional conmen.

 
At 10 November, 2010 07:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

Wow! I bet you guys think that's a lot of money.

Also, Brian? You forgot to call us "girls" here. Try to stay on top of that, OK?

 
At 10 November, 2010 08:31, Blogger Triterope said...

I'm sure his earnings are on the low side for professional conmen.

True. But for a professional conman who probably isn't breaking any laws, and in a very poor economy, that figure is impressive.

 
At 10 November, 2010 09:33, Blogger avicenne said...

"Gage claims to spend 80 hours per week on the Troof..."

I think the key word here is "claims".

At least he gets paid, unlike the army of the internet morons he's fleecing. They do their "research" for free.

 
At 10 November, 2010 09:44, Blogger Triterope said...

Gage claims to spend 80 hours per week on the Troof

He also once said he had a paid staff of 12 to manage his website.

 
At 10 November, 2010 11:15, Blogger Bill said...

Every start-up has at least a 1 year period were you shouldn't expect profit. Seems Gage's cash cow has come in.

In 2009, the the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated the average architect in the US made $78,800. Gage is by no means doing bad for himself.

http://stats.bls.gov/oes/current/oes171011.htm

 
At 10 November, 2010 13:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Wow! I bet you guys think that's a lot of money.

A lot of money for a guy with little talent as an architect and none as a structural engineer.

 
At 10 November, 2010 15:45, Blogger BG said...

I've got a post of minor value on my blog ( about Bush's book ).

http://grand-chessboard.com/blog/2010/11/10/president-bush-fails-one-aspect-of-ws-story-doesnt-add-up/

 
At 10 November, 2010 17:09, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Business is good in the world of daft conspiracy peddling -- Gage is hiring! Actually, I lie. He's looking for volunteers (employees would hurt his bottom line). What will these volunteers be doing, I hear you ask. Looking at the science? Checking the evidence? Trying to bring some respectability to the troof? No, he's looking for an International Marketing Coordinator and an Online Store Team Leader.

http://www.ae911truth.org/take-action/51-community-a-country/291-volunteer-oppertunites.html

 
At 10 November, 2010 18:45, Blogger Len said...

According to US Department of Labor statistics, in May 2008 architects in the USA earned between $41,320 and $119,220 a year. The mean annual wage was $76,750 per year, and the mean hourly rate was $36.90.

[...]

According to the designIntelligence Compensation Survey for 2009...Professional architects with 20 or more years of experience earn an average income of $100,723.

http://architecture.about.com/cs/careers/f/archsalary.htm

Gage had 20 years experience but IIRC never got a masters so considering the economy isn't doing too bad especially since they list $23,028 for travel (pg 10) expenses most of which I assume for Gage. I know he receives fees for many of his presentations; I wonder if calculates that as personal income (which would be separate from his AE911T pay) or as AE911T "program service revenue" (pg 1)

http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2009/261/532/2009-261532493-063bfbce-Z.pdf

 
At 10 November, 2010 19:30, Blogger Dan K. Stanley said...

Literally making money by stepping on graves. Fucking sickening.

 
At 10 November, 2010 20:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I've got a post of minor value on my blog ( about Bush's book ).

Where? The one in that link has no value at all.

 
At 11 November, 2010 06:21, Blogger James B. said...

"hat's about $75,450 more than James and I made on SLC last year."

Speak for yourself, I got a 10$ off coupon at Denny's.

Plus I get a free bloomin onion at Outback tonight for Veteran's Day. Plus a beer.

 
At 11 November, 2010 08:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

OT:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101111/ap_on_re_us/us_demolition_debacle_4

Man, they screwed that up. We're lucky nobody was hurt. They should've used thermite: not only would those pesky explosions have been avoided, it would have collapsed in its own footprint!

 
At 11 November, 2010 12:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Funny how you guys begrudge Gage's $75k but the $20 million fraud known as the NIST report is just fine with you.

 
At 11 November, 2010 12:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Funny how you guys begrudge Gage's $75k but the $20 million fraud known as the NIST report is just fine with you.

If you'd show some evidence that the NIST report was indeed a fraud, I might be angry too. Unfortunately, it's just endless babbling about meatballs and rakes and smoldering carpets with you.

 
At 11 November, 2010 12:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

The fraud, as I've explained, many times, is that the NIST report does not explain (and mostly does not even address) the most baffling features of the towers' destruction.

 
At 11 November, 2010 12:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

The fraud, as I've explained, many times, is that the NIST report does not explain (and mostly does not even address) the most baffling features of the towers' destruction.

And as I've explained many times, nobody cares what you find baffling since you've proven yourself to be completely ignorant on this topic. If I thought magic thermite elves destroyed the towers, I might think the report is fraudulent, but I'm not insane.

 
At 11 November, 2010 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, Pet Goat, punxsutawneybarney, etc) wrote, "...The fraud, as I've explained, many times, is that the NIST report does not explain (and mostly does not even address) the most baffling features of the towers' destruction."

Read the scope of the NIST Report.

NIST was not asked to "explain the most baffling features of the towers' destruction." NIST's goal was to determine the collapse mechanism for the towers.

Clearly, you never read the NIST Report--you damned fool.

 
At 11 November, 2010 13:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Clearly, you never read the NIST Report--you damned fool.

He probably has read it, he just doesn't understand it (or doesn't want to). I could bring a sloth bear into the theater to see "King Lear" and one could say the sloth bear has seen Shakespeare, but it doesn't mean he understands it.

 
At 11 November, 2010 14:12, Blogger 911TNL said...

This thread's boring. Needs more lols.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HtoK-CgJvN8

 
At 11 November, 2010 17:06, Blogger Len said...

I imagine Gage made more than about 90% of the rubes who donated money "to bring the truth about the destruction of the 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11 to every architect, engineer and others throughout America and the world."

 
At 11 November, 2010 17:10, Blogger Len said...

