Tuesday, December 14, 2010

Ambitious, I Will Give Them That

Being from Seattle and having worked at Microsoft I am pretty familiar with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and I just don't think this is their thing....


From: CICorp
To: info@gatesfoundation.org
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 6:05 PM
Subject: Please support a New Investigation of 9/11/2001, AE911Truth.org (501c3 nonprofit)

This is a proposal for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to support a New Investigation of the events of September 11, 2001.

Bill has a scientific mind, and surely must see some suspicious things about what happened on that day.
* WTC Building 7 came down at free fall speed, as if by pre-planted explosives.
* WTC Buildings 1 and 2 also came down suspiciously fast, after have stood for nearly an hour.
* Scientists have identified military grade nano-thermite in the WTC dust (www.NielsHarrit.org)
* The Pentagon refuses to release photos of the jet, despite over 100 cameras
* The hole where the jet supposedly went in, is suspiciously small, with no wing marks.
* Eye witness testimonies vary as to the approach of the plane, its size, and type
* Senator Max Cleland, said the 9/11 Commission was a "cover up" and quit it.
* Flight 11 from Boston turned Northwest towards Griffiss AFB then sharply south
* Flight 11 turned off its transponder identifier, and "almost collided with Flight 175
* The Bush Administration used 9/11 as a pretext for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq
* America has used "false flag ops" to start wars before, such as the Gulf of Tonkin in VietNam.
* Bush and Cheney refused to testify under oath, nor in public, to the Commission.
* Over 1370 Architects and Engineers say the WTCs fell as if by explosives. (www.AE911Truth.org)
* Hundreds of high level politicians, intelligence and military personnel, and professors as for a New Investigation. (www.PatriotsQuestion911.com)


OK, this is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

178 Comments:

At 14 December, 2010 07:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Some usual Brian Good nonsense in there, but some more good stuff I never heard before:

Scientists have identified military grade nano-thermite in the WTC dust (www.NielsHarrit.org)

Military grade nanothermite? What the hell does that even mean? Can I just apply the title "military grade" to something to make it sound more ominous? "I bought some military grade chewing gum at 7-11 this morning".

The hole where the jet supposedly went in, is suspiciously small, with no wing marks.

So apparently Wile E. Coyote cartoons are accurate depictions of the laws of physics. Who knew?

Eye witness testimonies vary as to the approach of the plane, its size, and type

How dumb does one have to be to consider banalities like this as some sort of smoking gun?

Flight 11 from Boston turned Northwest towards Griffiss AFB then sharply south

HOLY SHIT, A PLANE CHANGED DIRECTION! INSIDE JOB!!!1

Yes, I'm sure the Gates Foundation will be writing massive checks to this group.

 
At 14 December, 2010 07:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Say, it looks like practically all of the Troofer sites are running Linux. This sounds like a great opportunity for Microsoft to gain market share in this important and growing movement.

 
At 14 December, 2010 07:36, Blogger Highland Host said...

I ask what I have always asked people who repeat the idea that there was something suspicious about the Pentagon crash: are any of the sources trained air-crash investigators (and the same is true for the Pennsylvania crash)? Because if not, then I need to ask if they have any qualifications leading us to expect that they might have some understanding of how a crashing aircraft might behave. If not, why should I listen to them on that point?

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

HH, did trained air-crash investigators ever do an investigation of the Pentagon crash?

The only report I've ever seen came from ASCE, and its site access was very poor. From September 14 to 21, only Paul Mlakar had access to the Pentagon. Not until October 4 did Mete Sozen and the other four team members
get "controlled access" to the site--for four hours.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:02, Blogger Garry said...

So you're a no-planer now, Brian?

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

I knew somebody would say something ignorant, but I didn't think it would happen so fast.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:53, Blogger James B. said...

Because it was a terrorist attack and not an accident the FBI led the investigation, not the NTSB. They collected all the debris, performed DNA testing on the bodies etc. They are trained in this sort of thing. The book Firefight describes this in detail. The NTSB assisted in getting data from the flight recorders and such.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Garry wrote, "...So you're a no-planer now, Brian?"

No, Brian's a no brainer.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, Brian's a no brainer.

He also apparently believe the Bush administration murdered Paul Wellstone, just to give another insight into the diseased mind of our li'l Brian.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't say that. Your mind is a blunt instrument. You would do better to ponder the GED study guide and quit making fools of your colleagues this forum.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Who are you to chastise anyone, Brian?

After all, you're an habitual liar--a borderline psychopath, in my opinion.

Have you no shame, Pinocchio?

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I didn't say that. Your mind is a blunt instrument. You would do better to ponder the GED study guide and quit making fools of your colleagues this forum.

False. Brian, you've made it crystal clear to us that:

1, you believe the Bush administration blew up the WTC towers in a controlled demolition

2, Paul Wellstone was murdered because he knew about the Bush administration's responsibility for 9/11

3, you are sexually obsessed with Willie Rodriguez.

Given that you are a deranged liar, any denials of the above can be dismissed out of hand.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I can always rely on you to disrupt a productive conversation with your hysterical and unmanly accusations of lying.

When did I lie? You lied 12/13 at 17:58 when you said "Lying about Dr. Astaneh-Asl again, Brian?"

And I proved you lied when I showed that Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

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

When did I lie? Danke Schoen in advance, but don't walk too fast, daddy.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, your squealing hysterically again.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You can go to Hell, Brian. I proved that you're lying with the following comment.

I'll have no part in your lame-brained attempt to trash James' post with off topic nonsense.

As I stated earlier, have you no shame, Pinocchio?

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, where does that post show that I lied? I said that Dr. Astaneh told PBS he saw melted girders, and he did tell PBS he saw melted girders. So where was the lie? I didn't bring on off-topic trash--you did at 14:34 when apropos of nothing you accused me of being "an habitual liar".

And now you can't back up your claim, can you.

 
At 14 December, 2010 16:07, Blogger paul w said...

Personally, this is the only redeeming feature of a truther; the ability to look at reality point-blank, ignore it, then post (or video) their observations for us to laugh at.

Funny as fuck.

Please, video yourselves going to Microsoft HQ to present it to Bill.

Take a '9-11 inside job' banner, and wear your black '9-11 inside job' t-shirts. Get arrested. Shout about your rights. Debate the law with the cops.

Please. Pretty please. Pleeeeeease...

 
At 14 December, 2010 16:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I have my own proposal/list of demands for Bill Gates to fund a new investigation of 9/11:

1. One witness said that AA77 had its right turn signal on as it hit the Pentagon. I didn't know that 757s had turn signals, this needs to be looked into.

2.A number of buildings at the WTC complex were destroyed on 9/11, yet MTV's Times Square offices were somehow overlooked. I want to know why?

3. 22%of socks are lost in the dryer across the country every month. Neither the NST nor the 9/11 Commission investigated how many sock vanished on 9/11 missing out on a chance to solve this mystery once and for all.

4.On 9/12 American flags flew in front of every home in America. How did the flag making industrail complex anticipate this need for flags?

5. Scarlett Johanson refuses to return my calls. Why?

6.Does the flag-making industrial complex also produce false flags? How did they get them out to the Gulf of Tonkin?

7. The collapse of the WTC seems to fall within the laws of gravity. How does a building know the laws of gravity? That would make an inanimate object smarter than Brian Good.

8. There seems to be some confusion (mostly from people who were nowhere near the Pentagon) as to weather a plane, military plane, or missile actually hit the Pentagon. I have a theory about this but it involved me following the Pro Women's Beach Vollyball circuit for three years. I'm going to need help from the Loose Change debunking cult too, so we'll all need tickets and hotel rooms and per diem of $750 while we figure this all out.

Thank you for your consideration,
MG Ferris, junior debunker cultist.

 
At 14 December, 2010 17:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Greg, why don't you put on a comedy show for the widows and orphans? Maybe you can cheer them up.

 
At 14 December, 2010 18:36, Blogger Triterope said...

What amuses me about this effort is that the Twoofkiddies really think they're educating Bill Gates.

God, the hubris of these idiots.

 
At 14 December, 2010 18:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, so it is your belief that Bill Gates knows everything and nobody can teach him anything about anything? What is your basis for that belief?

 
At 14 December, 2010 19:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

You know that would be a good idea. I am Copyrighting a Brian Good pinata. You hang it and it ends up spinning around in circles and then beats its own head in.

Ofcourse nothing comes out.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:09, Blogger Triterope said...

You know, Brian, some days I think you're not even from this planet.

You possess volumes of incomprehensible knowledge, but you demand proofs of the most obvious things.

