Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Bob and Tony and Rosie and Malice

Rosie had Bob McIlvaine and Tony Szamboti on her radio show (MP3 file) a week or so ago. It's the usual bit of nuttery; the program leads in with a lie: "How many buildings collapsed on 9-11 Mom? Three."

Well, three if you don't count WTC-3. And St. Nick's.

Bob McIlvaine talks about the explosions before the planes hit. Never mind that mop-jockey Willie Rodriguez is the only person to claim there were explosions before the plane impacts. Bob's got people from Ladder 10 who told him there were explosions, and Willie who says there was one before the planes, so therefore Bob's got numerous reports of multiple explosions before.

Tony Szamboti chips in (breathlessly--the guy sounds like he's just finished the mile run) to tell us fire can't melt steel. Oh, except for in a few cases. Left unsaid, of course, by this engineer is that fire doesn't have to melt steel for the metal to lose its load-bearing capacity.

The 9-11 Commission didn't even mention Building 7's collapse! (They didn't even mention St. Nick's collapse either, but the dolts never bring that up.)

Sigh. These morons are like a broken record.

Labels: , ,

71 Comments:

At 01 December, 2010 09:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

(They didn't even mention St. Nick's collapse either, but the dolts never bring that up.)

Because there's no video of it for them to gawk at on youtube. I'll freely admit that from the north, the collapse of WTC 7 looks like a controlled demolition. I'm just not going to pretend that it was based on that.

 
At 01 December, 2010 11:30, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Looks like Faux Snews are starting to get some heat for coddling twoofers.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/12/01/fox-takes-heat-from-left-and-right-over-analyst/#comment-3609615

Of course the nutbars will soon start whining about their free speech rights are being supressed while forgetting they have to right to have their crap aired by a private network or that they should be exempt from criticism.

 
At 01 December, 2010 13:40, Blogger Philip said...

ConsDemo that link is awesome. It needs to be blogged here thanks for sharing.

As always - hilarity ensues in the comments section.

 
At 02 December, 2010 06:53, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

So William Rod was the only one who claimed bombs went off in the basement before the first plane hit, eh?

Your a liar, Pat, or a very poor researcher and debunker.

http://www.bnr.co/explosions-before-planes-hit-wtc-911-911/

Now, go back and change your original post to include the facts and stop the fallacy of ommission.

 
At 02 December, 2010 07:04, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

(They didn't even mention St. Nick's collapse either, but the dolts never bring that up.)

That is because it didn't collapse, it was crushed between opposing bodies.

Check the dictionary and you will see why they didn't mention the collapse of that church and why your comment comes from the true dolt.

 
At 02 December, 2010 07:11, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"explosions-before-planes-hit-wtc-911-911/"

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA!!!!!

BWWWAAAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!2~~~!~~1


Oh, you Twoooofers™, always joking around.

 
At 02 December, 2010 09:06, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Sorry, Laz. That video you didn't watch is actually a mainstream media interview with a survivor on that very day.

Nice try though. Thanks for playing the debunker's favorite game, "Fallacy of Omission!"

 
At 02 December, 2010 09:43, Blogger Pat said...

National Bank of Rwanda? I believe I got an email from one of their auditors telling me that my uncle died in a plane crash and left me millions.

As for the bomb in the lobby theory, it's obvious that the woman didn't know that the fireball from the jet plane had rocketed down the elevator shaft to the lobby, causing the devastation she saw. I can certainly understand her confusion. What I cannot understand is idiots like you and Bob McIlvaine persisting in the delusion that this means anything.

 
At 02 December, 2010 10:49, Blogger John said...

"http://www.bnr.co/explosions-before-planes-hit-wtc-911-911/"

The ladies in this video assume a bomb had gone off in the WTC lobby because, after the plane hit, they ran through the lobby and said "it was gone". The damage in the lobby can be explained as being caused by a fireball running through the elevator shafts.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

 
At 02 December, 2010 12:02, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

The ladies in this video assume a bomb had gone off in the WTC lobby because, after the plane hit, they ran through the lobby and said "it was gone". The damage in the lobby can be explained as being caused by a fireball running through the elevator shafts.