Ian G. said...
OT:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101111/ap_on_re_us/us


The link doesn't work it seems to have expired

 
At 11 November, 2010 17:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

GoiterBill (how's that Wayne Newton Tribute gig working out for ya, guy?) NIST did not explain the collapse mechanism. That's the whole problem. Their fraudulent report stopped at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus failed to explain the mechanism.

 
At 11 November, 2010 18:22, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 November, 2010 18:30, Blogger Triterope said...

NIST did not explain the collapse mechanism. Their fraudulent report stopped at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus failed to explain the mechanism.

This is exactly what Ian was talking about when he said "you've proven yourself to be completely ignorant on this topic."

 
At 11 November, 2010 18:40, Blogger eromitlab said...

the NIST report does not explain (and mostly does not even address) the most baffling features of the towers' destruction.

Just because you're baffled by something doesn't mean a team of scientists that actually know their asses from a hole in the ground have to try to put it in terms you can understand, snuggie.

 
At 11 November, 2010 18:56, Blogger paul w said...

"NIST did not explain the collapse mechanism. Their fraudulent report stopped at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus failed to explain the mechanism."

If my memory serves me right, isn't this where the NIST report authors say they just did not have the immense computing power, or time, to work out exactly what every bit of metal did as it fell?

Would it even matter?

No.

But, that's not the point for truthers; what is, it's saying 'collapse mechanism'.

It makes them sound authoritative, especially to newbies, and especially when bookmarked with their mass of lies.

 
At 11 November, 2010 19:37, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

An Aussie article about truthers.

"...And so it is with 9/11 conspiracy theories. Never before has bad information been able to be distributed so far, so quickly, to such a receptive audience..."

Naturally, it's dubbed a 'hit-piece' by truthers, as is everything published that disagrees with them.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/blogs/untangling-the-web/dont-get-caught-in-the-web-of-conspiracy-theory-truthiness/20101105-17gq1.html

 
At 11 November, 2010 20:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

The link doesn't work it seems to have expired

It was a video of the demolition of a smokestack at an old power plant. The smokestack toppled over the wrong way and destroyed some power lines. Fortunately, no one was hurt.

It's yet another controlled (I use that term very loosely here) demolition in which loud explosions are clearly audible before the thing comes down. You know, those same loud explosions that were totally absent from WTC 1, 2, or 7....

 
At 11 November, 2010 22:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

eromit wrote: "Just because you're baffled by something doesn't mean a team of scientists that actually know their asses from a hole in the ground have to try to put it in terms you can understand"

But that's just the point. They didn't even try. They stopped the analysis at the point of collapse initiation, and thus they failed to explain the collapse mechanism.

paul w wrote: "[didn't NIST] say they just did not have the immense computing power, or time, to work out exactly what every bit of metal did as it fell?"

Nobody is asking for a computer model of every piece of metal. Statistical models at various degrees of granularity would be fine. So you're refuting a straw man. Besides, we probably have the computer power now, so why don't we do it in a new investigation? Explain the essentially freefall speed collapse, why not?

 
At 12 November, 2010 04:37, Blogger Triterope said...

They stopped the analysis at the point of collapse initiation, and thus they failed to explain the collapse mechanism.

It's called "gravity." Most of us learned about it in third grade.

 
At 12 November, 2010 07:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

But that's just the point. They didn't even try.

And as I've explained many times, it's not the job of busy scientists to explain themselves to ignorant, insane failed janitors.

Besides, we probably have the computer power now, so why don't we do it in a new investigation?

Because nobody is asking for one except you, and you (as you'll demonstrate below) don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Explain the essentially freefall speed collapse, why not?

See? You're babbling about free-fall speed again when nothing of the sort happened. The scientists who really need to do an investigation are psychiatrists. They could figure out exactly why you are the way you are.

 
At 12 November, 2010 08:07, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Wow, Pat. The old news at screw ain't what it use to be.

One question, why do despunkers care how much he makes?

If my memory serves me right, isn't this where the NIST report authors say they just did not have the immense computing power, or time, to work out exactly what every bit of metal did as it fell?

No, they said the event was just too chaotic. "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.-NIST"
A 10,000 page government funded scientific study can provide the public with theories as to how the "collapse initiation" proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC tower to fall through the path of greatest resistance at free fall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.
Now that is science at work...ain't it great??

 
At 12 November, 2010 09:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

And now we've got an idiot with the "V for Vendetta" mask as his avatar to improve upon Brian Good's idiocy:

how it was possible for part of a WTC tower to fall through the path of greatest resistance at free fall speed

Not just the "free-fall speed" nonsense, but "path of greatest resistance"! That would be "down", dude. What was the top of the tower supposed to do, float over to the Hudson (where there would be less resistance) and then fall?

completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

Why is it that the only people who think the collapse "violated the laws of physics" are the ones who spent their high school physics classes huffing magic markers?

 
At 12 November, 2010 09:44, Blogger Garry said...

Memo to all troofers using the 'V for Vendetta' mask as an icon:

The mask is a representation of one Guido Fawkes. For those of you with a somewhat weak grasp of history (namely, everyone who believes in 'inside job' bollocks), Fawkes was a religious fanatic who blow up Parliament and everyone inside it, and who wanted to install a theocratic regime in his country.

Using him as a symbol sends one of two messages. The first is that you are a complete fanatic with a tenuous grip on reality. The second is that you're a stupid, ignorant twat. I leave it to you to decide which of the above applies to you.

 
At 12 November, 2010 14:53, Blogger paul w said...

"If my memory serves me right, isn't this where the NIST report authors say they just did not have the immense computing power, or time, to work out exactly what every bit of metal did as it fell?"

No, they said the event was just too chaotic.

Er, that's what I said.
You are an idiot.

 
At 12 November, 2010 16:43, Blogger Triterope said...

Using the V for Vendetta mask as a symbol sends one of two messages. The first is that you are a complete fanatic with a tenuous grip on reality. The second is that you're a stupid, ignorant twat.

I think you're selling it short, Garry. There's also "unoriginal", "out of date", "pretentious", "easily amused", "smug", "faux-elitist", "armchair revolutionary", and "goddamn douchebag."

