Sunday, November 21, 2010

Geraldo Impressed by 1300 Architects and Engineers



And I can kind of see it from his standpoint. I mean, we've been around since the early days when Gage was claiming that insurance companies raised their premiums 2100 percent and thinking that the box demonstration was impressive, so we know it's just 1300 clowns in the circus, whereas Geraldo has none of that experience. He doesn't know about the swimming pool engineer or the HVAC engineer or the dental engineer who thinks it was done with beam weapons from space.

Labels: ,

67 Comments:

At 21 November, 2010 23:03, Blogger Kaspar Damm said...

I find it somewhat amusing that within the Twoofer community, they're usually careful to label it '1300 architectural and engineering professionals', so as to avoid the criticism of their actual number of architects and engineers.

But as soon as they hit the MSM, it's all about inflating that number. I guess they know they won't be confronted by the reality.

 
At 22 November, 2010 01:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Kasper Damm wrote, "...But as soon as they hit the MSM, it's all about inflating that number. I guess they know they won't be confronted by the reality."

The US scientific and engineering community consists of 600,000 members. As a result, if we divide the members of Gage's gaggle of charlatans by the number of members of the US scientific and engineering community and multiply the resulting ratio by 100 we can calculate the percentage of the community that supports the controlled demolition theory. Hence,

(1,368/600,000) * 100 = 0.23%

Thus, ae911truth's alleged membership doesn't reach the level of statistical significance.

 
At 22 November, 2010 02:49, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

So Geraldo thinks the troofers might have got case. Great. I look forward to Geraldo's own investigation into the 9/11 troof. Surely, he will take on this most important of issues. He will, won't he? Won't he?

 
At 22 November, 2010 03:31, Blogger Garry said...

Lest we forget ...

http://www.dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Geraldo_Rivera

 
At 22 November, 2010 10:38, Blogger Bill said...

Geraldo in no way prepared himself. Any real journalist will have a list of points based on research for a question like, "Your critics say x, y, & z about your position. How do you respond to that?". Just blindly saying people see them as quacks only underscores Geraldo's ineptitude.

 
At 22 November, 2010 14:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I took Arabic back in the early 1980s. At that time Beruit was the big story with suicide truck bombers and the Israeli invasion. So Geraldo files a report for ABC's 20/20 and at one point we see him and his guide crouching for their lives and a hail of AK47 fire erupts from across the street.

Very dramatic.

The next week my Arabic teach, who was born and raised in Beruit, laughed about it all because the truth was that the building across the street was a firing range. It had been for some time too.

So Geraldo is either a fool or a liar. My guess, a little of both.

So this development is consistant with his asshattery.

 
At 23 November, 2010 06:36, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Your fallacies are hilarious Pat. HVAC engineer? LOL! Pool engineer! ROFLMAO!

Structural engineers!?!? ROFLMAO@U!!

Surely there are NO structural engineers apart of this organzation. Oh wait, I just checked the membership list. Seems the joke is on you, Patty.

GuitarBill=The US scientific and engineering community consists of 600,000 members....
Interesting math. Too bad you can't cite the number out of 600,000 that have actually read the NIST reports, studied the event and evidence, read the peer reviewed papers from both sides, and arrived at a different conclusion such as those at Architects and Engineers.

Do you happen to have that number, Billy? Nevermind, I know you don't. Your spouting crap as usual.

 
At 23 November, 2010 06:50, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Too bad the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have not one structural engineer with the skill necessary to design a building over a couple of stories. In A&E 9/11 Truth world the opinions of the guy who designs decks at the local Home Depot is just as good as people who design hundred story office towers.

Funny how the real skilled structural engineers see nothing wrong in how the towers came down, and I am sure all of them have seen the footage.

This is the difference between debunkers and truthers themselves, and their so call experts, Quality of the people.

 
At 23 November, 2010 07:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Just like Brian Good, Mask-Boy has the burden of proof exactly ass-backwards.

 
At 23 November, 2010 07:34, Blogger avicenne said...

" Too bad you can't cite the number out of 600,000 that have actually read the NIST reports, studied the event and evidence, read the peer reviewed papers from both sides, and arrived at a different conclusion such as those at Architects and Engineers."

Some of us have lives. If you're so curious as to what percentage of the scientific community has "studied the event and evidence" (which of course translates as "watched youtube videos and obsessively read mindless bullshit about micro spheres") then find out yourself.