Watch the video until the end, John. She states exactly what happened. And no fire ball traveled down a shaft to blow out a lobby with no fire effects.

That has been debunked years ago by me as well as a host of other including the diagrams of the shafts, the workers who were down there when it happened, etc.

 
At 02 December, 2010 12:11, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Pat, by now you know that never occured.

Remember, Pat, the fireball has to cause a cave several stories below the lobby in the PATH level subway plaza, destroy a parking garage, travel down only one elevator shaft with no overpressure within the shaft only to exit the lobby and cause no fire damage within the lobby yet blow it out and cause the damage witnessed on video and by people who were there that day.

Tell me again about the survivors confusion or is every single one who exited the basement of the north tower were ALL confused. Or is more likely the terrorists used a coordinated attack upon the structure to bring it down?

 
At 02 December, 2010 12:13, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Oh and John, it there was only 1 shaft that this alleged fireball could have traveled down to reach the far basement levels let alone the lobby.

http://dotheordersstillstand.blogspot.com/2007/03/case-for-explosives-at-world-trade.html

Again, the fireball damage to the lobby and basement has long ago been debunked.

 
At 02 December, 2010 12:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

I love how Mask Boy is always repeating that this or that "was long ago debunked", and yet here we are, over 9 years later, and 9/11 "truth" is still a small lunatic fringe movement and not a single political goal of the "truthers" has been accomplished.

It's almost like he's trying to feel like a man by winning an internet pissing contest instead of actually being interested in justice for the victims or perpetrators....

 
At 02 December, 2010 12:37, Blogger John said...

"That has been debunked years ago by me as well as a host of other including the diagrams of the shafts, the workers who were down there when it happened, etc."

According to the article: "The newspaper also reviewed 2,500 pages of accounts written by survivors and reports in other media outlets, examined architectural plans and spoke to elevator experts and mechanics who worked at the Trade Center."

I believe the survivors and the elevator experts and mechanics. Unless you're one of them, your debunking means nothing.

 
At 02 December, 2010 13:46, Blogger Garry said...

First up, I'm probably the only one here who'll see the play on words in the title of Pat's post. Nicely done, by the way.

Secondly, I wonder if our oh-so-edgy troofer friend who thinks a 'V for Vendetta' avatar shows what an utter fucking legend he is would care to explain his alternative theory for how the WTC towers were brought down. I'd be particularly interested to here his explanation as to:

(1) How the buildings were rigged for CD without anyone working in them noticing anything strange happening (work crews knocking holes through walls, planting det cord and explosives).

(2) How long it would have taken for the buildings to be prepped, given that actual experts in CD state that it takes weeks to prepare condemned buildings for demolition.

(3) Why none of the first-responders or clear-up teams picked up any of the usual remnants left after a CD (bits of det cord, explosive residue on the rubble), and ...

(4) Why the troofers felt compelled to doctor quotes by witnesses and first-responders in order to falsely imply that there was a CD in WTCs 1, 2 and 7:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm

I expect him to share with us his extensive knowledge of structural engineering - in addition to his obvious experience in the use of commercial and military grade explosives - when he shares his insights with us.

 
At 02 December, 2010 16:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

There was no fire damage in the lobby of WTC1...except for that buring guy that they were still trying to put out when the first engine company came through the doors.

It is in the documentary "9/11" shot by the French brothers.

So whatever researxh has been done has come out of someone's troofer ass.

 
At 02 December, 2010 23:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

M. Greg, what broke the windows in the lobby of WTC1 as shown in the Naudet video? What burned the bodies?

 
At 03 December, 2010 06:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

M. Greg, what broke the windows in the lobby of WTC1 as shown in the Naudet video? What burned the bodies?

Jet fuel? Or I dunno, micro-nukes? What's your explanation, Brian?

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's no mystery about what happened to St. Nick's. It didn't collapse suddenly and symmetrically after several hours of wimpy fires. It had been built in 1832 and was buried under WTC rubble.

 
At 03 December, 2010 12:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

There's no mystery about what happened to St. Nick's. It didn't collapse suddenly and symmetrically after several hours of wimpy fires. It had been built in 1832 and was buried under WTC rubble.

This is correct, Brian. On that note, there's no mystery about what happened to 1, 2, and 7 WTC either.