You're Klaatu's retarded cousin.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

M Greg, why don't you put on a comedy show for the widows and orphans? Maybe you can cheer them up.

Nobody cares about your "widows", petgoat.

TR, so it is your belief that Bill Gates knows everything and nobody can teach him anything about anything? What is your basis for that belief?

Brian, I guarantee he knows more about 9/11 than you or the people who sent him that e-mail do. The man is not a truther, therefore he understands 9/11 better than you do.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

You know, Brian, some days I think you're not even from this planet.

You possess volumes of incomprehensible knowledge, but you demand proofs of the most obvious things.

You're Klaatu's retarded cousin.


I'm beginning to seriously wonder if Brian has Asperger's Syndrome. He definitely displays some of the symptoms. Either way, he's far more interesting and entertaining than any of the other truthers (except maybe Nico).

 
At 14 December, 2010 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, things that seem obvious to people are often cultural-specific beliefs that are not at all rational. That's why I sometimes question basic things and so seem like a man from mars.

The most basic of course is "how do you know?" and the answer is, usually you don't, but there are ways to sort out the possibilities so you can stay pretty close to reality.

 
At 15 December, 2010 02:51, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian please pass on my congratulations to your colleague Scott N over at Troof Action.
His film, Human Resources, was cited
by Florida school board shooter Clay Duke.

http://gawker.com/5713637/the-facebook-suicide-note-of-school-board-shooter-clay-duke

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:16, Blogger Garry said...

'I knew somebody would say something ignorant, but I didn't think it would happen so fast'.

Brian accuses someone of being ignorant. That's fantastic. Perhaps that's an alternative to explaining his red herring about the Pentagon crash.

PS: M Gregory Ferris, your 16:57 post yesterday was a winner. I had a close call with the keyboard and my coffee ;o)

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

The most basic of course is "how do you know?" and the answer is, usually you don't, but there are ways to sort out the possibilities so you can stay pretty close to reality.

So Brian, how do you know the WTC towers existed?

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:55, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"GuitarBill said...
Garry wrote, "...So you're a no-planer now, Brian?"

No, Brian's a no brainer."

And he's insane.

 
At 15 December, 2010 06:01, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"You're Klaatu's retarded cousin."

He's from the Stoooopid Universe™, got caught up in a blcak hole, traveled through a worm hole to our Sane Universe.

 
At 15 December, 2010 06:03, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

" there are ways to sort out the possibilities so you can stay pretty close to reality."

Boron, you wouldn't know reality if reality grew teeth, snuck up on you and bit you in your shriveled little scrotum.

 
At 15 December, 2010 06:43, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, things that seem obvious to people are often cultural-specific beliefs that are not at all rational. That's why I sometimes question basic things and so seem like a man from mars.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand here's Act One of the performance. Brian forces me to defend an offhand remark, by introducing an inapplicable hypothetical, in hopes that this will turn into an unending argument about nothing. And before I know it, I'll have written ten posts explaining why a world-famous computing innovator might have heard of a fucking Internet meme. God, I feel stupid even explaining it that much.

No one can actually be this stupid. Brian is so stupid he has to be intelligent. I honestly think that. He has a God-given gift for obfuscation.

You know what, Brian? I'm not going to play this game with you anymore. My statement requires no justification, and I will give you none. If you don't like that, you can go fuck yourself.

 
At 15 December, 2010 06:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

No one can actually be this stupid. Brian is so stupid he has to be intelligent. I honestly think that. He has a God-given gift for obfuscation.

Asperger's Syndrome, Triterope. It's characterized by an obsession with details on one particular topic, an inability to form normal human relationships, the use of a rich vocabulary, etc. etc.

Sound familiar?

 
At 15 December, 2010 07:50, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"You know, Brian, some days I think you're not even from this planet. "

That is because Brian is a mentally challenged person. He is like the movies Rain Man. This is why he has to live with his mom and dad at the age of 56 or so, he lacks the mental ability to do anything of usefulness and ergo is only a janitor, simple job for a simple man. Retarded people like him often thing they have insight beyond people of normal or higher intelligence, but it's just the ravings of a poor simpleton.

 
At 15 December, 2010 07:57, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Asperger's Syndrome

That would be my guess.

This is why the truthers got rid of him, it looks bad at a "street action" to have obviously retarded people in your group. And of course Carol Whatshername didn't want to have a love affair with a simp, and pass on bad genes.

He is the poster man/child of truthers.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nice lot of debunkers you are. You put forth the principle that the victims of 9/11 don't matter, you make a bunch of lame jokes, and you gossip about somebody you don't even know.

You're afraid to discuss specifics of 9/11 because you don't know what you're talking about so every single time you wind up proving MY point. You allow Ian and GutterBall to caw caw caw stupid and easily-checked lies, showing that you don't know what the truth is, don't care, or both. Posters who had any brains (sackcloth and ashes, for instance) left long ago because they're ashamed to associate with you.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:12, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

(sackcloth and ashes, for instance) left long ago because they're ashamed to associate with you.

Doh! More fail, Brian.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:23, Blogger Garry said...

'Posters who had any brains (sackcloth and ashes, for instance) left long ago because they're ashamed to associate with you'.

I'm still here, Brian, it's just my moniker changed when Pat tightened up the comments policy. And I'm still kicking your arse.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:03, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nice lot of debunkers you are. You put forth the principle that the victims of 9/11 don't matter, you make a bunch of lame jokes, and you gossip about somebody you don't even know.

Um, the victims do matter. That's why we want justice for those who perpetrated this crime. You're the one who wants to exonerate them, remember?

And yes, we laugh about you, because you're an insane liar.

You're afraid to discuss specifics of 9/11 because you don't know what you're talking about so every single time you wind up proving MY point.

False. We know the specifics, there's just no point in going over them with you since you'll just babble your delusional talking points again. Making fun of you is much less boring.

You allow Ian and GutterBall to caw caw caw stupid and easily-checked lies, showing that you don't know what the truth is, don't care, or both.

False.

And I'll let Sackcloth and Ashes speak for himself.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry I didn't recognize you. When Saa invented his facts, he at least pretended they came from books. Congratulations on abandoning the pretense.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:20, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Hey GB, remember this-
"I don't give a God damn if Basile or Frédéric Henry-Couannier wrote the conclusion. "


Remember when you were lying by trying to pass Basile off as the Couannier?
You got called out on it and got really really mad.

Remember when I pointed out that the guy you were supposedly quoting stated he was only testing red/red chips and not red gray/chips? Ouch! You got mad again.

Remember when I pointed out to you that Couannier explained why his sample didn't ignite, just like Kevin Ryan's sample? More anger from you.

Remember when I pointed out to you that Baisle, using an independent dust sample from a museum confirmed Jones et. al. work? Ouch. You got mad again.

Remember when you got mad and called me a lying scumbag, yet I handed you lying ass to you on a plate?

And as your quote states above, you don't care. So the liar trophy goes to you. Congratulations. Here is your arse handed to you yet again by the Masked Writer.

Now, you may want to hold on to your stupidity when responding to any of my comments. I don't want to have to prove you wrong yet again you in front of your friends again.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Go ahead, he'll get over it. He goes away for a few days (or lets Ian spam a column foot or so) and then he comes back as if nothing had happened.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked prevaricator lies, "...Remember when you were lying by trying to pass Basile off as the Couannier?"

I wasn't lying. I made a mistake. I gained NOTHING by the mix up. The fact is the author clearly states the "presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed."

The Masked prevaricator lies, "...Remember when I pointed out that the guy you were supposedly quoting stated he was only testing red/red chips and not red gray/chips?"

Yeah, I proved that you quote mined his statement. In fact, he did test the gray chips, and I show you a SEM image from his sample which clearly shows the red and gray chips.

The Masked prevaricator lies, "...Remember when I pointed out to you that Couannier explained why his sample didn't ignite, just like Kevin Ryan's sample?"

Yes, and I proved that you quote mined his statement.

You're lying at a rate of one lie per paragraph, Masked Boy.

Continued...

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked prevaricator lies, "...Remember when I pointed out to you that Baisle, using an independent dust sample from a museum confirmed Jones et. al. work?"

I didn't get mad. Jones experimental results, moreover, have never been confirmed by Basile or anyone else, for that matter.

Do you ever stop lying masked boy?

The Masked prevaricator lies, "...Remember when you got mad and called me a lying scumbag, yet I handed you lying ass to you on a plate?"

Lying again, Masked Prevaricator? In fact, I proved that you're a liar over-and-over again.