OT: I thought I'd seen it all from these scumbags, but this has to be a new low.

http://letsrollforums.com/lady-wtc-window-wearing-t22715.html

 
At 23 November, 2010 11:37, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Dave Kyte said...Too bad the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth have not one structural engineer with the skill necessary to design a building over a couple of stories.
Ahh yes, because the size matters when it comes to how many stories one designs. In this equation, structural engineer Dave is more knowledgeable than structural engineer Brian because his design is 1 story taller. Never mind what the degrees from the Universities say. I guess your point is trashed.
avicenne
Some of us have lives. If you're so curious as to what percentage of the scientific community has "studied the event and evidence" (which of course translates as "watched youtube videos and obsessively read mindless bullshit about micro spheres") then find out yourself.

Yes, we all do or we would be dead. But the point is, avi, GuitarBill tossed the math out to support his line of logic. I just destroyed his line of logic.
BTW, in your translation, you left out the NIST reports and further analysis. But a bad debunker does just that ALL the time...fallacy of omission.

p.s. You have a life that...revolves around going to letsrollforums and here. Not much of a life at all, chief.

 
At 23 November, 2010 12:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'll ask mask boy the same question I've asked Cosmos (and never got an answer): if it's so obvious that you're right and all the evidence is on your side, why not go to a prosecutor and get the bastards responsible for it locked up? What are you doing wasting your time with us losers?

 
At 23 November, 2010 12:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator scribbles, "...GuitarBill=The US scientific and engineering community consists of 600,000 members....Interesting math. Too bad you can't cite the number out of 600,000 that have actually read the NIST reports, studied the event and evidence, read the peer reviewed papers from both sides, and arrived at a different conclusion such as those at Architects and Engineers...Do you happen to have that number, Billy? Nevermind, I know you don't. Your spouting crap as usual."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said a word about "the number out of 600,000 that have actually read the NIST reports, studied the event and evidence..."

Thus, you're misrepresenting my position and distorting my argument for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that you've refuted my proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar but unequivalent proposition and refuting it without refuting my original proposition--a naked straw man argument.

In fact, I'm a member of the scientific community. The size of the community--600,000--is well established and isn't subject to debate.

The number of scientists and engineers who have read the NIST Report has never been determined, and my proposition was not based on that mythical statistic. As a result, your fallacious argument is irrelevant.

The point--you fucking retard--was to show that ae911truth's membership is so small that it doesn't reach the level of statistical significance.

Furthermore, there's nothing "interesting" about the math. Calculating percentage is simple, and only troofers seem to have difficulty grasping such a simple concept:

(Part/Whole) * 100 = %

Now, if you can't debate in a logical and honest fashion, go play in the freeway, Brian (or whatever you're calling yourself this week.

 
At 23 November, 2010 12:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator scribbles, "...Yes, we all do or we would be dead. But the point is, avi, GuitarBill tossed the math out to support his line of logic. I just destroyed his line of logic."

On the contrary, Brian, I just destroyed your argument--you straw man argument spewing fool.

Too bad you can't debate without resorting to non sequiturs--which proves you're unable to think logically.

Don't you have a floor to scrub, Brian?

 
At 23 November, 2010 13:40, Blogger Philip said...

You're all mixed up, like Pasta Primavera / "Yo, why'd you throw that chair at Geraldo Rivera, man?"

 
At 23 November, 2010 13:43, Blogger Garry said...

'[If] it's so obvious that you're right and all the evidence is on your side, why not go to a prosecutor and get the bastards responsible for it locked up?'

And there is one question that retards like 'The Masked Writer' will never be able to answer.

 
At 23 November, 2010 15:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Ahh yes, because the size matters when it comes to how many stories one designs."

Well Yes. You see if your were not so ignorant of basic physics, you would know as I do, that when you get into the territory of designing massive structures size does matter, you can't take plans for a two story home and simply scale it up and expect it to stand. REAL structural engineers know this and design accordingly. Apparently Richard Gage doesn't know this, ergo his little Box demonstration that cause such laughter with the bright folk.

That is why as a person of low intelligence you have such issues understanding stuff normal thinking people understand. I know this stuff is beyond your meager thinking ability so your will remain a sucker to the conspiracy theorist lies.