 
At 03 December, 2010 16:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can always count on you, Ian, for an ignorant, facile, cynical, and stupid lie.

 
At 03 December, 2010 18:30, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Well, three if you don't count WTC-3." Pathetic Slur (of the 9/11 Dead)

Source for WTC3 collapsing, Fat Failure? Jesass Christ, even Shart Roberts isn't this dishonest.

 
At 03 December, 2010 19:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

I can always count on you, Ian, for an ignorant, facile, cynical, and stupid lie.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 04 December, 2010 06:23, Blogger Garry said...

Here's one for Brian the janitor and face-mask boy to answer. It involves a recent BBC News report on the planned destruction of a tower block in Gateshead, North-East England, which the local council has just approved:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11918894

As you can see from the report, this particular eyesore is 29 storeys high, and it's going to take 18 months to prepare it for demolition. Bear in mind that the demolition teams will be working openly to prep the building, that it's all above board, and (as is pretty apparent) they aren't planning to kill the inhabitants of Derwent Tower.

Now tell me why you think it is practical to suppose that three buildings (two of which were 110 storeys, one 47 storeys tall) could be rigged for a CD in the course of nine months, on a completely covert basis, without anyone working in these buildings - or for that matter, being responsible for their security - noticing anything unusual in the process.

 
At 04 December, 2010 06:24, Blogger Garry said...

I should also add - for the benefit of anyone seeking to argue that the time-frame for the demolition of Derwent Tower is the rehousing of its inhabitants - that Gateshead Council's spokeswoman stated that 'demolition work alone would take 18 months':

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-11918894

 
At 04 December, 2010 09:04, Blogger Garry said...

For some bizarre reason, an earlier post has disappeared. To explain - I'd like Brian the unemployed janitor and face-mask boy to look at the BBC story I linked to.

I'd like them to pay attention to the fact that it will take 18 months to rig a 29 storey building for demolition, and this will be in conditions which are overt, legal, above board, and do not involve actually killing any of the inhabitants of the tower block concerned.

Now they can tell me why it is easier to prepare two 110 storey buildings and a 41 storey block for destruction in completely covert conditions, where the CD teams somehow have to rig and set up their charges without anyone working in the blocks concerned - let alone anyone responsible for their security - catching them on the job.

 
At 04 December, 2010 11:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Now they can tell me why it is easier to prepare two 110 storey buildings and a 41 storey block for destruction in completely covert conditions, where the CD teams somehow have to rig and set up their charges without anyone working in the blocks concerned - let alone anyone responsible for their security - catching them on the job.

Also, George W. Bush had only been on the job for 8 months. In order for the effort to have taken place, it must have begun under Bill Clinton. So there's a whole lot of new people who have to be in on it in the Clinton administration.

Given that hatred of Bush is what drives so much of this "truth" nonsense, I doubt we'll be hearing about how it's Clinton's fault (except from maybe the idiots like Geraldo and Napolitano at FOX).

 
At 04 December, 2010 19:52, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

(1) How the buildings were rigged for CD without anyone working in them noticing anything strange happening (work crews knocking holes through walls, planting det cord and explosives).
See the historic Citibank Center retrofit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewy1jA8Wuk8
An engineering upgrade done without the public even being aware. Yep, working on a building during or after hours is strange now isn't it.
But that is ok, as a debunker you are forced to believe in the "bumbling" terrorist theory. You know the one where the terrorists are so stupid they do things so publicly they are automatically going to get caught just so you reject a theory. Give em more credit will ya!
Oh but it is ok for these "bumbling terrorists" to pull off the entire 9/11 government scenario. Strike 1 4 u!

2. How long? They retrofitted the above example in a matter of weeks.
3. No first responders picked up det cord...no residue? Hmmm they were there to dig out survivors, yes?Expert in saving lives not picking up cord or even identifying it or its effects. Hmmm buildings just collapsed is this wire or det cord on the ground?lol http://www.inertproducts.com/inc/sdetail/3031
But HE doesn't melt steel though does it? ;) There were absolutely NO explosive residue tests done on any remains on 9/11. Ya can't find what you aren't looking for.
4. See the debunker's most hated video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related
5. Do you believe this statement?
"Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself."-Stated by Dr. Greening, co-author of the Bazant paper. Physics suspended on 9/11 ROFLMAO.