Why are you bringing this up in this thread when the original thread is still open? Answer: Because you're trying to hide your total failure while continuing to lie and pretend that you "won" the "debate."

Masked Boy proven to be a liar, exhibit One

Masked Boy proven to be a liar, exhibit Two

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked prevaricator lies, "...And as your quote states above, you don't care. So the liar trophy goes to you. Congratulations. Here is your arse handed to you yet again by the Masked Writer."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, Pinocchio?

"...The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test: the chips must react at less than 500°C. We had to heat other identical chips (the previously analyzed chip could not be recovered for an ignition test) but...great surprise!: Not even one chip of the same kind in the 7g of dust from our four samples (instead of dozens expected according to the authors of the publi). Instead, dozens of chips showing the same red aspect on both faces, aspect and chemical composition difficult to distinguish from the one found in the red layer of the red/gray chips. Some chips already carry light gray deposits with spherical metal particles they can expel when heated."

That's some "victory," Masked Prevaricator. Too bad Basile and Frédéric Henry-Couannier's experimental results fail to confirm Jones' results.

"...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof."

Thus, you lose again, Pinocchio.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Masked Prevaricator lies, "...Now, you may want to hold on to your stupidity when responding to any of my comments. I don't want to have to prove you wrong yet again you in front of your friends again."

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back without justification, Masked Boy.

The only thing you've managed to prove is your lack of credibility. But that's okay because troofers have no credibility.

Keep reading that passage over-and-over again until you get it through your lying, thick skull, stupid: "...The nanothermitic hypothesis remained to be confirmed by the ignition crucial test."

Thus, you lose again.

Now do us a favor, spelling bee champ, and learn the difference between your and you're.

Now, go play in the freeway.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"you make a bunch of lame jokes, and you gossip about somebody you don't even know."

We know you well Brian, and it is clear you are not what people call a bright, mentally competent person. And that is far to common among truthers as people. All of them are deficient in some cognitive way. Like Brian their lives outside of the truther thing proves that much. While skeptics and debunkers have skills and mental abilities that make them valuable member of this country, truthers are like Brian, useless for anything but comedic diversions.

Want your toilet cleaned and a funny truther to laugh at? Brian is your man,

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Go ahead, he'll get over it. He goes away for a few days (or lets Ian spam a column foot or so) and then he comes back as if nothing had happened."

Yawn.

Wallowing in delusion with your fellow habitual liar, gay boi?

The fact is that I have a career and, unlike you, I'm busy. As a result, I have little or no time to refute the never ending stream of lies and insanity that emanates from your keyboard.

On the other hand, who in his right mind would waste time "debating" a psychopath? Personally, I have better things to do with my time. After all, I've proven that you're a liar, quote miner and delusional psychopath so many times now it's pathetic. It's like beating a retarded child--and just as pointless.

So tell us, Brian, how does it feel to be kicked out of the 9/11 truth movement? That's quite an accomplishment, gay boi. I'll bet your mother's proud. Question: Is your mother an obnoxious habitual liar, too? After all, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Right, Pinocchio?

So keep on lying and babbling away, Brian, because I always yawn when I'm interested.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall has a career. Yeah, how's that Wayne Newton tribute act working for you? I bet it really wows 'em at the San Pablo Casino. Danke Schoen for the yuks.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, I'm a computer scientist, and my career is working out just fine. In fact, I make more money in a month than you make in half a year, gay boi.

Keep babbling, Brian, and some day you'll say something that can pass for intelligent.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since you lie so persistently, and since you demonstrate such poor reasoning skills, it would be downright unreasonable for me to believe your claims, GutterBall.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prove that I'm a liar, gay boi. And I want hyperlinks to the alleged "proof."

I won't hold my breath, Pinocchio.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I proved you're a liar when I showed that Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

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

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not a hyperlink, Brian.

Lying again, gay boi?

What do you have to hide, Pinocchio?

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian, we all know you're an expert on every subject--from structural engineering to fire science to computer science.

Let's test your knowledge of elementary computer science, shall we?

What does the following UNIX shell script do, gay boi?

for NAME in 'who | sed "s/^\([^ ]*\).*/\1/"'
do
done

Surely a genius of your caliber can read that simple script.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And you'd never quote mine Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, would you, gay boi?

Notice I'm not afraid to produce hyperlinks. Why? Because I have nothing to hide. You, on the other hand...

It's not looking good for you, Pinocchio.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, thanks for demonstrating what I said about your reasoning skills. So you respond to proof that you lied with a lesson in shell scripting.

Well I'll see your shell script and raise you:

pearl two, knit three.

Top that, Grannie! (Liar!)

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

for NAME in 'who | sed "s/^\([^ ]*\).*/\1/"'
do
done

OK, the pedantic asshole in me is going to say that's a trick question because it gives you an error (in bash 4.1.5 anyway). Perhaps you mean

for NAME in `who | sed "s/^\([^ ]*\).*/\1/"`; do echo $NAME; done

...but if that's the case, then

who | awk '{print $1}'

is more straightforward.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, gay boi?

I just gave you a direct link to another instance of me exposing your boundless dishonesty.

And that's not an answer to my simple question, genius. It's an evasion. But then again, evasion is all you have. Right gay boi?

Surely you can read that simple shell script.

Or maybe you're nothing but a low-life blowhard and a failure?

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Oh no! Almost every 9/11 Troof website is running Linux. This is a great time for Microsoft to make a move in the important 9/11 Truth market.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT, it's a cheap and dirty version of the UNIX 'cut' command, re-written in Korn shell.

And yes, it works, although it may fail if you're using bash.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...who | awk '{print $1}'"

Actually, that's not true. My version is more generalized and flexible. Your version will only grab the first field of a line.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

GB, your belief that a bit of shop talk is a sign of intelligence is pathetic. Any high school geek knows that stuff.

And it also has nothing to do with the fact that you lied about Dr. Astaneh and his melted steel.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT, here's how my script works.

For each line argument encountered, sed is told to substitute the second string for the first string. The first string is the line to cut. We look from the beginning of the line (^) for a nonblank (^ ]) followed by any number of nonblanks (*). The sequence is broken by reaching a blank. The nonblank sequence is bounded by \( and \), which is referred to later as \1 (You can always change the \1 to the desired field). The .* means that after a blank is found, match each character until the end of the line. We are really only after what is in the \(\) pair. By grouping the first set of nonblanks, we have in effect done a 'cut -f1'.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Any high school geek knows that stuff."

Really? No kidding?

I was under the impression that you're an expert on every subject from structural engineering to fire science to computer science.

Smug. mug continues to lie, "...And it also has nothing to do with the fact that you lied about Dr. Astaneh and his melted steel."

Wrong again, Pinocchio. I've already proven that you quote mined Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl--and I provided the hyperlink to prove it.

Now, when will you provide a direct hyperlink to so much as one instance where you caught me lying?

I won't hold my breath, because you can't provide that link.

Why?

Because you're lying.

What should we expect from a psychopath? The truth?

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, here's how my script works.

Sigh... there was a time, years ago when I was breathing regexes and neck-deep in perl all day, when I could have followed that. Getting old sucks.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

But I thought that Mr. Know-it-all (Brian) would have no problem parsing the regular expression I fed to sed.

And notice he still can't produce a hyperlink that proves I'm a liar.

(Don't hold your breath).

The proof is in the pudding, and Brian just can't produce.

Just remember that any similarity between Brian and a decent, honest human being is purely coincidental.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, getting old sucks, and if you haven't noticed, old Goiter Bill is getting old and his perling and his knitting aren't going to keep up with Pakistani skills.

GutterBall, I didn't quote-mine anything. You, among others, have claimed there was no molten steel. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw melted girders. There is nothing mined about that quote.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Offering lies and opinion is no substitute for hard evidence, Pinocchio.

In fact, I provided the hyperlink that proves you quote mined Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and I used your PBS article to source the quote that proves you're a liar.

"...In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures." -- Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl believes "fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed," not the alleged melting of structural steel.

Go for it, Brian, lie to us again.

The only person you're fooling is yourself.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian, I'm waiting for proof that substantiates Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl claim that molten steel was present at ground zero.

Proof will include an assay of the molten blob of alleged structural steel. Otherwise Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is giving us his unsubstantiated opinion.

In fact, NASA reported a temperature range of 800 degrees F to 1350 degree F for the fires inside of WTC 1 and 2.

Source: USGS Thermal Data Analysis of Ground Zero.

Structural steel, on the other hand, melts at 2750 degrees F.