 
At 12 November, 2010 22:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nice try to dodge the issues by changing the subject to the Guy Fawkes mask.

TR wrote: It's called "gravity."

That argument is like saying, "It's called death. Your grandmother's head imploded because of death. Everybody knows about death."

Ian wrote: it's not the job of busy scientists to explain themselves to ignorant, insane failed janitors.

According to GutterBall, "NIST's goal was to determine the collapse mechanism for the towers."

Since they did not discuss the collapse mechanism, they utterly failed to achieve their goal. That's my point.

Ian wrote: nobody is asking for [new investigations] except you

10,000 signatories to the AE911Truth petition are not nobody, and 1350 of them are architects or engineers.

Ian wrote: You're babbling about free-fall speed again when nothing of the sort happened.

NIST says the buildings came down essentially in free fall. That's not my fault. That's what they said. If you disagree, take it up with NIST.

Ian, your inability to understand the concept of "the path of greatest resistance" shows you to be somewhat untutored in physics and lacking in practical experience. Maybe mopping some floors would teach you something about kinetics and gravity and such.

 
At 12 November, 2010 22:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, maybe mopping some floors would earn you some money so you can afford to take an online physics course at your local junior college.

 
At 13 November, 2010 05:00, Blogger Triterope said...

That argument is like saying, "It's called death. Your grandmother's head imploded because of death. Everybody knows about death."

Wronnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng.

 
At 13 November, 2010 05:28, Blogger Triterope said...

Nice try to dodge the issues by changing the subject to the Guy Fawkes mask.

I'll respond to what I want when I want, you smarmy piece of shit. Nobody owes you a custom rebuttal to the tired shit you've posted here a hundred times before. Got that?

That argument is like saying, "It's called death. Your grandmother's head imploded because of death. Everybody knows about death."

No, it's like saying "grandmother died from emphysema" when the cause of death listed on the autopsy is emphysema. You seem to think there's some magical "initiation" that has to occur between having a fatal condition, and actually dying from it.

If this were grandma's death, you'd be stomping around saying "the autopsy report does not show what caused Grandma to die of emphysema! There is no proof of emphysema initiation! Inside job! Conspiracy! We need a new investigation into Grandma's murder! Grandpa has unanswered questions!"

Asshole.

 
At 13 November, 2010 07:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nice try to dodge the issues by changing the subject to the Guy Fawkes mask.

What "issue"? All I saw from The Masked Writer was more ignorant babbling very similar to that which we get from you, Brian.

Since they did not discuss the collapse mechanism, they utterly failed to achieve their goal. That's my point.

False. Their goal was achieved.

10,000 signatories to the AE911Truth petition are not nobody, and 1350 of them are architects or engineers.

And nobody cares about this collection of failures and insane people.

NIST says the buildings came down essentially in free fall. That's not my fault. That's what they said. If you disagree, take it up with NIST.

No Brian, that's not what it said. Your continued babbling about this just shows us how stupid and ignorant you are.

Ian, maybe mopping some floors would earn you some money so you can afford to take an online physics course at your local junior college.

It looks like I'm getting under Brian's skin again. Hey, it's not my fault that you're an unemployed janitor who lives at home with your parents at age 57 and stalks people online all day, but I'm trying to help you out: go see a psychiatrist for the treatment you desperately need.

 
At 13 November, 2010 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR wrote: "No, it's like saying 'grandmother died from emphysema' when the cause of death listed on the autopsy is emphysema."

No, it's not. You didn't say "It's called total progressive collapse". You said "It's called gravity". The NIST report did not say "the building failed from gravity." Neither you nor NIST can point to any modern steel-framed high-rise that has ever failed from gravity.

If grandma's head imploded, and the death certificate said she died of emphysema, and the investigation failed to show evidence of emphysema and failed to explain the imploded head, yes I would be complaining about it. That's my point.

Ian, the NIST report did not achieve the goal of explaining the collapse mechanism. By stopping the report at the moment of collapse initiation, they avoided explaining it entirely.

You claimed that I was the only one who wants a new investigation. That was a lie. Then you backtracked to the position that nobody cares about 10,000 signatories to the position because they are all insane people. You have provided no evidence to support that claim.

You continue to lie also about what NIST said. They said the building came down "essentially in free fall". They said it in their FAQs and in section 6.14.4 of the report. Shyam Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your continued lying on this issue discredits your opinions and this forum.

 
At 13 November, 2010 11:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Neither you nor NIST can point to any modern steel-framed high-rise that has ever failed from gravity.

Did the NIST report neglect to mention the airplanes that crashed into the towers and the subsequent fires? If so, you might have a point. If not, you're just babbling mindlessly as usual.

Ian, the NIST report did not achieve the goal of explaining the collapse mechanism. By stopping the report at the moment of collapse initiation, they avoided explaining it entirely.

Gravity, Brian. Look it up.

Then you backtracked to the position that nobody cares about 10,000 signatories to the position because they are all insane people.

This is true. These people are nobody just like you and their views are irrelevant.

You have provided no evidence to support that claim.

I didn't have to because you provided the evidence: by supporting a new investigation for no good reason, they have demonstrated ignorance and insanity.

You continue to lie also about what NIST said. They said the building came down "essentially in free fall".

No they didn't, Brian, and your continued insistence that they did just shows how little you understand the NIST report.

They said it in their FAQs and in section 6.14.4 of the report.

False.

Shyam Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False.

Your continued lying on this issue discredits your opinions and this forum.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 14 November, 2010 09:13, Blogger Triterope said...

If grandma's head imploded, and the death certificate said she died of emphysema

Christ, I walked right into that, didn't I? Remind me never to use analogies with Brian Good ever again. He cannot follow them, except to twist them into what his sick mind wishes to be true.

As for the overall topic... nobody with a fourth-grade education needs an explanation as to why things fall down when there's nothing strong enough to support them or cause resistance. it's called "Gravity." Which is what I said five goddamn posts ago.

But fight on, Brian. Demand that new investigation. Keep insisting that NIST explain what causes "collapse initiation." Idiot.