 
At 23 November, 2010 15:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You know, Brian Good is like the Rain Man of the 9/11 Truth movement, I suspect he is an idiot savant, not good for much except what he become obsessed with. The 9/11 thing is his focus, too bad it is pure bullshit, but Brian knows the bullshit better than anyone. Kevin Ryan is his Judge Wopner, as is that other Rodriguez guy. The simpleton thinks he is doing something worthwhile, but its all in his poor fatuous brain.

This would explain why at 58 or so, he still has to live with mom and dad and his only useful skill is simple shit like mopping floors. Can't let the poor boy out on his own or he will start to think a normal woman is interested in him, but even truther woman don't want to deal with a retarded man-child, Just ask Carol B.

 
At 23 November, 2010 16:53, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I can be an architect in only 2 years of junior college. Getting an engineering degree takes 4 to 6 years or so.

How A&E for 9/11 bullshit fails is that NONE of the engineers on their list is qualified to read the NIST report. To challenge that report requires that so much evidence be ignored, and so many fairy stories be accepted with zero evidence present.

To assume that all of the engineers who have not read the report are lazy is stupid. Engineers know other engineers, and the odds are good that in every engineering social circle there is at least one guy who has read the NIST report (either out of curiousity, or while in the process of risk evaluation). If there actually was a serious problem with the NIST report there would be serious noise about it.
Then there would be a responsible and well researched counter thesis.

The A&E 9/11 twats don't have a serious counter thesis. They cannot back up a single claim or theory. This should be the obvious red flag for any intellectually honest engineer, and this speaks to the caliber of those 1300 "professionals".

 
At 23 November, 2010 16:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Ahh yes, because the size matters when it comes to how many stories one designs."

Yes, size matters.

As you should know from all those women laughing at you.

 
At 23 November, 2010 17:13, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Arup helped to investigate key aspects of the 9/11 incident, leading to the updating of design standards in many countries.

http://www.arup.com/Services/Fire.aspx/

FYI Arup is one of the major engineering firms, one where Richard Gage will not soon work.

 
At 23 November, 2010 17:30, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

If you want to see a group who have legitimate questions about the collapse of the WTC it would be these people. Unfortunately you will se no speculations about controlled demolitions. Only question about failures that day that could have saved lives in this fire induced structural failure.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/

Even stuff like this you will not see from truthers

"In the case of the north tower, police chopper pilots reported seeing the warning signs - an inward bowing of the building facade - at least eight minutes before it collapsed at 10:29 a.m."

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

These people have to deal with the fact they get lumped in with the kooks.

 
At 23 November, 2010 17:35, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

To The Editor:

Bronx: In boasting of his new World Trade Center building's safety, Larry Silverstein forgot to mention one thing: 7 WTC and the new towers will remain exempt, and therefore immune from all city building and fire codes, just like the old WTC was. How safe is that? Have Silverstein, Gov. Pataki and the Port Authority learned nothing from 9/11? Unfortunately, the families of the victims have learned plenty.

Sally Regenhard,
Chairwomen of the Skyscraper Safety Campaign
http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/toeditor_20050426.htm


But why worry about fire safety? After all according to truthers fire can not bring down buildings.

 
At 23 November, 2010 21:24, OpenID mrrational88 said...

Hey guys great stuff. I appreciate all your efforts to combat nonsense! I'm wondering if you have any tips on getting in the business of debunking/skepticism. I started my own blog recently...http://mrrational88.wordpress.com/
Continue the good work.

 
At 23 November, 2010 21:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I would guess that local prosecutors plead lack jurisdiction, and federal prosecutors say murder is a state crime. The case was taken to Eliot Spitzer in 2004. His refusal to act on it can perhaps be explained by his ambition at the time to run for governor.

Dive Shyte, any idiot knows you can't simply scale up a structure. Gage's box demonstration has nothing to do with that concept, and if you had bothered to watch it instead of read about it on debunk-by-giggles sites, you would know that.

M. Gwegowy Fawwis, the counterthesis is that NIST stopped their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus with blatant dishonesty failed to even address their mission to explain the collapse.
They dodged the mystifying questions of symmetry, totality, pulverization, speed, and molten iron.

Dave, your inability to recognize that Fire Safety is a much bigger issue than "collapse from fire" is damning.

mrrational, if you're looking for rationality you won't get it from these clowns. Giggling is about as rational as they get. They lie and they make up their facts.