Thus, molten steel was not present at ground zero. The temperature of the fire was not sufficient to produce molten steel. However, conditions in the pile--tons of aluminum and super hot fires--were perfect for large pools OF MOLTEN ALUMINUM TO FORM.

Notice that I provide evidence from credible sources and Brian gives us lies and opinion.

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

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. He said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Do you think he doesn't know a steel girder when he sees one?

I feel sorry for you, I really do. Obviously your inability to admit when you are wrong is driven by deep-seated feelings of inadequacy which you seek to purge by hanging around in a 9/11 playpen with a bunch of like-minded folks who will never challenge you no matter how dumb the things you say (I mean, look at Ian!).

I suggest that you try to find some way of building self-esteem other than lying about 9/11.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:40, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry I didn't recognize you. When Saa invented his facts, he at least pretended they came from books. Congratulations on abandoning the pretense'.

And you actually checked the material in all the sources I gave you, Brian, didn't you?

The fuck you did, you stupid little spaz.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. He said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center."

I don't give a damn what he claims to have witnessed. The temperature of the fire was not sufficient to melt structural steel.

Furthermore, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl has never produced an assay of the alleged melted "girders." Nor has anyone produced a photograph of the alleged melted "girders."

Where's the evidence, Brian?

I'll tell you where the evidence is, Brian: It doesn't exist.

Here's the truth from the horse's mouth:

"...In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures." -- Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl

Get it through your thick skull, stupid: "fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed."

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...If the World Trade Center towers had been built in a more conventional way and in strict accordance with New York City building codes — from which they were exempt because they were built under the auspices of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — the buildings probably would not have collapsed, and thousands of lives might have been saved...This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced...The design contains at least 10 unusual elements...For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other...That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design...in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick...Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down." -- UC Berkeley Engineer, Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D.

If melted "girders" were present at ground zero, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl doesn't mention them.

And why did he say, "...Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down"?

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl isn't a troofer--you God damned liar. And his own words prove that he doesn't buy into your insane theories.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, many witnesses described molten steel, including Leslie Robertson, Dr. Astaneh, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY. Are you calling them liars?

The fire was not hot enough to melt steel, correct. But the steel melted. According to Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a Fire Scientist, it even "evaporated". How do you get the steel to melt? Thermite.

Dr. Barnett has the samples of the partially-evaporated steel. You haven't even read the 2002 FEMA report, have you Bill? It's all there in Appendix C. What's the matter, too busy trying to knit faster than a bunch of Punjabi teenagers?

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, you are clearly much more interested in doctrine than in science.

Maybe you should just drop the 9/11 stuff and find a nice friendly cult.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug lies, "...GutterBall, many witnesses described molten steel, including Leslie Robertson, Dr. Astaneh, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY."

Source? Put up, or shut up.

Smug.mug lies, "...The fire was not hot enough to melt steel, correct. But the steel melted. According to Dr. Jonathan Barnett, a Fire Scientist, it even 'evaporated'."

Source? Put up, or shut up.

Smug.mug lies, "...Dr. Barnett has the samples of the partially-evaporated steel. You haven't even read the 2002 FEMA report, have you Bill? It's all there in Appendix C."

Brian, you're a proven liar; thus, your word isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

Either provide hyperlinks to reliable sources--and conspiracy websites aren't reliable sources--or STFU.

Put up, or shut up, Brian.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, if you can't find Appendix C to the FEMA report by yourself, it's about time you got some five-year-old girl to teach you.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Bill, you are clearly much more interested in doctrine than in science."

Yeah, that explains why I provide links to reliable sources and all you can provide are lies and opinion backed by wind an nonsense.

Try again, Pinocchio, because so far you've substantiated not one jot or tittle of your idiotic theory.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, if you can't find Appendix C to the FEMA report by yourself, it's about time you got some five-year-old girl to teach you."

You claim to be the internet expert, yet you can't provide so much as a hyperlink to substantiate your lies.

Not one word you've written is true. And your repeated failure to produce hyperlinks that substantiate your idiotic theory is all the proof we need.

You're a fraud, Pinocchio.

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

GutterBall, I provided the link the the PBS interview with De. Astaneh Asl.

FEMA Appendix C even a dolt like you should be able to find.

Here's the link to the bit about the evaporated steel:


A NATION CHALLENGED: THE SITE; Engineers Have a Culprit in the Strange Collapse of 7 World Trade Center: Diesel Fuel
By JAMES GLANZ
Published: November 29, 2001

"A combination of an uncontrolled fire and the structural damage might have been able to bring the building down, some engineers said. But that would not explain steel members in the debris pile that appear to have been partly evaporated in extraordinarily high temperatures, Dr. Barnett said."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E02E3DE143DF93AA15752C1A9679C8B63&pagewanted=2

I don't have a theory. I deal in facts.

I am not going to waste my time educating you in what every truther knows. Why don't you ask one who's got time for you?

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not a direct quote from Dr. Barnett. That's a quote from the NYT article.

Here's the relevant quote: "Dr. Barnett said, 'the smoking gun would be the fuel.'"

Thus, you're misrepresenting the content of the NYT article. Dr. Barnett isn't a "truther" and he doesn't buy into your idiotic theory anymore than Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

And after all this, you still can't produce a link to the FEMA document you falsely claim substantiates your argument.

Again, you're lying.

Isn't it strange, moreover, that you can produce hyperlinks to irrelevant crap, but you can't produce links to reliable sources that substantiate your idiotic theory?

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

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, you seem to have this bizarre urge to divide the world into canonical texts and heretical texts, and then to discard anything in a heretical text and to reinterpret anything in a canonical text into a something unthreatening to your dogma. It's quite unscientific.

So is it your claim that Steve Glanz incompetently reported what Dr. Barnett said? Of what possible relevance is it whether Barnett and Astaneh are truthers or not?

If you can't google "FEMA Appendix C" I guess that explains why your opinions are so peculiar.

Say, have you considered reinventing yourself as a COBOL programmer? How are you in 6502 Assembly Language?

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Brian, when your back is against the wall, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

Produce the hyperlinks, scumbag, or STFU. (I won't hold my breath).

Let the record show that Smug.mug cannot substantiate his argument. All he's done so far is misrepresent the opinion of two academics.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More from the NYT article--sans Brian's misrepresentation and bald-faced lying:

"It's just like when you investigate a plane crash,' said Dr. Barnett, a professor of fire protection engineering at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute. 'If we find a weakness in the building or a deficiency in the building that causes that collapse, we then want to find that weakness in other buildings and fix it.'"

Dr. Barrett's not a troofer, and he believes that fire was the cause of the collapse, not controlled demolition.

Again, you're lying, shit-for-brains.

 
At 15 December, 2010 17:07, Blogger paul w said...

"I don't have a theory. I deal in facts."


Lol!!!!!

Keep 'em coming, snug.bug - you are the best parody of a truther there is!

Erm, is IS parody, surely....?

 
At 15 December, 2010 17:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Published: November 29, 2001

You do see the problem with relying too much on that particular story, do you not?

 
At 15 December, 2010 17:08, Blogger paul w said...

Erm, this IS parody, surely....?

 
At 15 December, 2010 17:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I did not misrepresent anything, and your reading miscomprehension is downright psychotic. What Dr. Barnett believes about the fires has nothing to do with the fact that he observed evaporated steel.

Here's the link to Appendix C:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

Maybe one of your daughters can help you with the big words

 
At 15 December, 2010 17:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Can you read, shit-for-brains?

That's not a link to a reliable source, asshole.

For the 1000th time: Links to conspiracy websites are not evidence--it's a circle jerk.

Now, either produce a link to a reliable source or go play in the freeway, Pinocchio.

 
At 15 December, 2010 18:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 18:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The alleged FEMA report reads, "...The sulfidation attack of steel grain boundaries accelerated the corrosion and erosion of the steel...No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified. The rate of corrosion is also unknown. It is possible that this is the result of long-term heating in the ground following the collapse of the buildings. It is also possible that the phenomenon started prior to collapse and accelerated the weakening of the steel structure."

Sweet Jeeeeezus! The sulfur could have come from a variety of sources, including automobile batteries (which contain H2SO4), acid rain and gypsum wallboard used in the building's interior partitions.

Since the aforementioned sources have never been ruled out as the source for the sulfidation attack, it's idiotic to conclude that the source is "nanothermite."

You're an idiot, Brain.

Continued...

 
At 15 December, 2010 18:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The alleged FEMA Report continues, "...This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion."