 
At 14 November, 2010 13:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: Did the NIST report neglect to mention the airplanes that crashed into the towers and the subsequent fires?

NIST said it was not the airplane damage and not the fires that caused the destruction of the towers--they claim it was the damage to the fireproofing. But we were talking about the collapse MECHANISM, and that's something different. That's not just why it happened but how it happened. And by stopping at the point before the visible collapse began, NIST failed to explain the collapse mechanism.

"Gravity" is not the answer. the towers were designed, with a substantial safety factor, to resist gravity. And you're missing the fact that the debris fell through the path of greatest resistance. You can have free fall outside of that path, but not inside. This is good reason for a new investigation--to have the collapse mechanism explained.

Ian, your persistent lying about section 6.14.4 of the NIST report and about what Shyam Sunder told NOVA is a matter of hysteric delusion.

TR, an analogy is only as good as its pertinence to the situation. You presented a poor analogy because it did not demonstrate your point, and when I showed how in fact it demonstrated my point, you accuse me of twisting it.

Your claim that there's nothing to resist the collapse is correct. If it wasn't correct, the building could not come down "essentially in free fall". But the only way the resistance of tens of thousands of tons of structural steel designed to resist the gravitational forces on the building could be overcome is to remove that steel with explosives or incendiaries.

 
At 14 November, 2010 14:17, Blogger Triterope said...

the only way the resistance of tens of thousands of tons of structural steel designed to resist the gravitational forces on the building could be overcome is to remove that steel with explosives or incendiaries.

Or a plane crashing into it.

Fuckhead.

 
At 14 November, 2010 17:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, the point that you're missing is that even if the planes damaged the core columns in the impact zone (and NIST's initial "realistic" assessment was that not enough were damaged to generate a collapse) and even if the fires damaged the core columns in the impact zone, the building underneath the impact zone was not damaged. That's the resistance that you, and NIST, are ignoring.

 
At 14 November, 2010 17:25, Blogger paul w said...

Brian, can you explain why the steel-framed section of the Windsor building collapsed?

You know, the bit that caught fire. The steel-framed section. The part that collapsed:

"The fire spread quickly throughout the entire building, leading to the collapse of the outermost, steel parts of the upper floors"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsor_Tower

"The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor."
http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095

"Extensive slab collapse above the 17th Floor"
"04:00 Floors at upper level collapsed (news report)"
"A large portion of the floor slabs above the 17th Floor progressively collapsed during the fire when the unprotected steel perimeter columns on the upper levels buckled and collapsed (see Figure 1).
"It was believed that the massive transfer structure at the 17th Floor level resisted further collapse of the building."
It was believed that the multiple floor fire, along with the simultaneous buckling of the unprotected steel perimeter columns at several floors, triggered the collapse of the floor slabs above the 17th floor."

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

Please explain to us why it collapsed, Brian.

I've asked this of numerous truthers, and none have so far replied.

Come on, you can do it, be the first!

 
At 14 November, 2010 17:58, Blogger paul w said...

"That's the resistance...NIST, are ignoring."

Wrong again, Brian.

"Insights gained from these analyses were used, in turn, to formulate and execute nonlinear, temperature-dependent finite element analyses of global structural systems to predict the collapse sequence of each tower. The structural analyses were guided, and where possible validated, by observations made from the review of thousands of photographs and video recordings. This report covers the characterization of the conditions of the WTC towers before the attacks, their weakening due to the aircraft impacts, the response of the structural systems to the subsequent growth and spread of fires, and the progression of local failures that led ultimately to the total collapse of both towers."

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm

Read it, Brian.

"In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground"

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable.[31] Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."[32]

"On September 13, 2001, Zdeněk Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, circulated a draft paper with results of a simple analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Bažant suggested that heat from the fires was a key factor, causing steel columns in both the core and the perimeter to weaken and experience deformation before losing their carrying capacity and buckling. Once more than half of the columns on a particular floor buckled, the overhead structure could no longer be supported and complete collapse of the structures occurred. Bažant later published an expanded version of this analysis.[33] Other analyses were conducted by MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm, who also described a collapse mechanism on September 21, 2001.[34] They later contributed to an MIT collection of papers on the WTC collapses edited by Eduardo Kausel called The Towers Lost and Beyond.[35]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse

Read it, Brian.

But, that 'aint gonna happen, is it? Nope.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 14 November, 2010 18:00, Blogger paul w said...

"That's the resistance...NIST, are ignoring."

Wrong again, brian:

"Insights gained from these analyses were used, in turn, to formulate and execute nonlinear, temperature-dependent finite element analyses of global structural systems to predict the collapse sequence of each tower. The structural analyses were guided, and where possible validated, by observations made from the review of thousands of photographs and video recordings. This report covers the characterization of the conditions of the WTC towers before the attacks, their weakening due to the aircraft impacts, the response of the structural systems to the subsequent growth and spread of fires, and the progression of local failures that led ultimately to the total collapse of both towers."

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm

Read it, Brian.

"In the case of both towers, the top section tilted towards the face that had buckled, behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building. It fell at least one story in freefall and impacted the lower sections with a force equivalent to over thirty times its own weight. This was sufficient to buckle the columns of the story immediately below it; the block then fell freely through the distance of another story. Total collapse was now unavoidable as the process repeated through the entire height of the lower sections. The force of each impact was also much greater than the horizontal momentum of the section, which kept the tilt from increasing significantly before the falling section reached the ground. It remained intact throughout the collapse, with its center of gravity within the building's footprint. After crushing the lower section of the building, it was itself crushed when it hit the ground"

In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, numerous structural engineers and experts spoke to the media, describing what they thought caused the towers to collapse. Hassan Astaneh, a structural engineering professor at the University of California at Berkeley, explained that the high temperatures in the fires weakened the steel beams and columns, causing them to become "soft and mushy", and eventually they were unable to support the structure above. Astaneh also suggested that the fireproofing became dislodged during the initial aircraft impacts. He also explained that, once the initial structural failure occurred, progressive collapse of the entire structure was inevitable.[31] Cesar Pelli, who designed the Petronas Towers in Malaysia and the World Financial Center in New York, remarked, "no building is prepared for this kind of stress."[32]