 
At 24 November, 2010 00:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...the counterthesis [SIC] is that NIST stopped their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus with blatant dishonesty failed to even address their mission to explain the collapse."

And that statement is all the proof we need to demonstrate that you're an idiot, Brian. Once you've determined the collapse mechanism you've explained the collapse, as Leslie Robertson makes perfectly clear in the following debate.

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

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

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

Now, go play in the freeway, Pinocchio.

 
At 24 November, 2010 07:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

The case was taken to Eliot Spitzer in 2004. His refusal to act on it can perhaps be explained by his ambition at the time to run for governor.

Or the fact that there is no evidence for your allegations....

Gage's box demonstration has nothing to do with that concept, and if you had bothered to watch it instead of read about it on debunk-by-giggles sites, you would know that.

Um, we've all watched it, Brian. It demonstrates nothing but the fact that Gage is a desperate charlatan.

M. Gwegowy Fawwis, the counterthesis is that NIST stopped their analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, and thus with blatant dishonesty failed to even address their mission to explain the collapse.

Gravity, Brian. It's what causes all things to fall down. Learn to google.

They dodged the mystifying questions of symmetry, totality, pulverization, speed, and molten iron.

Nobody cares about your "mystifying questions", Brian.

Dave, your inability to recognize that Fire Safety is a much bigger issue than "collapse from fire" is damning.

Collapse from fire is definitely part of the issues with fire safety in skyscrapers, Brian. It also appears to be exactly what the letter writer Dave was referring to.

mrrational, if you're looking for rationality you won't get it from these clowns. Giggling is about as rational as they get. They lie and they make up their facts.

Hey Brian, is this really the best photo you could find of yourself?

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

Jesus, you look like an insane homeless person.

 
At 24 November, 2010 07:53, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

GB-Thus, you're misrepresenting my position and distorting my argument for the sole purpose of creating the illusion that you've refuted my proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar but unequivalent proposition and refuting it without refuting my original proposition--a naked straw man argument.

1. I'm not Brian. Two, there is no mis-representation.

2. Your logical assumption is that the all 600,000 members of the engineering community support NIST's conclusion. Why must you do that? So you can only use the Architects and Engineers as the only tiny sample that supports CD.

3. However, the logic is flawed because you DON'T know what all 600,000 members believe. You assume they support NIST. They may not.

So in that regards, your logic is an closed world assumption and is a fallacy.

Move on. Sorry I didn't elaborate earlier on how I trashed your logic. I figure if you were using bad logic you would know anyway. Sorry about that assumption.

 
At 24 November, 2010 08:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Not only does he assume that the greater engineering community supports NIST, he even claims it, despite the fact that he can not name one independent engineer who has expressed support for the NIST report.

 
At 24 November, 2010 08:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Not only does he assume that the greater engineering community supports NIST, he even claims it, despite the fact that he can not name one independent engineer who has expressed support for the NIST report.

Says the guy who can't name one engineer who supports the theory of gravity.

 
At 24 November, 2010 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the theory of gravity has nothing to do with engineering but only with pure science. Your ignorance is not my fault. I've been trying to educate you but you prefer not to know.

 
At 24 November, 2010 10:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the theory of gravity has nothing to do with engineering but only with pure science. Your ignorance is not my fault. I've been trying to educate you but you prefer not to know.

Yes, engineering has nothing to do with science. It's a new-age, ethereal discipline, right Brian?

Babbling about how brilliant you are is just a desperate attempt to hide the fact that you can't name a single engineer who endorses the theory of gravity. Not one.

 
At 24 November, 2010 11:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator scribbles, "...1. I'm not Brian. Two, there is no mis-representation."

Yes, there was a misrepresentation of my position as I explained in detail. The proposition you offer is superficial--a straw man argument. Thus, your argument is a non sequitur.

Deal with it, stupid.

The Masked Prevaricator continues to make an ass of himself and whines, "...2. Your logical assumption is that the all 600,000 members of the engineering community support NIST's conclusion."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

My "logical assumption"???

On the contrary, charlatan, it's your "logical assumption"--which has no basis in "logic" whatsoever. Thus, we find another straw man argument.