Obviously, the debris pile was an iron, oxygen and sulfur-rich environment. Thus, the sulfidation attack is exactly the result one would expect to find in the aforementioned environment.

Again, you're jumping to the least likely conclusion--"nanothermite"--without the benefit of evidence.

Now go play in the freeway, Pinocchio.

 
At 15 December, 2010 19:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Auto batteries? You think gangs of keebler elves smuggled in tons of auto batteries to bring down the world trade center?

No, the sulfur could not have come from drywall gypsum, because that is inert. That's why it's used for fireproofing--for instance for the firewalls between garages and houses.

Dr. Jonathan Barnett is a fire engineer, so if he is mystified by the sulfidaton attack you should be too.

You really are a sketch if you think your ignorant handwaving can explain away the mystery NIST was afraid to touch.

Also you're a liar.

 
At 15 December, 2010 19:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, if you think 911research has misrepresented the FEMA report, why don't you check it against the official version and make a scandal out of it? Make yourself famous!

There is no reason for them to misrepresent the FEMA report, and only a paranoid douche would think there was.

 
At 15 December, 2010 21:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 21:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian Good provides us with another demonstration of the breadth and depth of his stupidity and scribbles, "...Auto batteries? You think gangs of keebler elves smuggled in tons of auto batteries to bring down the world trade center?"

There were thousands of auto batteries in the parking garage of the WTC towers. The rate of corrosion, moreover, is unknown. As a result, you can't determine when the sulfidation attack began.

Brian whines, "...No, the sulfur could not have come from drywall gypsum, because that is inert. That's why it's used for fireproofing--for instance for the firewalls between garages and houses."

Good God you're an idiot. Sulfur is NOT inert.

Have you ever heard of something called the periodic table of elements, Einstein? Sulfur is anything but inert. Drywall, on the other hand, only remains relatively "inert" as long as it remains dry. Cases of sulfur gas-related corrosion, moreover, have been found in family homes located in regions characterized by damp climate.

Furthermore, a sulfidation attack on steel grain boundaries, can never be the result of "nanothermite," when other sources of sulfur are more abundant and present in the building prior to the attacks. No conspiracy theories are necessary to explain the phenomenon. Occam's razor, stupid! Occam's razor.

So when do you intend to prove that Dr. Barnett is a troofer? Give it try, Pinocchio. I can use the laugh.

You can't? Then STFU.

 
At 15 December, 2010 21:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I guess you were so anxious to debunk the FEMA report that you missed the fact that the sulfidated samples came from both WTC7 and the towers.

I didn't say sulfur is inert, silly. I said drywall gypsum is inert. The sulfur in gypsum is calcium sulfate (hydrated if I remember right) and in that form it is inert. That is why drywall is used for fireproofing.

I bet your reports of sulfur gas corrosion stem from the contaminated Chinese drywall that apparently gives off carbonyl sulfide and carbon disulfide and sulfur dioxide. Your attempt to conflate this toxic drywall with ordinary gypsum is typical Gutterball sleight of hand.

Dr. Barnett remains, as far as I know, mystified by the sulfdidation attack on the steel. Only an idiot would accept the confident assertions of an anonymous internet poster on this matter.

Dr. Barnett is a 9/11 truther, whether he will acknowledge it or not. He undertook scientific investigations of 9/11, he called for further investigations which were not done, and as far as I know he's still calling for further investigations to clarify "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel".

 
At 15 December, 2010 23:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 23:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug lies, "...I said drywall gypsum is inert. The sulfur in gypsum is calcium sulfate (hydrated if I remember right) and in that form it is inert. That is why drywall is used for fireproofing."

Another bald-faced lie.

Anhydrous Calcium Sulfate is chemically inert EXCEPT with respect to water.

Get your lies straight, Pinocchio.

Smug.mug continues to lie, "...Dr. Barnett is a 9/11 truther, whether he will acknowledge it or not."

According to whom? A compulsive liar? Try again, Pinocchio.

Face it, all you have are lies and huge leaps of logic.

 
At 15 December, 2010 23:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, gypsum is hydrated calcium sulfate, that's why it works as fireproofing, because the water has to be driven off before the heat can get past the gypsum.

I don't know where you get the idea that gypsum is anhydrous calcium sulfate. Probably from some lying debunker site. Or maybe one of your informants is trying to embarrass you.

 
At 15 December, 2010 23:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gypsum is NOT inert.

It is water soluble at 2.0 g/L @ 25 degrees C.

Stop lying, shit-for-brains.

 
At 16 December, 2010 00:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Tell it to Dr. Barnett, GeezerBull. Tell him you've solved the Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel. You're a liar who is congenitally unable to admit to error and has a psychotically exalted view of your demonstrably limited intellectual faculties.

I wouldn't take your word for it that rain is wet.

 
At 16 December, 2010 00:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, shit-for-brains, dig your heels in and continue to tell the same lies over-and-over again.

Dr. Barnett is not a troofer--period.

Gypsum is not inert--period.

And you haven't proven a damned thing--with the exception of your well-documented inability to reason.

You're so dishonest it's disgusting.

 
At 16 December, 2010 01:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you provide no authority whatsoever for your claim that gypsum dissolves in water. Given your dishonest citation of the outgassing from tainted Chinese drywall and your bogus claim that drywall is anhydrous calcium sulfate, not to mention your inability to admit to error and your habitual lying, there is no reason to believe your claim.

Gypsum is inert. Provide an authoritative source showing it is not, or STFU pathetic bullshitter.

 
At 16 December, 2010 01:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry you're such a loser but it's not my fault.

 
At 16 December, 2010 01:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dr. Barnett is a 9/11 truther, whether he will acknowledge it or not. He undertook scientific investigations of 9/11, he called for further investigations which were not done, and as far as I know he's still calling for further investigations to clarify "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel".

No, Barnett seems to believe that believes gypsum wallboard caused the sulfidation.

His email address is jonathan.barnett@gmail.com. You could try asking him yourself. I personally believe that sulfuric acid from one of the dozens of emergeny backup lights is a more likely culprit, but Barnett is the expert here.

 
At 16 December, 2010 02:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you accept aldeilis.net as a credible source for this?

You accept Elias Davidsson as a credible source?

It doesn't trouble you that in the same post where Dr. Barnett allegedly says "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" he also says "the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians"?

It doesn't trouble you that a PhD Fire Engineer uses a bastard term like "sulferization" when the FEMA Appendix C report uses the terms "sulfidation" and "sulfication" and everyone knows it's "sulfur" not "sulfer"?

Sorry, that doesn't pass the smell test.

 
At 16 December, 2010 02:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 December, 2010 02:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, you provide no authority whatsoever for your claim that gypsum dissolves in water."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, Pinocchio?

The following data sheet shows that gypsum () is soluble in water. The ratio given is 0.205 grams per 100 cubic centimeters.

Source: Gypsum--Physical properties

And what's this, Jackass?

"...The solubility of Calcium Sulfate (anhydrite) and the solubility of Calcium Sulfate dihydrate (gypsum) are 0.205 grams per 100 cubic centimeters."

Source: Gypsum--solubility

And what's this, PInocchio?

"...gypsum is relatively soluble in water, dissolving up to 2 g per liter."

Source: The Role of Gypsum as a Soil Amendment

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar again, Pinocchio. So much for the claim that "gypsum is inert."

Now, what were you saying, Pinocchio?

 
At 16 December, 2010 03:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...It doesn't trouble you that in the same post where Dr. Barnett allegedly says "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" he also says "the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians"?"

Really? No kidding?

What's this, Pinocchio?

The National Science Foundation wrote, "...The legacy of the World Trade Center attack, Olsen and colleagues found, is recorded in New York Harbor sediments as a layer containing high concentrations of several elements, copper, zinc, calcium, strontium, and others. Results indicate that the deposition of World Trade Center ash, via fall-out from the atmosphere, urban runoff in streams or site remediation activities, could account for all of these elevated concentrations...The samples of ash and debris were collected near Ground Zero a week after the collapse, and sediment cores were collected on October 12, 2001, in two inactive New York Harbor slips, Pier 32 and Pier 40, along the lower West Side of Manhattan. The high levels of calcium, strontium, and sulfur concentrations found in the near-surface sediments of the cores, are consistent with presence of gypsum as a parent material. Gypsum is extensively used as drywall in building construction."

Source: Scientists Find Geochemical Fingerprint of World Trade Center Collapse Recorded in New York Harbor Sediments

So much for Brian's latest pack of lies.

Have a nice evening, Pinocchio.