"On September 13, 2001, Zdeněk Bažant, professor of civil engineering and materials science at Northwestern University, circulated a draft paper with results of a simple analysis of the World Trade Center collapse. Bažant suggested that heat from the fires was a key factor, causing steel columns in both the core and the perimeter to weaken and experience deformation before losing their carrying capacity and buckling. Once more than half of the columns on a particular floor buckled, the overhead structure could no longer be supported and complete collapse of the structures occurred. Bažant later published an expanded version of this analysis.[33] Other analyses were conducted by MIT civil engineers Oral Buyukozturk and Franz-Josef Ulm, who also described a collapse mechanism on September 21, 2001.[34] They later contributed to an MIT collection of papers on the WTC collapses edited by Eduardo Kausel called The Towers Lost and Beyond.[35]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Mechanics_of_Twin_Towers.27_collapse

Read it, Brian.

 
At 14 November, 2010 18:01, Blogger paul w said...

"That's the resistance...NIST, are ignoring."

Wrong again, Brian:

"Insights gained from these analyses were used, in turn, to formulate and execute nonlinear, temperature-dependent finite element analyses of global structural systems to predict the collapse sequence of each tower. The structural analyses were guided, and where possible validated, by observations made from the review of thousands of photographs and video recordings. This report covers the characterization of the conditions of the WTC towers before the attacks, their weakening due to the aircraft impacts, the response of the structural systems to the subsequent growth and spread of fires, and the progression of local failures that led ultimately to the total collapse of both towers."

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-6index.htm

Read it, Brian.

 
At 14 November, 2010 18:03, Blogger paul w said...

Sorry 'bout that.
The page said it could not be published because it was too large, but obviously, it did.
Couldn't delete the copies.

 
At 14 November, 2010 18:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why did the Windsor steel sections collapse? Uh, maybe because they were totally without fireproofing and they were exposed to fire for 24 hours?

 
At 14 November, 2010 18:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, removing your dulicate posts is easy. There's the trash can icon. You are trying to bury my substantive post under spam.

 
At 14 November, 2010 18:52, Blogger Triterope said...

the building underneath the impact zone was not damaged. That's the resistance that you, and NIST, are ignoring.

Yeah, except for the part where they address it:

The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy

It's called gravity, Brian. I grow weary of explaining this to you.

 
At 14 November, 2010 19:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, do you want to show where they show their calculations supporting that claim?

The assumption that an entire floor's worth of columns simply vaporized within a tenth of a second is reasonable only if you suppose some kind of invisible space beams were involved.

 
At 15 November, 2010 04:34, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, do you want to show where they show their calculations supporting that claim?

Why? You're not going to listen anyway. You'll just make up with something else NIST "failed to explain" or make up something they didn't say. Such as:

The assumption that an entire floor's worth of columns simply vaporized

 
At 15 November, 2010 06:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

"Gravity" is not the answer. the towers were designed, with a substantial safety factor, to resist gravity.

Yes, but they were hit by airplanes which caused massive fires. I love how you continue to leave this part out, Brian.

Ian, your persistent lying about section 6.14.4 of the NIST report and about what Shyam Sunder told NOVA is a matter of hysteric delusion.

False. You just can't read, Brian. Also, "hysteric [sic] delusion" aptly describes everything you post.

Why did the Windsor steel sections collapse? Uh, maybe because they were totally without fireproofing and they were exposed to fire for 24 hours?

So fire caused the collapse of a steel-framed highrise? How about that...

You are trying to bury my substantive post under spam.

HA HA HA HA!!! Brian, you've never posted anything substantive in your life. It's the same endless babbling about nothing over and over and over and over and over. Hey, isn't it time to post something about Willie Rodriguez?

TR, do you want to show where they show their calculations supporting that claim?

Watch those goalposts go circling the globe!

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 15 November, 2010 09:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, you cannot provide calculations supporting NIST's claim that "the potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy" because they did not do those calculations. They said it was too complicated for their computers to do.

Consider the disruptive effect on a symmetrical collapse of the fact that the mass/resistance ratio of the building was much less inside the core than outside.

I didn't "make up" anything. NIST said (if paul w can be believed) "the top section ... behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building.... fell at least one story in freefall."

It can do that in symmetry only if all the resisting columns on one floor are completely destroyed within a fraction of a second. How do you get that from asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires? You can't.

Ian, when I debunk your claims that gravity brought the towers down you bring up the planes. When debunk the planes and the fires you bring up gravity. Your brand of pseudo-clever salesmanship reminds me of Craig Ranke.

Ian, the Windsor building was under construction and thus completely without fireproofing and with no windows. It had no shortage of air. Even so, there was only a partial collapse. Rather than showing that modern high-rises do collapse from fires, this shows that the WTC should have suffered at most a partial collapse.

 
At 15 November, 2010 10:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

NIST said (if paul w can be believed) "the top section ... behaving largely as a solid block separate from the rest of the building.... fell at least one story in freefall."

Which is not the same thing as the structure collapsing in free-fall, which you can't seem to grasp, either because you're too dumb to understand the difference, or because you're too insane to accept reality.

It can do that in symmetry only if all the resisting columns on one floor are completely destroyed within a fraction of a second. How do you get that from asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires? You can't.

Well, I guess it's because of an inability to accept reality, given this nonsensical gibberish from our expect failed janitor.

Ian, when I debunk your claims that gravity brought the towers down you bring up the planes. When debunk the planes and the fires you bring up gravity.

Right, because it takes both to make the towers collapse. Sane people understand this.

Your brand of pseudo-clever salesmanship reminds me of Craig Ranke.

You babble about this nobody almost as much as you do Willie Rodriguez. Are you in love with Ranke too?

Ian, the Windsor building was under construction and thus completely without fireproofing and with no windows.

That's nice.

It had no shortage of air.

Neither was there at the WTC.

