Wednesday, December 08, 2010

The Conspiracy Theory Detector

Skeptic Magazine's Michael Shermer weighs in on conspiracy theories in Scientific American. For an added bonus, catch Uncle Fetzer's rant in the comments.


This past September 23 a Canadian 9/11 "truther" confronted me after a talk I gave at the University of Lethbridge. He turned out to be a professor there who had one of his students filming the “confrontation.” By early the next morning the video was online, complete with music, graphics, cutaways and edits apparently intended to make me appear deceptive (search YouTube for “Michael Shermer, Anthony J. Hall”). “You, sir, are not skeptical on that subject—you are gullible,” Hall raged. "We can see that the official conspiracy theory is discredited....It is very clear that the official story is a disgrace, and people who go along with it like you and who mix it in with this whole Martian/alien thing is discrediting and a shame and a disgrace to the economy and to the university."

Labels:

77 Comments:

At 08 December, 2010 16:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

"We can see that the official conspiracy theory is discredited"

What is it with truthers telling themselves that they've "won" the argument? This loon does it, Brian does it, mask boy and dust boy do it. It's almost as if they're not interested in winning an argument, they're just interested in telling themselves how brilliant they are. Whatever helps them sleep at night, I guess.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

The official investigations are discredited by their pervasive dishonesty and their inability to provide good evidence for their cases.

 
At 08 December, 2010 18:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

The official investigations are discredited by their pervasive dishonesty and their inability to provide good evidence for their cases.

Brian, do you ever get tired of posting the same nonsense again and again?

 
At 09 December, 2010 07:25, Blogger Garry said...

'Brian, do you ever get tired of posting the same nonsense again and again?'

It's not as if he's got anything better to do with his life.

 
At 10 December, 2010 06:22, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
The official investigations are discredited by their pervasive dishonesty and their inability to provide good evidence for their cases."

You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?

 
At 10 December, 2010 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL, NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim that the steel in the WTC was damaged by heat. When their "realistic" computer models failed to generate a collapse, they simply upped the severity of the input parameters to yield the desired results. They threw out the results of empirical experiments when the results were not to their liking, they ignored evidence such as molten metal and eyewitness reports of explosions, and they ignored the Appendix C samples. They failed to express any regret that the steel was destroyed before experts could examine it, and Dr. Sunder lied in claiming that the steel was "scattered" because of the need for rescue operations.

The report as a whole, as directed from the top, is extremely dishonest even while its constituent parts contain good work. In this way it resembles the 9/11 Commission report, which was prepared through the work of conscientious staffers but molded by Dr. Zelikow and the political tradeoffs by the other Commissioners into a useless whitewash.

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:00, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
LL, NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim that the steel in the WTC was damaged by heat."

You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?

" they ignored evidence such as molten metal"

Um, crazy person, did you not just say that "NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim that the steel in the WTC was damaged by heat"?

Where did the alleged "molten metal" come from? You do realize, do you not, that the alleged "molten metal" would have to be.....melted, do you not?

"They failed to express any regret that the steel was destroyed before experts could examine it"

That is an out an out lie. You might even say that it's an insanely stupid lie. From an insane person.

"The report as a whole, as directed from the top, is extremely dishonest even while its constituent parts contain good work. In this way it resembles the 9/11 Commission report, which was prepared through the work of conscientious staffers but molded by Dr. Zelikow and the political tradeoffs by the other Commissioners into a useless whitewash."

You do realize, do you not, that you are quite insane?

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL, your lies may convince the gullible, but not true skeptics.

"You are quite insane" does not refute any of the facts I put forth.

There is no contradiction between the fact of the molten metal and the fact that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim that the steel in the WTC was damaged by heat. NIST doesn't have any molten metal. They pretend it didn't exist.

When did NIST express regret that the steel was destroyed before experts could examine it?

 
At 10 December, 2010 11:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

"You are quite insane" does not refute any of the facts I put forth.

Brian, your babbling lies are not "facts".

There is no contradiction between the fact of the molten metal and the fact that NIST has no physical evidence to support their claim that the steel in the WTC was damaged by heat. NIST doesn't have any molten metal. They pretend it didn't exist.

False.

When did NIST express regret that the steel was destroyed before experts could examine it?

???

 
At 10 December, 2010 16:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The WTC wasn't brought down by the fire alone, it was brought down by structural failure from the impacts of the two 757s.Even if there had no no fire those towers would still have failed.

Had each plane struck their respective tower lower the collapse could have been instantaneous. The evidence for this comes from WTC2 which came down earlier than WTC1 even though it was hit second.

In fact I'm suprised that Atta didn't aim for the sweet spot, but I think he was just suprised that he'd actually made it to the target without intercept.

The fires certainly contributed to the collaspes in that they caused key structures to fail faster.

 
At 11 December, 2010 02:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST does not share your belief that the planes alone could have brought the buildings down. NIST says they could have survived the plane impacts and could have survived the fires, and it was only the stripping of the fireproofing that caused them to fail.