 
At 16 December, 2010 04:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...It doesn't trouble you that in the same post where Dr. Barnett allegedly says "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" he also says "the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians"?"

Really? No kidding?

What's this, Pinocchio?

The National Science Foundation wrote, "...The legacy of the World Trade Center attack, Olsen and colleagues found, is recorded in New York Harbor sediments as a layer containing high concentrations of several elements, copper, zinc, calcium, strontium, and others. Results indicate that the deposition of World Trade Center ash, via fall-out from the atmosphere, urban runoff in streams or site remediation activities, could account for all of these elevated concentrations..."

Continued...

 
At 16 December, 2010 04:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The National Science Foundation continues, "...The samples of ash and debris were collected near Ground Zero a week after the collapse, and sediment cores were collected on October 12, 2001, in two inactive New York Harbor slips, Pier 32 and Pier 40, along the lower West Side of Manhattan. The high levels of calcium, strontium, and sulfur concentrations found in the near-surface sediments of the cores, are consistent with presence of gypsum as a parent material. Gypsum is extensively used as drywall in building construction."

Source: Scientists Find Geochemical Fingerprint of World Trade Center Collapse Recorded in New York Harbor Sediments

So much for Brian's latest pack of lies.

Have a nice evening, Pinocchio.

 
At 16 December, 2010 04:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You accept Elias Davidsson as a credible source?

Interesting -- so you do scrutinize a source when it's unfavorable to you.

Nothing in the language used by the alleged Dr. Barnett particularly troubles me. They're just typos. Nor does the Martians comment, because it is clearly a joke.

The only way to be sure if this is an accurate expression of Barnett's opinion is to investigate. Which is why I also provided Barnett's email address (jonathan.barnett@gmail.com). If you care about the truth, you'll ask him.

 
At 16 December, 2010 05:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

It doesn't trouble you that in the same post where Dr. Barnett allegedly says "crushed gypsum wallboard would explain the source of the sulferization" he also says "the real problem is that Bush has really been taken over by Martians"?

Yes, this troubles me a lot. Everyone knows Bush was taken over by the Klingons.

 
At 16 December, 2010 07:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"GutterBall has a career. Yeah, how's that Wayne Newton tribute act working for you? I bet it really wows 'em at the San Pablo Casino. Danke Schoen for the yuks."

The irony that this come from a guy who is so mentally challenged he has to live with mom and dad, and who’s biggest contribution to mankind is mopping a mean floor.

 
At 16 December, 2010 07:15, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Auto batteries? You think gangs of keebler elves smuggled in tons of auto batteries to bring down the world trade center?"

Wow! the idiot doesn’t even know there are rooms full of batteries used for uninterrupted power used by banks in the WTC.

 
At 16 December, 2010 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you are a piece of work. Your first paper describes not solubility in water, but solubility in concentrated solution of sodium chloride.

Here's what National Gypsum has to say: "Gypsum is an inert, safe mineral."

http://www.nationalgypsum.com/about/company_info/gypmaterial.aspx


And why is water solubility an issue at all? Are you maintaining that sulfur dissolved in water did the sulfidation attacks on the WTC steel? Argon is soluble in water. Have you heard of the periodic table? In the context of buildings and fires, gypsum is inert, which is why it is used as fireproofing.

Your last paper, from the NSF, reports that sulfur was found at the WTC. Wow! Stop the press! Yes, calcium sulfide hydrate (drywall) was found.

 
At 16 December, 2010 10:02, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

Gypsum drywall is also biodegradable. So GB is right about it being solible.

http://www.nationalgypsum.com/about/company_info/gypsumwb.aspx

The company’s newest plants use solid waste byproduct gypsum produced when coal-fired power plants scrub their emissions to remove sulfur dioxide. The byproduct of this operation is calcium sulfate (gypsum). National Gypsum uses this byproduct, which would otherwise go to a landfill, to make gypsum board. The company’s Shippingport Plant (near Pittsburgh), its Apollo Beach Plant (near Tampa), its Westwego Plant (near New Orleans) and its Mt. Holly Plant (near Charlotte), are all byproduct operation plants.

 
At 16 December, 2010 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, so the alleged Dr. Barnett's remark about martians is just a non-sequitur joke? Right, and a monkey just flew out my butt, and that's a non-sequitur joke.

The important point is that no official studies have determined the source of the sulfur. Speculations that it's gypsum or batteries or shower curtains or monkey farts outside of the context of formal scientific studies are meaningless. I'm not going to harrass Dr. Barnett on a minor point. If you believe he said it came from Gypsum, its up to you to confirm that. I find the evidence for that (an alleged transcript on an obscure website that names two people who may not even be aware that the document exists) weak.

 
At 16 December, 2010 10:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The important point is that no official studies have determined the source of the sulfur."

Brian's lying as always:

http://www.tsocorp.com/stellent/groups/corpcomm/documents/tsocorp_documents/msdshsulfur.pdf

The WTCs' had generators supplied with diesel fuel, in case there was a power outtage.

Hey Brian, diesel fuel has a high concertation of sulfur in it.

Also sulfur is found in many plastic products & in the steel & everything else included in this document:

http://www.911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf

Continue to lie Brian, ou're making yourself out to be a fool.

 
At 16 December, 2010 10:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Right, and a monkey just flew out my butt, and that's a non-sequitur joke.

I certainly hope that's all it is. You never can tell with Truthers though.

The important point is that no official studies have determined the source of the sulfur.

Without some indication that sulfur was relevant to the building's failure, why does it matter where the sulfur came from?

I'm not going to harrass Dr. Barnett on a minor point.

But the sulfidation of steel is not a minor point, it's the "deepest mystery" of 9/11. Remember?

If you believe he said it came from Gypsum, its up to you to confirm that. I find the evidence for that (an alleged transcript on an obscure website that names two people who may not even be aware that the document exists) weak.

It is indeed weak. Which is why I urge you to email jonathan.barnett@gmail.com and get to the bottom of it. At the very least, don't you think he should be aware that misleading web page exists?

 
At 16 December, 2010 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hey WAQo, yes there was diesel fuel in WTC7. So in your mind the fact that it was there proves that it evaporated the steel? How come diesel fuel doesn't evaporate diesel engines then? And how come we don't have any official reports saying "The Deepest Mystery of Ground Zero Solved!" How come NIST pretended the sulfidated samples didn't exist? And if diesel fuel sulfidated the WTC7 sample, what sulfidated the sample from the towers?

I'm not lying. There has been no official explanation of what the NYT called "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." Sorry, but a bunch of anonymous internet liars running around saying "It was shower curtains! It was Diesel Fuel, Batteries, Gypsum, Monkey Farts!" isn't going to cut it.

We want science, credible science.

So Wil, what's your affiliation with FDNY? I can't find any evidence of any.

 
At 16 December, 2010 11:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"So in your mind the fact that it was there proves that it evaporated the steel?"

Ummm Star Wars technology doesn't exist Brian. So you can stop quoting Judy Wood.

"How come diesel fuel doesn't evaporate diesel engines then?"

Diesel fuel evaporates, metal doesn't evaporate numbnuts.

"How come NIST pretended the sulfidated samples didn't exist?"

How come you're pretending that they did?

"I'm not lying"

Sure you aren't! (eyesroll)

"So Wil, what's your affiliation with FDNY? I can't find any evidence of any."

I have a friend who works for them. You know what a friend is, don't ya?

 
At 16 December, 2010 11:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo I wasn't quoting Judy Wood. Actually the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel is consistent with the use of thermate.

Metal does evaporate. The Appendix C samples were partially evaporated. That's the "Deep Mystery" that has not been explained.

I'm not pretending that the Appendix C samples exist. They were written up in the FEMA report.

So today you have a friend who works for FDNY.

So yesterday in the "Explosive Theory" thread at 11:17 when you said "What would you say if I told you that I'm a FDNY firefighter?" you were only asking a question, you were not trying to imply that you're FDNY?

When you spoke at 10:52 of your "fellow brothers in arms, the FDNY"
and claimed that calling you a liar was calling them liars, you were not claiming you were FDNY?

You're a lying scumbag Wil Clark.

 
At 16 December, 2010 11:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo I wasn't quoting Judy Wood."

Brian,

Judy Wood makes the claim that the steel "evaporated". You're lying!

"Metal does evaporate."

If it's subjected to over 5,000 degrees F. Show me where in the WTCs' that the temp. rose to over 5,000 degrees f.

"So yesterday in the "Explosive Theory" thread at 11:17 when you said "What would you say if I told you that I'm a FDNY firefighter?" you were only asking a question, you were not trying to imply that you're FDNY?"