 
At 05 December, 2010 08:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

So they rigged the Citigroup Center for demolition, mask boy? Otherwise, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. It might help if you made a better effort to write your posts in a language people on earth can understand.

ROFLMAO!

 
At 05 December, 2010 08:47, Blogger Garry said...

'(1) How the buildings were rigged for CD without anyone working in them noticing anything strange happening (work crews knocking holes through walls, planting det cord and explosives).
See the historic Citibank Center retrofit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewy1jA8Wuk8'

A retrofit and a CD are two completely different jobs, mask-boy. And you might notice the bit in the video where the commentary says that welding torches were visible in the streets.

Try again, mask-boy.

 
At 05 December, 2010 12:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

So, according to Garry it takes 18 months to rig a building for demolition--but if WTC7 is any guide you need only set a few random fires on a few of its floors and it will magically come down symmetrically and totally a few hours later.

You wouldn't expect incurious office workers or even building security to catch people working in the elevator shafts when a 9-month elevator renovation project was known to be ongoing.

Ian, your belief that people in the Clinton administration should have known what was going on the elevator shafts of the WTC is just typical Ian bull.

Garry, welding torches in use in the elevator shafts would not be visible in the streets.

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

So, according to Garry it takes 18 months to rig a building for demolition--but if WTC7 is any guide you need only set a few random fires on a few of its floors and it will magically come down symmetrically and totally a few hours later.

Or you could have massive fires all over the building as well as serious structural damage. That would bring the building down after many hours. That's pretty much what happened at WTC 7, Brian. Deal with it.

You wouldn't expect incurious office workers or even building security to catch people working in the elevator shafts when a 9-month elevator renovation project was known to be ongoing.

You wouldn't expect it, but that's because you're an ignorant delusional lunatic who is sexually obsessed with Willie Rodriguez.

Ian, your belief that people in the Clinton administration should have known what was going on the elevator shafts of the WTC is just typical Ian bull.

What? Brian, learn to read. I'm the one who doesn't think the US government rigged the WTC for demolition. You're the one who believes that with religious certainty, remember?

Garry, welding torches in use in the elevator shafts would not be visible in the streets.

That's nice. Modified attack baboons wouldn't be visible either.

 
At 06 December, 2010 04:25, Blogger Garry said...

'So, according to Garry it takes 18 months to rig a building for demolition--but if WTC7 is any guide you need only set a few random fires on a few of its floors and it will magically come down symmetrically and totally a few hours later'.

A 'few fires' started by large chunks of burning debris, caused by the collapse of two neighbouring towers, both of which had been hit by passenger jets with fully-laden fuel tanks. You forgot that little detail, Mr Janitor.

'You wouldn't expect incurious office workers or even building security to catch people working in the elevator shafts when a 9-month elevator renovation project was known to be ongoing'.

Here's a point you need to bear in mind, Brian. Not everyone is a complete moron like you.

Anyway, we have mask-boy to thank for shooting down another troofer myth. We can see from this page that retrofitting a building leaves tell-tale signs that it has been strengthened. So 'secret' does not mean 'undetectable'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seismic_retrofit

Secondly, the reason why the CitiBank skyscraper received this treatment (that a structural flaw had been identified, which would leave the building open to collapse in high winds) also shows that buildings can be constructed with inherent flaws which can only manifest themselves in extreme circumstances. Although in this case, one does not need the brains of an archbishop to figure out that 'This building is vulnerable to a high speed wind' is a more likely contingency to plan for than 'This building is vulnerable to sudden collapse if a handful of maniacs take over a passenger plane and crash it at high speed into the structure'.

I am also sure that mask-boy has researched extensively into the technical challenges of retrofitting and preparing a building for demolition, and has discovered them to be identical. Or not, as the case may be.

 
At 06 December, 2010 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right. Nothing in the core was visible from the street. So the point that you're missing is that Garry's comments about welding torches being visible from the street were completely off base.

Where did you get the idea that I believe the buildings were rigged for demolition? Your mind is a blunt instrument.