Even so, there was only a partial collapse.

That's nice.

Rather than showing that modern high-rises do collapse from fires, this shows that the WTC should have suffered at most a partial collapse.

False.

 
At 15 November, 2010 16:00, Blogger paul w said...

"You are trying to bury my substantive post under spam."

Wrong!!!
The NIST report is now spam????
lol!!!

Brian, seek professional help.

 
At 15 November, 2010 16:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, for you to post the same lengthy post three times is spam. Use the trash can icon.

 
At 15 November, 2010 17:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, for you to post the same lengthy post three times is spam. Use the trash can icon.

Brian, nobody wants your posts buried. Your ignorant lunatic ravings are a source of endless amusement for us.

 
At 16 November, 2010 00:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Then why can't paul w simply click the trashcan icon and delete his lengthy redundant posts?

 
At 16 November, 2010 06:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

Then why can't paul w simply click the trashcan icon and delete his lengthy redundant posts?

Because then you'll post more insane gibberish about how Paul should delete his posts, and we get to laugh at you some more. See how it works?

 
At 16 November, 2010 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: Did the NIST report neglect to mention the airplanes that crashed into the towers and the subsequent fires?

NIST said it was not the airplane damage and not the fires that caused the destruction of the towers--they claim it was the damage to the fireproofing. But we were talking about the collapse MECHANISM, and that's something different. That's not just why it happened but how it happened. And by stopping at the point before the visible collapse began, NIST failed to explain the collapse mechanism.

"Gravity" is not the answer. the towers were designed, with a substantial safety factor, to resist gravity. And you're missing the fact that the debris fell through the path of greatest resistance. You can have free fall outside of that path, but not inside. This is good reason for a new investigation--to have the collapse mechanism explained.

Ian, your persistent lying about section 6.14.4 of the NIST report and about what Shyam Sunder told NOVA is a matter of hysteric delusion.

TR, an analogy is only as good as its pertinence to the situation. You presented a poor analogy because it did not demonstrate your point, and when I showed how in fact it demonstrated my point, you accuse me of twisting it.

Your claim that there's nothing to resist the collapse is correct. If it wasn't correct, the building could not come down "essentially in free fall". But the only way the resistance of tens of thousands of tons of structural steel designed to resist the gravitational forces on the building could be overcome is to remove that steel with explosives or incendiaries.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

NIST said it was not the airplane damage and not the fires that caused the destruction of the towers--they claim it was the damage to the fireproofing.

You're really not this stupid, are you Brian? Let's see, how did the fireproofing get damaged? Also, what would be some consequences of that fireproofing getting damaged?

But we were talking about the collapse MECHANISM, and that's something different. That's not just why it happened but how it happened. And by stopping at the point before the visible collapse began, NIST failed to explain the collapse mechanism.

Gravity, Brian. Look it up.

"Gravity" is not the answer. the towers were designed, with a substantial safety factor, to resist gravity.

You're aware that they were hit by airplanes which caused structural damage and massive fires, right?

And you're missing the fact that the debris fell through the path of greatest resistance.

That would be "down", Brian. Gravity makes stuff fall down. When you tested your idiotic "meatball on a fork" model, did you notice that the meatball fell down onto the fork?

You can have free fall outside of that path, but not inside.

And there wasn't free-fall inside that path, so I don't see what point you're trying to make.

This is good reason for a new investigation--to have the collapse mechanism explained.

Gravity, Brian. Look it up.

Ian, your persistent lying about section 6.14.4 of the NIST report and about what Shyam Sunder told NOVA is a matter of hysteric delusion.

False. Also, "hysterical" is the adjective. "Hysteric" is a noun. Learn to write.

Your claim that there's nothing to resist the collapse is correct. If it wasn't correct, the building could not come down "essentially in free fall". But the only way the resistance of tens of thousands of tons of structural steel designed to resist the gravitational forces on the building could be overcome is to remove that steel with explosives or incendiaries.

The buildings didn't come down in free fall, Brian.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:20, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Using him as a symbol sends one of two messages. The first is that you are a complete fanatic with a tenuous grip on reality. The second is that you're a stupid, ignorant twat. I leave it to you to decide which of the above applies to you.

Or it could be you are ignorant and it maybe someone who just enjoyed the character portrayed in the movie. Besides, your point is one big arguement fallacy which you need to use in order to offer forth a character tact on an anyonmous poster's pic. I would say there are more than two explanations, correct? Nevermind, I know the answer.

You know, those same loud explosions that were totally absent from WTC 1, 2, or 7....
Another uninformed dolt who apparently has NOT seen the videos broadcast live on that day or the videos released by NIST, or the transcripts of firefighters that were released et. al.
Dude, wake up. That debunking talking point was debunked 10 years ago.
completely violating the accepted laws of physics.

Why is it that the only people who think the collapse "violated the laws of physics" are the ones who spent their high school physics classes huffing magic markers?
Greening: So, to recap: Newton’s Laws apply to the external forces acting between interacting bodies in closed systems. Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself.ROFLMAO@U!!

You might pose that same question to an OS supporter regarding Newton's 3rd law.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:24, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Oh and don't forget, it was Frank Greening who co-wrote the Bazant paper in support of the official story that you all love and support.

Frank "The 3rd Law of Newton" doesn't apply to collapsing buildings in a closed environment" Greening.

If you believe that, then of COURSE no laws were violated. LOL@U Change the laws of physics and get the official story. Makes sense to me.

 
At 16 November, 2010 11:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Another uninformed dolt who apparently has NOT seen the videos broadcast live on that day or the videos released by NIST, or the transcripts of firefighters that were released et. al.

Show me the video with the sounds of the explosives detonating. Show me the firefighter transcripts.

Also, stop babbling about Newton's laws as if you know what you're talking about. Seriously, do you expect anyone here to take your assertions seriously?

 
At 17 November, 2010 04:32, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, you cannot provide calculations supporting NIST's claim that "the potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that energy" because they did not do those calculations. They said it was too complicated for their computers to do.

That's not what they said at all.