Clearly, you don't understand the concept of a straw man argument, because you continue to misrepresent my opinion and offer a non sequitur as a "logical argument."

Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Get back to me, Masked Charlatan, when you can pass a formal examination in elementary logic. Until then you're pissing into the wind.

 
At 24 November, 2010 11:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Not only does he assume that the greater engineering community supports NIST, he even claims it, despite the fact that he can not name one independent engineer who has expressed support for the NIST report."

Repeated lying will not hide your latest defeat, bug.fuck.

In fact, I've named nine (9) independent engineers, so far. So stop lying, bug.fuck.

And now we can add number ten (10) to the list: Leslie E. Robertson. Leslie E. Robertson was the chief structural engineer for the World Trade Center. He was not involved in drafting the NIST Report and is independent of NIST. He is the president of Leslie E. Robertson & Associates of New York City.

Have a nice day, Pinocchio.

 
At 24 November, 2010 15:54, Blogger truth hurts said...

Speaking of nanothermite, this video claims it is possible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpPNRrylH00

 
At 24 November, 2010 16:27, Blogger Billman said...

speaking of thermite, this video SHOW that it's impossible:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIpa1K51os4

Can't cut a car in half with 1000lbs of it, yet you can bring down a 110-story building?

 
At 24 November, 2010 20:58, Blogger John Tybalt Thibault said...

Generic truther with "V for Vendetta" avatar wrote,
"Too bad you can't cite the number out of 600,000 that have actually read the NIST reports, studied the event and evidence, read the peer reviewed papers from both sides, and arrived at a different conclusion such as those at Architects and Engineers."

You can't cite the number out of the 1300 Architects and Engineers for 9/11 "Truth" who have read the NIST reports, studied the event and evidence, read peer reviewed papers, or examined any evidence whatsoever. As far as anyone can tell, the vast majority of them are just ignorant kooks who signed an online form.

And by the way, GuitarBill is actually underestimating the number of engineers in the US.

"In 2008, [US] engineers held about 1.6 million jobs." (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos027.htm)

To that, add the number of architects.

 
At 25 November, 2010 10:31, Blogger Pat said...

Hey Brian, when you built your famous chair and it collapsed, did your ass suddenly stop about a foot off the ground?

 
At 26 November, 2010 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian wrote: engineering has nothing to do with science.

Engineering is applied science, Ian.
The law of gravitation (how it works) is essential. The theory of gravitation (why it works) is irrelevant unless you're trying to engineer an anti-gravity machine.

GutterBall, sure you can name independent engineers. You have not shown that they endorsed the NIST report. Robertson is not independent. His firm LERA had a contract with NIST. Two other engineers you have named are not independent.

Billman, 1000 pounds of thermite can certainly cut a car in half if employed scientifically. If you just sort of pile the stuff on the roof, no. It just burns a hole in the roof and runs down the windshield.

Pat, what's your point?

 
At 26 November, 2010 12:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

Engineering is applied science, Ian.
The law of gravitation (how it works) is essential. The theory of gravitation (why it works) is irrelevant unless you're trying to engineer an anti-gravity machine.


Thanks for this helpful piece of information, Brian.

GutterBall, sure you can name independent engineers. You have not shown that they endorsed the NIST report. Robertson is not independent. His firm LERA had a contract with NIST. Two other engineers you have named are not independent.

Nobody cares, Brian.

Billman, 1000 pounds of thermite can certainly cut a car in half if employed scientifically. If you just sort of pile the stuff on the roof, no. It just burns a hole in the roof and runs down the windshield.

What on earth does this have to do with anything?

 
At 26 November, 2010 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 November, 2010 14:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Robertson is not independent. His firm LERA had a contract with NIST."

You're lying again, Brian. And here's the proof.

Read on...

NIST wrote, "...Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software. SAP2000 is a software package for performing finite element calculations for the analysis and design of building structures. These global, three-dimensional models encompassed the 110 stories above grade and the 6 subterranean levels...LERA's work was reviewed by independent experts in light of the firm's earlier involvement in the WTC design. It was that earlier work, in fact, that made LERA the only source that had the detailed knowledge of the design, construction, and intended behavior of the towers over their entire 38-year life span."

Continued...

 
At 26 November, 2010 14:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

If LERA didn't provide the critical information to NIST, which only LERA could provide, who would make the information available, Pinocchio?