 
At 06 December, 2010 10:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right. Nothing in the core was visible from the street. So the point that you're missing is that Garry's comments about welding torches being visible from the street were completely off base.

He was talking about the Citigroup Center, Brian, because mask boy made an absurd comparison between what went on in retrofitting that building to his wild fantasy about CD at the World Trade Center. Learn to read.

Where did you get the idea that I believe the buildings were rigged for demolition?

Brian, you babble endlessly about thermite and symmetry and total collapse and work on the elevator shafts and "free-fall speed". What is the point of those inanities if not to argue that the towers were rigged for CD?

 
At 06 December, 2010 12:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is plenty of reason to discuss thermite and elevator shafts and free-fall speed. Some of us are interested in things like truth and clear thinking.

You operate like a Bush supporter who thinks it's necessary to deny every fact that is inconvenient for his side, because those are Democrat facts.

 
At 06 December, 2010 13:43, Blogger Garry said...

'Ian, there is plenty of reason to discuss thermite and elevator shafts and free-fall speed'.

Hang on, Brian, you're changing your tune again. You said earlier on that these were thermobaric bombs, e.g. these babies:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6990815.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM&feature=related

I mean, get your lies straight, will you?

 
At 06 December, 2010 14:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, what is your point? I'm sorry you guys have such lousy reading comprehension, but it's not my fault.

 
At 06 December, 2010 14:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Maybe if y'all would challenge yourselves a bit instead of hanging around the shallow end of the pool with the other trunks-wetters and their water wings, your skills might improve.

 
At 06 December, 2010 19:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, there is plenty of reason to discuss thermite and elevator shafts and free-fall speed.

False.

Some of us are interested in things like truth and clear thinking.

Yes, that would be me and Garry and GuitarBill and the rest of us. You're interested in stalking Willie Rodriguez.

You operate like a Bush supporter who thinks it's necessary to deny every fact that is inconvenient for his side, because those are Democrat facts.

And the mask slips again: Brian is into this "truth" nonsense because he hates Bush. Well, I think Bush's presidency was a disaster, but I don't need to invent absurd reasons for my opinions.

Garry, what is your point?

His point is that you'll throw anything at the wall hoping it sticks so you can keep this delusional "truth" belief going. It's why you're so entertaining.

Maybe if y'all would challenge yourselves a bit instead of hanging around the shallow end of the pool with the other trunks-wetters and their water wings, your skills might improve.

Brian, you're really getting desperate with this squealing.

 
At 07 December, 2010 12:43, Blogger Garry said...

Brian, simple question. Thermite, or thermobaric?

Is it too much to ask you to at least be consistent in the BS you peddle?

 
At 07 December, 2010 22:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I only brought up thermobarics as an example of a method that wouldn't necessarily require a lot of people to implement.

So tell me, do you like your light as particles or waves, and why?

 
At 08 December, 2010 05:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, I only brought up thermobarics as an example of a method that wouldn't necessarily require a lot of people to implement.

Yes, and they weren't used to destroy the towers, just as thermite wasn't used and explosives weren't used. I'm glad we've gotten this out of the way.

So tell me, do you like your light as particles or waves, and why?

I didn't know explosives followed the laws of quantum physics. I guess that explains why Brian can believe explosives brought down the towers when it's convenient to his "hypothesis", and thermite when it's convenient.

 
At 08 December, 2010 08:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your confident claim that you know what didn't happen at the towers is self-discrediting.

I never said explosives follow the laws of quantum physics. I pointed out that trying to force the evidence into rigid dischotomies is unscientific. It's not my fault that abstract reasoning is beyond your skill set, Ian.

 
At 08 December, 2010 09:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your confident claim that you know what didn't happen at the towers is self-discrediting.

Well, present some evidence for the nonsense you babble about. The incredulity of a failed janitor and obsessed liar does not count as evidence for sane people.

I never said explosives follow the laws of quantum physics.

So your reference to the dual nature of light is just another pathetic attempt to make us think you're smart when you obviously lack the intellectual abilities to mop floors. I'm glad that's been cleared up.

I pointed out that trying to force the evidence into rigid dischotomies is unscientific.

No, you just made another stupid analogy, showing how over your head you are in this field.