TR, an analogy is only as good as its pertinence to the situation. You presented a poor analogy because it did not demonstrate your point, and when I showed how in fact it demonstrated my point, you accuse me of twisting it.

Analogies aren't useful when you're constantly changing what's being analogized. In this thread you've backpedalled from "NIST didn't address it" to "NIST didn't explain it" to "NIST didn't show the calculations" to various lies about things NIST didn't say.

If I made a rhetorical mistake here, it was in thinking you'd be intellectually honest enough to defend your position rather than just moving the goalposts again. So I shall refrain from rhetorical tactics in future, and just call you a toilet-scrubbing sex-stalking incompetent fuckhead.

 
At 18 November, 2010 00:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: how did the fireproofing get damaged?

Ian, the fireproofing would have been damaged along very stereotyped paths--remember the planes were canted so they cut through five or six floors. Damage was thus limited. It's not like all the fireproofing on the floor was sandblasted.

Gravity is not a collapse mechanism, and it does not explain collapse "essentially in free fall" nor the pulverization of the concrete, nor the totality or symmetry of collapse, nor the debris falling through the path of greatest resistance.

A meatball does not fall down the fork, Ian. That would seem to be the point of the model. Friction keeps it on the tines.

NIST says both in the FAQs and in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". If you disagree, then you should join us in calling for new investigations.

 
At 18 November, 2010 06:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the fireproofing would have been damaged along very stereotyped paths--remember the planes were canted so they cut through five or six floors. Damage was thus limited. It's not like all the fireproofing on the floor was sandblasted.

Ah, now I get it! Brian was sniffing magic markers during his high school physics class, but made up for it by watching Wile E. Coyote cartoons.

Gravity is not a collapse mechanism, and it does not explain collapse "essentially in free fall" nor the pulverization of the concrete, nor the totality or symmetry of collapse, nor the debris falling through the path of greatest resistance.

Actually, it does explain all those things...well, except for the free-fall, the pulverization, and the symmetry, all of which are figments of your deranged imagination.

A meatball does not fall down the fork, Ian. That would seem to be the point of the model. Friction keeps it on the tines.

The WTC was made of ground beef?

NIST says both in the FAQs and in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". If you disagree, then you should join us in calling for new investigations.

No it doesn't. You just can't read.

 
At 18 November, 2010 15:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, "meatball" is just the name of the model. I doubt anyone but you would think the WTC was made of ground beef.

If you would like visions of atomic structure to dance in your head while you explore the notion that matter consists of plum pudding, I suggest that you google J.J. Thomson.

 
At 18 November, 2010 18:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, "meatball" is just the name of the model. I doubt anyone but you would think the WTC was made of ground beef.

Um, if it wasn't made of ground beef, maybe the model doesn't make any sense then?

Plus, this is petgoat's model, and you told me he is a liar. Why do you continue to pretend that the model of a known liar has any validity?

 
At 18 November, 2010 22:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said petgoat is a liar. I said you are a liar, and that if he said what you say he said, he is a liar.

I'm sorry that you can't understand conditional logic. I guess you're like a dog that way. You can understand if you're told what's what, but you can't process "if A, B; if not-A, C".

 
At 18 November, 2010 22:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, Ian, the WTC was made of ground beef and J. J. Thomson wrote a peer-reviewed paper saying the universe is made up of various flavors of plum pudding.

Rock on, dude! More cowbell! Have another bong hit!

 
At 19 November, 2010 06:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

I never said petgoat is a liar. I said you are a liar, and that if he said what you say he said, he is a liar.

My, such squealing! Why are so interested in standing up for petgoat if he's lying? If I told you Craig Ranke was saying these things, I'm sure you'd have no problem calling him a liar.

Anyway, since petgoat said these things, he must be a liar, right?

Yes, Ian, the WTC was made of ground beef and J. J. Thomson wrote a peer-reviewed paper saying the universe is made up of various flavors of plum pudding.

No, Brian, the WTC was not made of ground beef, which is one of the reasons why only insane liars like you believe such things.

Rock on, dude! More cowbell! Have another bong hit!

Brian, your attempt to sound like a normal human being with normal relationships is pretty lame.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: the WTC was not made of ground beef

False.

 
At 19 November, 2010 10:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

The WTC was made of ground beef, Brian? Well, if you believe that, it would explain why you have such a hard time understanding the reality of what happened on 9/11.

 
At 19 November, 2010 12:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Petgoat told me you said so, and that's good enough for me.

 
At 19 November, 2010 13:51, Blogger Triterope said...

the mass/resistance ratio of the building was much less inside the core than outside.

Unsubstantiated claim. Goalpost move.

It can do that in symmetry only if all the resisting columns on one floor are completely destroyed within a fraction of a second.

Unsubstantiated claim. Goalpost move.

How do you get that from asymmetrical damage and asymmetrical fires? You can't.

Unsubstantiated claim. Goalpost move.

Honestly Brian, I'm beginning to bore of you. You're much more interesting when cling tenaciously to one claim rather than making up five new details with every post.

 
At 19 November, 2010 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look it up. 100,000 tons of steel and 90,000 tons of concrete in each tower. Obviously most of the concrete was outside the core, and most of the steel was inside the core, and you get a higher mass/resistance ratio outside the core.

Everything else I said was equally self-evident, and your unsubstantiated claim that the goalposts were moved is meaningless unless you define what the goalposts were.

 
At 19 November, 2010 15:00, Blogger Triterope said...

No, it is not. You've said the NIST report says everything except what it actually says. You just keep making up new claims, which seem to come from nowhere but your sick imagination. There's no point talking to you if you're just going to make shit up.

 
At 19 November, 2010 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't make anything up. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the building came down "essentially in free fall". I can understand that this information is upsetting to you. It's upsetting to me too. But it's not my fault.

 
At 19 November, 2010 19:37, Blogger Triterope said...

NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the building came down "essentially in free fall".

Yes. And they said why, which is what I've been trying to show you all this time. But getting you to comprehend the sentence after that is like trying to teach a dog a card trick. You obsess over the four words you think vindicate you, and ignore the rest.