I was questioning your motive, if I was with the FDNY, & you called me a "liar", then you admit that you were calling them "liars" in the first place. But in reality, you are calling them "liars".

"You're a lying scumbag Wil Clark."

You broke my heart, NOT!

 
At 16 December, 2010 12:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wil, we went over this yesterday. The NYT attributed to Dr. Barnett the observation that the steel "evaporated". If you read the FEMA Appendix C report you can see what he's talking about.

It doesn't take 5000 degree temps to do that if you have a eutectic mixture. One way of achieving that mixture is to add sulfur, using thermate.

I am not calling FDNY liars. I am calling you liar, scumbag. You implied that you were FDNY because you thought I wouldn't have the guts to call you out on it.

 
At 16 December, 2010 12:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The NYT attributed to Dr. Barnett the observation that the steel "evaporated"."

Brian,

How much energy would it take to "evaporate" steel? You think you know the energy output then show it.

"One way of achieving that mixture is to add sulfur, using thermate."

The thermate subject has been debunked long ago, just like the thermite & nano/super-thermite claims. You do realize that it's 2010 going for 2011 & not 2006?

"You implied that you were FDNY because you thought I wouldn't have the guts to call you out on it."

No, I thought you wouldn't have the guts to call any FDNY firefighter to their face that he's a "liar". My FDNY friend says you should make a stop @ Ground Zero next year. He says him & his buddies will take you to their fire house, sit you down & talk with you about you accusing them of "lying". Are you up to it?

 
At 16 December, 2010 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look, read the paper, the FEMA Appendix C. The steel was evaporated, deal with it. You seem to be saying it didn't happen. That's loony.

I didn't accuse anyone from FDNY of lying. I accused you of lying, and proved you lied--again and again and again.

Wil Clark, you're just a cheap bully like Ranke, Rodriguez, GutterBall, and Barrett.

 
At 16 December, 2010 13:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The steel was evaporated, deal with it."

Deal with the facts of the Laws of Physics Brian. The steel wasn't "evaporated" like you claim it did.

I find it extremely funny that this steel, located in Hanger 17 @ JFK Airport wasn't "vaporized":

http://gokill.com/2009/12/10/

911-pictures-of-whats-inside-hanger-17-jfk-international-airport/

Piece them together!

"I didn't accuse anyone from FDNY of lying"

Actually you did when you quote mined their statments.

"Wil Clark, you're just a cheap bully"

Only to delusional assholes like you Brian.

 
At 16 December, 2010 13:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, it was the NYT and Dr. Barnett that said the steel was evaporated, not me. Take it up with them. I'm not going to argue with people who deny reality because it doesn't fit their theories.

I didn't quote mine anybody, as anyone who reads the transcripts can see.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/met_WTC_histories_full_01.html

 
At 16 December, 2010 13:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, it was the NYT and Dr. Barnett that said the steel was evaporated, not me."

Brian,

But you are saying that it "evaporated" & agreeing with them.

"I'm not going to argue with people who deny reality because it doesn't fit their theories."

I'm gonna quote a book author:

"It goes without saying, that any of us who argue against Conspiracy Theories are part of the Conspiracy. The Conspiracy Theories are fairy story realities, they are a narrative which improves apon reality itself." - Quote from book author David Aaronovitch

"I didn't quote mine anybody..."

Sure you "didn't" liar.

 
At 16 December, 2010 17:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, you are a piece of work. Your first paper describes not solubility in water, but solubility in concentrated solution of sodium chloride."

Wrong again, charlatan. Clearly, you only took the time to read a quarter of the first page. I said "data sheet," which you'll find on page 3--you drooling idiot.

Smug.mug continues to mislead the reader and scribbles, "...Here's what National Gypsum has to say: 'Gypsum is an inert, safe mineral.'"

Wrong again, Brian! You're misinterpreting National Gypsum's marketing propaganda "definition" of "inert"--which you quote mined.

Gypsum--you shameless liar--exhibits a retrograde solubility, becoming less soluble at higher temperatures (look at the solubility graphs that accompany the data sheet for incontrovertible proof that I'm telling the truth). That doesn't make Gypsum inert.

Enjoy your bowl of crow, clown.

 
At 16 December, 2010 21:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, if you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C (it will take all of five minutes) you will see that the steel evaporated--just like Dr. Barnett and the NYT said.

I didn't quote mine anybody. You don't know what quote mining means.

National Gypsum says "Gypsum is an inert, safe mineral."

Look at yourself, Bill. 3 PhDs and the NYT can't figure out where the sulfur came from. Dr. Frank Greening suggested years ago that it came from drywall. Ask him what he thinks now. Don't you think that if the answer were that simple that NIST (and WPI) would have declared "case closed"?

But no, WPI and NIST remain totally mystified 8 years later, and they need a failed script monkey to do ten minutes of googling and make the drywall sulfur available.

Why don't you go serve your crow up to Frank Greening and National Gypsum and see where it gets you?
I guess crow is a staple in your household, you talk about it so much.

 
At 17 December, 2010 11:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Actually the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel is consistent with the use of thermate.

Are you sure?

The NYT attributed to Dr. Barnett the observation that the steel "evaporated".

You're reading far too much into the word "evaporated". Barnett was describing the appearance of the sample. Even if he initially believed that evaporation had occurred, his subsequent statements make clear that he no longer holds that opinion.

Don't you think that if the answer were that simple that NIST (and WPI) would have declared "case closed"?

Not really. Why would NIST or WPI address an issue without demonstrated relevance to the collapses?

 
At 17 December, 2010 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

The mysterious sulfidation attack on the steel is of obvious relevance to the collapses, which is why the Appendix C authors ended their paper by calling for further investigation (which was never done). The NYT called it the "deepest mystery of the investigation". It could explain the otherwise inexplicable out-pouring of molten iron from WTC2 a few minutes before the building fell, and the presence of molten steel in the debris pile--as described by dozens of witnesses.

The pervasive attitude in this forum of covering eyes and covering ears is unscientific. As a group you seem to prefer hasty, simple, comforting, and often implausible answers to truth.

 
At 17 December, 2010 12:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, there's nothing "mysterious" about the sulfidation, and you've not presented a shred of evidence that the metal pouring from WTC 2 was iron.

The only thing mysterious is why your parents haven't committed you to a mental hospital yet.

 
At 17 December, 2010 14:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the NYT called the sulfidation attack "the deepest mystery of the investigation" and the Worcestor Polytechnic Institute continues to host the article "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel", so your claim that there's nothing mysterious is just typical Iananity.

The color of molten metal streaming from the WTC suggests that it was iron--which is yellow-orange when molten. Molten lead and aluminium are not yellow-orange.

 
At 17 December, 2010 14:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the NYT called the sulfidation attack "the deepest mystery of the investigation" and the Worcestor Polytechnic Institute continues to host the article "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel", so your claim that there's nothing mysterious is just typical Iananity.

Nobody cares.

The color of molten metal streaming from the WTC suggests that it was iron--which is yellow-orange when molten. Molten lead and aluminium are not yellow-orange.

False.

 
At 17 December, 2010 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, nobody cares about your Iananity and your lies. Which is too bad, because this forum would be a lot more useful if it weren't polluted by your nonsense.

 
At 17 December, 2010 17:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Snug.mug prevaricates, "...The color of molten metal streaming from the WTC suggests that it was iron--which is yellow-orange when molten. Molten lead and aluminium are not yellow-orange."

Lying again, goat molester?

NIST wrote, "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires. Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning...Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

Source: NIST--Fact Sheet.

 
At 17 December, 2010 17:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right, nobody cares about your Iananity and your lies.

Babble all you want, Brian, but when the sun comes up tomorrow, there won't be a new investigation into 9/11, and you'll still be an unemployed liar and lunatic.

Which is too bad, because this forum would be a lot more useful if it weren't polluted by your nonsense.

"Useful"? Brian, this forum is just a bunch of people laughing at your lunacy. If you took your medication and stopped posting, there would be no more forum. Just look at how few posts there are in the threads where you don't do your thing.

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Snug.mug prevaricates, "...The color of molten metal streaming from the WTC suggests that it was iron--which is yellow-orange when molten. Molten lead and aluminium are not yellow-orange."

Lying again, goat molester?

NIST wrote, "NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires..."

Continued...

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

NIST continues, "...Aluminum is not expected to ignite at normal fire temperatures and there is no visual indication that the material flowing from the tower was burning...Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface."

Source: NIST--Fact Sheet.