It's not my fault that abstract reasoning is beyond your skill set, Ian.

Brian, you wouldn't know abstract reasoning if it offered you naked photos of Carol Brouillet.

 
At 08 December, 2010 10:08, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I only brought up thermobarics as an example of a method that wouldn't necessarily require a lot of people to implement'.

And then when I showed you the size of thermobaric bombs - in particular the fact that they are not the kind of devices that could be smuggled into the WTC towers without anyone noticing, you started to backtrack.

You know fuck-all about thermobaric weaponry, or other explosives, but you don't let your complete lack of expertise get in the way of a good rant.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I didn't backtrack one bit. I pointed out that the massive bombs you showed are the delivery systems. The WTC had 212 elevator shafts, and thus any thermobaric attack would be distributed, not monolithic.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, I didn't backtrack one bit.

Stop lying, petgoat.

I pointed out that the massive bombs you showed are the delivery systems. The WTC had 212 elevator shafts, and thus any thermobaric attack would be distributed, not monolithic.

212 elevator shafts could hide thousands of modified attack baboons armed with micro-nukes.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, Ian 15 miles of elevator shafts can hide just about anything. Which defeats completely the "somebody would have noticed something" argument.

But you have no more evidence of attack baboons or micro-nukes than you have of invisible omnipotent people from the future--and until you have evidence the only reason for you to babble about them is to try to confuse the issues.

 
At 08 December, 2010 11:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes, Ian 15 miles of elevator shafts can hide just about anything. Which defeats completely the "somebody would have noticed something" argument.

False. Someone would have noticed the buildings being rigged for CD. You fail again, petgoat. HA HA HA!!!

But you have no more evidence of attack baboons or micro-nukes than you have of invisible omnipotent people from the future

True. Incidentally, this is as much evidence as you have for thermite and thermobaric weapons. How about that!

 
At 08 December, 2010 12:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel samples is evidence for thermite, as is the red/gray chips, the iron-rich microspheres, and the molten metal.

There is thus far more physical evidence for thermite than there is for the notion that fire weakened the towers.

So who exactly would have noticed attack baboons or micro-nukes or thermobarics in the elevator shafts, Ian?

 
At 08 December, 2010 12:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel samples is evidence for thermite, as is the red/gray chips, the iron-rich microspheres, and the molten metal.

Ummmm.....no. Try again.

There is thus far more physical evidence for thermite than there is for the notion that fire weakened the towers.

Ummmm.....no. Try again.

So who exactly would have noticed attack baboons or micro-nukes or thermobarics in the elevator shafts, Ian?

My cousin Jim (Steve's son) who worked as a fixed income analyst for Morgan Stanley.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know what to say to someone who trashes his own thesis with fabricated evidence.

 
At 08 December, 2010 20:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

I don't know what to say to someone who trashes his own thesis with fabricated evidence.

I do, since I deal with you every day: "seek professional help".

Oh, right, you don't have a thesis. You just lie because you're a lunatic.

 
At 09 December, 2010 03:47, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, I didn't backtrack one bit. I pointed out that the massive bombs you showed are the delivery systems. The WTC had 212 elevator shafts, and thus any thermobaric attack would be distributed, not monolithic'.

And I pointed out to you that you are either a moron or a liar.

Take a look at this video clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2FGA3Z-oYM

See that big fat fella that drops out of the back of the Tu-160 20 seconds in.

That's not the delivery system. That's the entire fucking bomb, containing 7.8 tons of explosive, with a blast radius of 300m, which was enough to destroy a 4 storey building.

It's right in front of your fucking eyes, Brian. I know you're an unemployed janitor, but Jesus H, how much more proof do you need?

 
At 09 December, 2010 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, Garry--in one case they made a big fucking bomb. In other cases, you were looking at a big fucking missile and calling it a big fucking bomb. And thermobaric weapons at the WTC need be no larger than they need to be, and given that you'd likely use multiple weapons in the 200-odd elevator shafts of the WTC, the notion that you'd have to smuggle something the size of a minivan up the freight elevator is obviously wrong.

 
At 09 December, 2010 10:17, Blogger Garry said...