 
At 19 November, 2010 20:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Petgoat told me you said so, and that's good enough for me.

Well, I'm telling you right now that I don't believe the WTC was made of ground beef, so that would seem to be more evidence that petgoat is a liar. Since petgoat seems to like lying to you, wouldn't you be more suspicious of his "rake-on-rake" model, since he was more than likely feeding you bullshit and laughing behind your back when you swallowed it hook, line, and sinker?

 
At 19 November, 2010 20:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

I didn't make anything up. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the building came down "essentially in free fall".

False. Learn to read, Brian.

I can understand that this information is upsetting to you. It's upsetting to me too. But it's not my fault.

It upsets you because you're a paranoid lunatic with no grasp of reality.

 
At 20 November, 2010 08:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, NIST said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". And as you acknowledge, they said why. They came down essentially in free fall because the undamaged portion of the building below the debris mat showed virtually no resistance.

Thus the claim that NIST was simply talking about debris falling off the building and striking the ground is erroneous, because if they were talking about that, then discussion of the lack of resistance would be meaningless.

The inability of you clowns to support your claims defeats your claims.

 
At 20 November, 2010 10:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, NIST said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

False. Learn to read, Brian.

And as you acknowledge, they said why.

They said why a section of the building came down in free fall. That's not the same thing as what you're claiming. You're either too stupid or too delusional to grasp the difference.

They came down essentially in free fall because the undamaged portion of the building below the debris mat showed virtually no resistance.

Until it hit resistance and then no more free-fall. How about that!

Thus the claim that NIST was simply talking about debris falling off the building and striking the ground is erroneous, because if they were talking about that, then discussion of the lack of resistance would be meaningless.

I never said it was about debris, but now that you bring it up, debris falling off the side of the building proves the thing wasn't collapsing in free-fall. Of course, you'd never watch those videos, as I can understand this information is upsetting to you, but that's not my fault.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST said the section of the building came down through the rest of the building: "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

They are describing the entire collapse. They are not claoiming that "the building section above" fell off the top as you imply.

The building never did hit resistance. You make up your facts. NIST says: "The structure ... offered minimal resistance .... provided little resistance ... the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

I never said the building fell at free fall. I said that NIST said it did.

 
At 20 November, 2010 11:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

They are describing the entire collapse. They are not claoiming that "the building section above" fell off the top as you imply.

False. Learn to read.

The building never did hit resistance. You make up your facts.

False and false. Learn to read.

NIST says: "The structure ... offered minimal resistance .... provided little resistance ... the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

OK, you can read, since you're competent enough to remove text that contradicts your claims. So you're not illiterate, you're just a delusional liar, which is what petgoat, Kevin Barrett, and Willie Rodriguez told me about you.

I never said the building fell at free fall. I said that NIST said it did.

False and false. Jesus, Brian, you say the NIST report is dishonest....and then you quote mine it in order to back up your idiotic thermite ideas. Don't you realize how stupid that makes you look?

 
At 20 November, 2010 12:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't make any thermite claimns, I don't say that the buildings came down at free fall speed, and NIST does say they came down at free fall speed. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

You clearly haven't even read section 6.14.4 for yourself. You just say "No!" like a two-year-old.

 
At 20 November, 2010 13:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your inability to distinguish between me saying "NIST says they came down at freefall" and "I say they came down at freefall" shows your essential intellectual incompetence.

 
At 21 November, 2010 10:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I don't make any thermite claimns, I don't say that the buildings came down at free fall speed, and NIST does say they came down at free fall speed. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False. You babble about thermite all the time, and you, not the NIST, say the buildings fell at free-fall speed.

You clearly haven't even read section 6.14.4 for yourself. You just say "No!" like a two-year-old.

False. I just understand what I read.

Your inability to distinguish between me saying "NIST says they came down at freefall" and "I say they came down at freefall" shows your essential intellectual incompetence.

My, such squealing! I distinguish between the two just fine. NIST does not say the buildings came down at free fall. You do. And you do so because you're a delusional liar.

 
At 21 November, 2010 10:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" in section 6.14.4. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's free fall.

Your colleagues' tolerance for your irrational denial of facts is hurting the credibility of this forum.

 
At 21 November, 2010 13:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" in section 6.14.4. Shyam Sunder told NOVA that they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's free fall.

No.

Your colleagues' tolerance for your irrational denial of facts is hurting the credibility of this forum.

Nobody cares what you consider credible since you're a lunatic.

 
At 21 November, 2010 17:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, Pet Goat, punxsutawneybarney, etc) wrote, "...Shyam Sunder told NOVA that they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's free fall."

Yo CatShit-for-brains!

The South Tower fell in 14.5 seconds and the North Tower fell in 22.2 seconds.

"Free fall" acceleration (ie, gravitational acceleration) from a height of 1400 ft is 9.2 seconds. How could "11 seconds" represent "free fall" acceleration?

Lying again, a$$?

 
At 21 November, 2010 19:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger! If you don't believe it, take it up with NIST. Call for new investigations.

 
At 21 November, 2010 21:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

Shyam Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Brian, you do realize that endlessly repeating the same nonsense doesn't give it greater validity, right?

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messenger!

Well, you're as bad a messenger as you are a janitor, since you can't get the message right.

If you don't believe it, take it up with NIST.

I believe NIST. What I don't believe is your mindless babbling about NIST since you're a delusional liar and lunatic sex stalker.

Call for new investigations.

Nope. You'll never get your investigation, you'll never get a job, and you'll never score.

 
At 21 November, 2010 21:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you believe NIST, then you believe section 6.14.4 when it says the building came down "essentially in free fall".

 
At 21 November, 2010 22:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

If you believe NIST, then you believe section 6.14.4 when it says the building came down "essentially in free fall".

I believe NIST. What I don't believe is the interpretation of the NIST report put forth by a delusional ignorant liar and sex stalker.

http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood

Jesus, Brian, is this really the BEST photo you could find of yourself? You look like an insane homeless person.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home