LERA was contracted as an expert witness--nothing more, nothing less.

Thus, you have NOT proven a conflict of interest.

Again, telling a half-truth is still a whole lie, Pinocchio.

 
At 26 November, 2010 19:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, look at yourself.

LERA had a contract with NIST. Leslie Robertson is thus not independent of NIST. You are trying to deny reality.

 
At 26 November, 2010 20:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

LERA had a contract with NIST. Leslie Robertson is thus not independent of NIST. You are trying to deny reality.

False. You lose again, Brian.

 
At 26 November, 2010 21:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie.

 
At 26 November, 2010 22:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, punxsutawneybarney, Pet Goat, bug.fuck, etc) prevaricates, "...Ian, you lie."

Providing information to further an investigation does not prove a conflict of interest.

Try again, Pinocchio.

 
At 27 November, 2010 07:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you lie.

Seek professional help, Brian.

 
At 27 November, 2010 10:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, LERA did not just "provide information to further an investigation". They had a contract. I guess you do not know that it is considered unprofessional to criticize a report to which your firm contributed. Maybe your ignorance is a factor in your current employment status.

How come you can't name any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report? How come you must show your desperation in claiming independence for tainted guys like Dr. Harris (appointed by NIST to a prestigious committee), Dr. Kausel (served as an "Expert contractor" on Project 6 of the NIST investigation) and Mr. Robertson (his firm had a contract with NIST on the investigation)?

 
At 27 November, 2010 11:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, LERA did not just "provide information to further an investigation". They had a contract. I guess you do not know that it is considered unprofessional to criticize a report to which your firm contributed. Maybe your ignorance is a factor in your current employment status.

The unemployed janitor is babbling about someone else's employment status. I guess he'll start babbling about someone's love life next.

How come you can't name any independent engineers who endorse the NIST report?

He named Dr. Harris and Dr. Kausel. You, however, still can't name an independent engineer who endorses the theory of gravity.

 
At 27 November, 2010 12:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Ron Brookman, S.E., has endorsed the Law of Gravity.

Dr. Harris is not independent. NIST appointed him to a prestigious committee. Dr. Kausel is not independent. He served as "Expert contractor" in Project 6 to NIST's WTC report.

I know you consider obliviousness to facts to be a strong rhetorical position. The problem with that is that only the dumb ones follow you: "Gosh, he seems so sure of himself, he must be right!"

 
At 27 November, 2010 12:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Ron Brookman, S.E., has endorsed the Law of Gravity.

False.

Dr. Harris is not independent. NIST appointed him to a prestigious committee. Dr. Kausel is not independent. He served as "Expert contractor" in Project 6 to NIST's WTC report.

Nobody cares.

I know you consider obliviousness to facts to be a strong rhetorical position. The problem with that is that only the dumb ones follow you: "Gosh, he seems so sure of himself, he must be right!"

Seek professional help.

 
At 27 November, 2010 14:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right. Nobody cares that GutterBall lies, and nobody cares that you lie. 9/11 Lies are just A-OK with everybody here--except me.

 
At 27 November, 2010 14:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right. Nobody cares that GutterBall lies, and nobody cares that you lie. 9/11 Lies are just A-OK with everybody here--except me.

Actually, you're the only one lying about 9/11.

 
At 27 November, 2010 15:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bugfuck whines, "...GutterBall, LERA did not just "provide information to further an investigation". They had a contract."

I don't care if LERA had a contract, bug.fuck.

LERA was asked to provide data that only LERA could provide. That makes LERA an expert witness--nothing more, nothing less.

That Dr. Harris was appointed to an unpaid position on a committee does not prove that he's controlled or influenced by NIST.

Furthermore, your opinion is not evidence.

Now, either provide evidence to substantiate your asinine claims, or STFU.

 
At 27 November, 2010 16:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bug.fuck prevaricates, "...Nobody cares that GutterBall lies..."

I don't lie, bug.fuck, and you can't provide one instance where I've ever told a lie.

Claiming that someone "lies" without providing evidence to substantiate your assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with bug.fuck) is slander.

Now, either substantiate your slanderous assertions, or STFU.

 
At 28 November, 2010 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

It is silly of you to insist that LERA's contract with NIST is not a conflict of interest.

In matters of conflict of interest, nothing need be proven--it is a matter of professional ethics to avoid even the appearances of conflict of interest.