'And thermobaric weapons at the WTC need be no larger than they need to be, and given that you'd likely use multiple weapons in the 200-odd elevator shafts of the WTC, the notion that you'd have to smuggle something the size of a minivan up the freight elevator is obviously wrong'.

Find me either of the following to confirm this half-arsed excuse for a 'hypothesis':

(1) a fully qualified structural engineer
(2) an expert in CD, or
(3) a specialist in military grade explosives and their use.

I won't hold my breath.

 
At 09 December, 2010 15:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, there's no point in researching the thermobaric hypothesis. I only brought it up as an example to defeat your silly notion that hundreds of people would have to be involved in a plot to plant explosives. Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, said that a few charges in key places could bring the towers down. The Eagar zipper/pancake theory that was apparently accepted as conventional wisdom for three years says that a few broken truss clips could unzip an entire floor and bring down the floors underneath it. According to that, one guy with a high-speed abrasive wheel could have brought down the towers all by himself.

 
At 09 December, 2010 17:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, there's no point in researching the thermobaric hypothesis.

It's not a "hypothesis", Brian. It's mindless, desperate straw-grasping by you.

I only brought it up as an example to defeat your silly notion that hundreds of people would have to be involved in a plot to plant explosives.

See? Desperate straw-grasping so you can continue to exist in a fantasy world.

Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, said that a few charges in key places could bring the towers down.

Hmm, now if there was only some evidence for explosives....

 
At 10 December, 2010 00:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, thermobarics is a hypothesis. Such weapons exist. There is no reason to think that someone who wanted to destroy the twin towers wouldn't use them.

There is evidence for explosives--reports of flashes and light and/or sounds of explosions just before collapse initiation by 118 first responders, the complete pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete, explosive ejections of pulverized building materials from isolated windows, and the explosive ejection of dust, sometimes arcing upwards, from the disintegrating towers.

 
At 10 December, 2010 04:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, thermobarics is a hypothesis. Such weapons exist. There is no reason to think that someone who wanted to destroy the twin towers wouldn't use them.

Stop mis-using big words like "hypothesis", petgoat. Nuclear weapons exist and there's no reason to think that someone who wanted to destroy the towers wouldn't use them. It's still not a hypothesis that nuclear weapons were used.

There is evidence for explosives--reports of flashes and light and/or sounds of explosions just before collapse initiation by 118 first responders, the complete pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete, explosive ejections of pulverized building materials from isolated windows, and the explosive ejection of dust, sometimes arcing upwards, from the disintegrating towers.

So now it's explosives that were used in the towers? What happened to thermite? What happened to your thermobarics hypothesis.

Brian, you can't keep changing your story every 2 seconds because you think it's convenient. People will start to think you're a delusional liar....

 
At 10 December, 2010 06:59, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, there's no point in researching the thermobaric hypothesis. I only brought it up as an example to defeat your silly notion that hundreds of people would have to be involved in a plot to plant explosives'.

So is that an indirect way of saying you've got no proof for your allegations, Brian?

I also notice the way you twisted the argument. I stated that you needed a cast of thousands not only to rig the WTC towers, but also to perpetuate the cover-up afterwards. You know, the 'cover-up' that is so successful that the troofers can find no evidence to support their claims despite 9 years of effort, and are reduced to making shit up.

 
At 10 December, 2010 09:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, you were the one making allegations. You claimed that CD necessarily required hundreds of laborers to implement. I suggested that the use of a well-known military technology, thermobaric weapons, might streamline the operation so that a very few people might be able to implement it. I don't need to prove anything. You need to prove your allegation that CD would take hundreds.

Your claim that there is no evidence to support CD makes you look foolish. There is eyewitness testimony of explosions and flashes of light, there is Chief Ray Downey's opinion that bombs were planted, there is Chief Turi's statement about a secondary device, there is Dr. Van Romero's belief that a few charges could bring the building down, there are squibs, there is the pulverization of concrete, there is the energetic dust cloud with some material being projected upward, there are 1/2" bone fragments recovered from the roof across the street, there is symmetry and totality and speed of destruction, there is molten iron found in the rubble and the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C samples.

Tolerance for nonsense like Ian's is bad for your brain.

 
At 10 December, 2010 10:41, Blogger Ian G. said...