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

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

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

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

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I know NIST released that inanity. Did they ever conduct any experiments to show how molten aluminum could mix up with burning carpet fibers to make a material that looks like molten iron?

It's sheer speculation about a vital issue and we need empirical tests, not silly handwaving arguments that only a child (or a GutterBall) would find convincing.

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, stupid?

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

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

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

 
At 17 December, 2010 18:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, stupid?

Source: YouTube: Pouring Molten Steel

As you can see, molten steel is WHITE to LIGHT YELLOW!

So much for your latest pack of lies, goat molester.

 
At 17 December, 2010 20:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Did they ever conduct any experiments to show how molten aluminum could mix up with burning carpet fibers to make a material that looks like molten iron?

Oh boy, smoldering carpets! Brian, can you babble about how all that smoke that was visible from space on 9/11 was the result of smoldering carpets since the fires were going out? That was one of my favorite bits of your insanity.

It's sheer speculation about a vital issue and we need empirical tests, not silly handwaving arguments that only a child (or a GutterBall) would find convincing.

"We"? Brian, "we", don't need anything. You may feel you need some empirical tests, but that's because you're a deranged liar. Besides, you'd immediately declare any tests "dishonest" the moment they failed to confirm your delusions.

 
At 18 December, 2010 05:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ian, the NYT called the sulfidation attack "the deepest mystery of the investigation" and the Worcestor Polytechnic Institute continues to host the article "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel", so your claim that there's nothing mysterious is just typical Iananity.

The NYT continues to host an article speculating that the Unabomber may live in San Francisco. Does that mean the Unabomber's identity is still a mystery?

 
At 18 December, 2010 09:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I hope your wife had a nicer Friday night than you did.

Aluminum melts at 1200 F, which is about the hottest that office fires can get. To heat it up to 1800 F would require a crucible, not to mention combustion of hydrocarbon fuel under perfect conditions. I am not aware that the WTC was littered with crucibles, and of course the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes. Your 1800 F aluminum is an absurd idea.

Ian, the theory that smoldering carpets polluted the molten metal is NIST's not mine. Yes, "we" need scientific reports on these important matters that "we" can believe. Democracy demands it. The culture of willful stupidity that you are helping to create is profoundly anti-democratic.

RGT, obviously you do not believe that the NYT believes the Unabomber's identity is still a mystery--and the reason you do not believe this is because the results of investigations on the identitity of the Unabomber have been made public. No followup investigations of the "Deep Mystery" of the sulfidated WTC steel samples have been made public.

Now surely you would not find it acceptable for Bill to say "it's OK, there's no need to worry about the Unabomber any more. We've figured out it was Ted Kaczynski."
Obviously for the Unabomber we needed an official investigation and a public trial. It is no different with respect to the "Deep Mystery" steel. The hand-waving claims of a dishonest and incompetent researcher like Bill are not sufficient. We need solid scientific answers.

 
At 18 December, 2010 10:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, if you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C (it will take all of five minutes) you will see that the steel evaporated--just like Dr. Barnett and the NYT said."

Brian,

Take a look at Hanger 17 @ JFK Airport:

http://gokill.com/2009/12/10/

911-pictures-of-whats-inside-hanger-17-jfk-international-airport/

Piece them together!

Dr. Barnett and the NYT are wrong, as confirmed by the pictures on that website.

"I didn't quote mine anybody. You don't know what quote mining means."

Actually I do know what it means, it means you're quote mining them & lying.

 
At 18 December, 2010 10:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Aluminum melts at 1200 F, which is about the hottest that office fires can get. To heat it up to 1800 F would require a crucible, not to mention combustion of hydrocarbon fuel under perfect conditions. I am not aware that the WTC was littered with crucibles, and of course the jet fuel burned off in less than ten minutes. Your 1800 F aluminum is an absurd idea.

Brian, stop babbling about things you don't understand.

Ian, the theory that smoldering carpets polluted the molten metal is NIST's not mine. Yes, "we" need scientific reports on these important matters that "we" can believe. Democracy demands it. The culture of willful stupidity that you are helping to create is profoundly anti-democratic.

False. "We" don't demand any new investigations since we already had them. YOU demand new investigations because you're an obsessed liar who wants to have sex with Willie Rodriguez.

Also, the trial of the Unabomber was incompetent and dishonest, since we never investigated whether the Unabomber was living in San Francisco. We need a new trial for Ted Kaczynski. Democracy demands it.

 
At 18 December, 2010 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

You silly girls.

 
At 18 December, 2010 11:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"You silly girls."

Since you called us "girls", you gonna harass us like you did Carol?

 
At 18 December, 2010 11:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I didn't harass anybody.

 
At 18 December, 2010 11:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, I didn't harass anybody."

Brian,

Carol states otherwise you communist scum:

"I will be subject to more "email harassment" since the guy (Brian Good) apparently lives on his computer.

Carol Brouillet"

 
At 18 December, 2010 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, she didn't say I harassed her. Sorry you're incompetent to read, but it's not my fault.

 
At 18 December, 2010 12:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, she didn't say I harassed her."

Brian,

Apparently you have a hard time understanding what she says:

"Sadly, Brian used to be a friend. I ended the friendship when it was apparent to me that he would have liked to harmed my marriage."

So not only did you try to harm her marriage, you also tried to harm her in a sexual way, so she can leave her husband for you.

Then she says this:

"I will be subject to more "email harassment" since the guy apparently lives on his computer."

I'm not the one being incompetent to read, you're just squirming in your chair cause it's the truth that you did harass her.

 
At 18 December, 2010 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you're not competent to read. Expressing concern about "more email harassment" is not saying I harassed her.

 
At 18 December, 2010 14:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, you're not competent to read. Expressing concern about "more email harassment" is not saying I harassed her.

Brian, I'm constantly amazed by how laughable your lies are. Either you're delusional enough to believe what you say, or your delusional enough to think we'll believe what you say. Either way, it's an indication that you're in need of serious psychiatric help.

 
At 18 December, 2010 14:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are sorely lacking in basic logic skills.

 
At 18 December, 2010 15:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you are sorely lacking in basic logic skills.

Brian, your desperate squealing is getting tiresome.

 
At 19 December, 2010 16:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, maybe the reason your logic skills are so poor is because you interpret a logical argument as squealing.

 
At 19 December, 2010 18:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, maybe the reason your logic skills are so poor is because you interpret a logical argument as squealing.

False. I interpret logical arguments (like those made by NIST) as logical arguments. I interpret mindless squealing (like what you do) as mindless squealing.

 
At 19 December, 2010 18:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

That you interpret NIST's arguments as logical shows how little you know about logic.

 
At 19 December, 2010 18:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

That you interpret NIST's arguments as logical shows how little you know about logic.

Brian, your desperate squealing is amusing to me.

 
At 20 December, 2010 08:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, you're not competent to read. Expressing concern about "more email harassment" is not saying I harassed her."

What's wrong Brian, am I hitting a nerve there?

Actually you e-mailed Carol, so that's still harassing her when she told you to stop harassing her.

I love watching you squirm.

 
At 20 December, 2010 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never was harassing her.

You're not watching anything, what you love is fantasizing about me. You're a creep, Wil.

 
At 20 December, 2010 12:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

I never was harassing her.

That's not what Carol says, and given that you're a delusional liar, I take her word over yours, just as I take Willie Rodriguez' word over yours.

 
At 20 December, 2010 14:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, did it never occur to that maybe Carol interpreted a bunch of hang-up calls as coming from me--and they didn't?

 
At 20 December, 2010 14:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, did it never occur to that maybe Carol interpreted a bunch of hang-up calls as coming from me--and they didn't?

Yes, but then Uncle Steve told me that Carol has caller ID.

Jesus, Brian, how weak are these excuses? You can't do any better than this in pretending you didn't stalk and harass another truther?

 
At 20 December, 2010 15:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't stalk and harass Carol and if your uncle Steve says I did, he's lying. That goes for the rest of your imaginary friends, too.

I'll harass con artists and bigots as much as I want, thank you.

 
At 20 December, 2010 15:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

I didn't stalk and harass Carol and if your uncle Steve says I did, he's lying. That goes for the rest of your imaginary friends, too.

False. You stalked and harassed Carol. I win, petgoat. You lose. Again. HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 21 December, 2010 10:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"I never was harassing her.

You're not watching anything, what you love is fantasizing about me. You're a creep, Wil."

Brian, you're still lying.

I'm not "fantasizing" about you, I just love to see you suirm & squeal like the pig that you are.

Jeepers Creepers, where'd you get those dilated peepers?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home