You've lied when you claim that Dr. Harris is an independent engineer. You've lied when you claim that Robertson and Kausel are independent. Your tolerance for Ian's obvious lies represents a form of lying as well.

Also, given your childish behavior I can be very confident that you've lied about most of the engineers you've named--probably none of them has ever endorsed the NIST report.

 
At 28 November, 2010 19:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

You've lied when you claim that Dr. Harris is an independent engineer. You've lied when you claim that Robertson and Kausel are independent. Your tolerance for Ian's obvious lies represents a form of lying as well.

False, false, and false. We've named independent engineers. It's not our fault that you reject them because accepting them would be destructive to the only thing that gives your life meaning.

Also, given your childish behavior I can be very confident that you've lied about most of the engineers you've named--probably none of them has ever endorsed the NIST report.

Nobody cares about what a sex stalker and lunatic is "confident" about.

 
At 28 November, 2010 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall named engineers who may be independent. I haven't bothered to check because the first four I checked has conflicts of interest vis a vis NIST.

You'll have to show that the allegedly independent engineers actually endorsed the NIST report before I'll waste any time on checking them.

 
At 29 November, 2010 07:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall named engineers who may be independent. I haven't bothered to check because the first four I checked has conflicts of interest vis a vis NIST.

Those first four he named were independent. Also, my Uncle Steve is independent.

You'll have to show that the allegedly independent engineers actually endorsed the NIST report before I'll waste any time on checking them.

Bill already did, and my Uncle Steve did too. You lose again, Brian, just like you lost in your quest for Willie's love.

 
At 29 November, 2010 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, not even you can possibly be dumb enough to belief that an anonymous internet poster's anecdote about his anonymous "Uncle Steve" should be considered evidence of anything.

 
At 29 November, 2010 10:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, not even you can possibly be dumb enough to belief that an anonymous internet poster's anecdote about his anonymous "Uncle Steve" should be considered evidence of anything.

Regardless of what my Uncle Steve believes, you're never going to get your new investigation, are you?

HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Brian "petgoat" Good loses again.

 
At 24 December, 2010 15:57, Blogger cindy said...

I see all the NEOCONS on here who love the lies the GOVT. Spews, have no facts, but are really good at name calling. I doubt any of you losers are Architects or Engineers, otherwise you would understand buildings don't experience global, simultaneous collapse in 15 secs. from a supposed diesel tank fire and neatly fall on it's own footprint in seconds. You are all too busy watching Football and American Idol. Bunch of Cowards. Bunch of Losers. None with remotely a science background or understand elemental physics. You are all Pathetic. By the way, get a life!

 
At 24 December, 2010 16:26, Blogger cindy said...

Gutter Ball you are playing out of your ass. You are a Gutter, I mean a guitar player and IT Tech?
How the hell do you know if NIST is telling the Truth? You know nothing of Structures.
A third grader has more sense that you, to know WTC7 was IMPLODED.

YOU FRUITCAKE.

 
At 24 December, 2010 16:45, Blogger cindy said...

You are a Total Moron, you said you can be an Architect in 2 years of Junior College? Try again.

It takes a BA or MA in an Accredited University, then a 3 year Intern Developement Program in a Firm, then passing a test that takes 2 years to complete.

I bet you all love Military Weapons?? Killing and destruction... yeah....
You sound really stupid.

 
At 24 December, 2010 16:57, Blogger cindy said...

Geraldo is a Truther and he is a Lawyer, I am sure he has done the research, you guys are just HATERS!!

 
At 26 December, 2010 09:49, Blogger cindy said...

Even the N.I.S.T. admitted that the Twin Towers “collapsed” at freefall rate. People in the reality-based community should have no problem whatsoever in realizing that the uppermost portion of a skyscraper is not going to be able to “fall” into and THROUGH the remaining vast majority of solid building as quickly, meaning as effortlessly as falling through air without something else (i.e. explosives) reducing said majority of building to such a state of offering no more resistance than air. Can we all agree on that? Sounds pretty straightforward; solid things offer vastly more resistance than air. Anyone who graduated elementary school SHOULD be able to grasp this, and SHOULD be able to therefore grasp that the Twin Towers and WTC # 7 building had to have been controlled demolitions. It is literally COMMON SENSE.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home