Garry, you were the one making allegations. You claimed that CD necessarily required hundreds of laborers to implement. I suggested that the use of a well-known military technology, thermobaric weapons, might streamline the operation so that a very few people might be able to implement it. I don't need to prove anything. You need to prove your allegation that CD would take hundreds.

Brian, your delusional idle speculation doesn't magically shift the burden of proof over to Garry.

Let's also break down Brian's "evidence" into different categories of faultiness:

"Speculation":

there is Chief Ray Downey's opinion that bombs were planted, there is Chief Turi's statement about a secondary device, there is Dr. Van Romero's belief that a few charges could bring the building down

"alternative explanations"

There is eyewitness testimony of explosions and flashes of light...there are squibs...there are 1/2" bone fragments recovered from the roof across the street, there is...totality and speed of destruction...the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C samples.

Fantasy:

there is the pulverization of concrete, there is the energetic dust cloud with some material being projected upward....symmetry...there is molten iron found in the rubble

So every single one of Brian's pieces of "evidence" is speculation, events that are easily explained by the consensus of what happened on 9/11, or figments of his diseased imagination.

Most of what he says is the same stuff he's babbled about many, many times before, but this one is new:

there are 1/2" bone fragments recovered from the roof across the street

It's hard to believe you're really this dumb, Brian. Jeez, I'd be suspicious if there weren't fragments of the planes or their contents (re: human beings) lying far away from the actual towers after the 500mph crash and explosion.

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you can label the evidence "speculation" and "fantasy" doesn't make it so. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh- Asl "saw melting of girders" at the WTC. That is no fantasy. Chief Downey's observation that the collapse was too even to be natural was not speculation.

You reveal your ignorance when you fail to recognize the context of the 1/2" bone fragments. They were on top of the Deutsche Bank building, SE of WTC2, which was hit from the SW.

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh- Asl "saw melting of girders" at the WTC. That is no fantasy.

Nobody cares.

Chief Downey's observation that the collapse was too even to be natural was not speculation.

Actually, that's the definition of speculation, petgoat. Learn what words mean.

You reveal your ignorance when you fail to recognize the context of the 1/2" bone fragments. They were on top of the Deutsche Bank building, SE of WTC2, which was hit from the SW.

That's nice.

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, nobody cares when you declare a fact to be a fantasy. That's my point. Your fact-free blathering pollutes this forum.

Chief Downey's observation, coming from one of the premier collapse experts in the country, is not speculation but expert opinion.
Learn what words mean.

 
At 10 December, 2010 12:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right, nobody cares when you declare a fact to be a fantasy. That's my point. Your fact-free blathering pollutes this forum.

No, I mean all the various things you babble about, whether they be speculation, fantasies, or facts that are totally irrelevant are things nobody cares about.

Brian, given the actual circumstances of the attack and the burning pile of rubble that sat for months, we should expect some molten iron. Spraying water on the fire probably made it more likely. None of this is suspicious except to ignorant lunatics like you.

Chief Downey's observation, coming from one of the premier collapse experts in the country, is not speculation but expert opinion.

False.

Learn what words mean.

Brian, I like it when you try to throw my shtick back in my face. It means I'm really bothering you.

 
At 10 December, 2010 13:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if the molten iron is not suspicious, why does NIST dodge the issue? Why didn't they follow up on the mysterious sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel? It takes a blast furnace to melt steel. Are you going to argue that there was some kind of blast furnace buried in the rubble at the WTC?

You're not bothering me, don't flatter yourself. You're annoying, that's all.

 
At 10 December, 2010 19:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if the molten iron is not suspicious, why does NIST dodge the issue?

Because why on earth would NIST be interested in molten iron found inside the pile of wreckage weeks later? These agencies don't exist to cater to the concerns of ignorant lunatics like you.

It takes a blast furnace to melt steel. Are you going to argue that there was some kind of blast furnace buried in the rubble at the WTC?

Yeah, pretty much. You don't understand very much, so there's no point in explaining how iron oxidation works.

You're not bothering me, don't flatter yourself. You're annoying, that's all.

You could always stop posting, but your mental illness craves the attention you get here.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for sharing, Ian.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home