Had the planes struck lower they would have hit thicker columns. The wall thickness of the tubular box columns varied according to their height in the building--4" thick at the bottom, 1/4" thick at the top.

The reason WTC2 fell first is because since the plane flew in at an angle, most of the fuel burned up OUTSIDE the building, and the fires were going out.

 
At 11 December, 2010 03:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 December, 2010 10:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

NIST does not share your belief that the planes alone could have brought the buildings down. NIST says they could have survived the plane impacts and could have survived the fires, and it was only the stripping of the fireproofing that caused them to fail.

So in other words, NIST thinks the impact and the fires caused the towers to collapse. Thanks for clearing that up, Brian. For a report you think is dishonest, you sure like to cite it a lot.

The reason WTC2 fell first is because since the plane flew in at an angle, most of the fuel burned up OUTSIDE the building, and the fires were going out.

What? The reason the tower collapsed is because the fuel burned outside the building and the fires were going out? Brian, you really need to check yourself into a mental hospital.

 
At 11 December, 2010 14:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I like how he just walked into that.

 
At 12 December, 2010 19:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it is only reasonable to cite the NIST report when one wants to show that the NIST report is a lie.

Yes, tower 2 came down first because the fires were going out. You couldn't have the building standing there for an hour with no fires in it before it fell, could you?

 
At 12 December, 2010 21:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, it is only reasonable to cite the NIST report when one wants to show that the NIST report is a lie.

Um, so what you're lying about in the NIST report isn't true in the first place? Jeez, petgoat, you've really twisted yourself into knots.

Yes, tower 2 came down first because the fires were going out. You couldn't have the building standing there for an hour with no fires in it before it fell, could you?

Hey petgoat? You know that molten metal you're always babbling about? Yeah, there was some flowing out of tower 2 up to the moment of collapse. I guess that's because there was no fire in there, huh?

Seek professional help.

 
At 12 December, 2010 22:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

No Ian, there's no reason to think the molten metal pouring out of WTc2 was caused by the fire. Neither jet fuel nor office fires can burn hot enough to melt steel.

But thermite can.

 
At 13 December, 2010 02:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, Pet Goat, punxsutawneybarney, etc) prevaricates, "...No Ian, there's no reason to think the molten metal pouring out of WTc2 was caused by the fire."

The term "molten metal" is meaningless--you dunce.

For example, aluminum melts at between 800 degrees F and 1184 degrees F--depending on the composition of the alloy.

Structural steel melts at a much higher temperature (~2750 degrees F).

NASA, however, reports 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.

As a result, there is NO EVIDENCE of "molten steel" at ground zero nor would "nanothermite" account for the presence of "molten steel." Temperature conditions in the pile--tons of aluminum and super hot fires--were perfect for large pools of molten aluminum to accumulate, not "molten steel."

Again, Brian, you're playing stupid, meaningless games with language in order to start another pointless scat tossing contest in service to your acute monomania.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 13 December, 2010 02:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, Pet Goat, punxsutawneybarney, etc) prevaricates, "...No Ian, there's no reason to think the molten metal pouring out of WTc2 was caused by the fire."

The term "molten metal" is meaningless--you dunce.

For example, aluminum melts at between 800 degrees F and 1184 degrees F--depending on the composition of the alloy.

Structural steel melts at a much higher temperature (~2750 degrees F).

NASA, however, reports 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.

Continued...

 
At 13 December, 2010 02:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

As a result, there is NO EVIDENCE of "molten steel" at ground zero nor would "nanothermite" account for the presence of "molten steel." Temperature conditions in the pile--tons of aluminum and super hot fires--were perfect for large pools of molten aluminum to accumulate, not "molten steel."

Again, Brian, you're playing stupid, meaningless games with language in order to start another pointless scat tossing contest in service to your acute monomania.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 13 December, 2010 05:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

No Ian, there's no reason to think the molten metal pouring out of WTc2 was caused by the fire.

No, of course not. I mean, it's not like there were huge fires burning in the tower.

Neither jet fuel nor office fires can burn hot enough to melt steel.

Who said anything about steel, you fucking moron? Brian, there's this thing called the periodic table that you would have learned about had you not spent high school sniffing glue. There are a lot more metals out there than just iron.

But thermite can.

So were back to thermite now? What about all the reports of explosions and flashes of light and squibs that you were babbling about as "proof" of explosives? One of these days, Brian, you're going to have to get your story straight.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the term "molten metal" is quite useful in distinguishing liquid-phase material (which was not discussed in the official reports) from the common solid-phase material (which was).

NASA's observations of 1350 degree temps from overflights of the rubble pile (not the building, you oaf) indicate that temperatures beneath the surface were far higher than 1350.

There were numerous eyewitnesses to molten metal at the WTC, and reportedly even Leslie Robertson commented on molten steel. One of these eyewitnesses was Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who said he saw "melting of girders" at the WTC. Your claim that there is no evidence of molten steel is thus mistaken and ignorant and lazy. Had you so much as googled "WTC molten steel" you would have found these.

Your claim that nanothermite would not account for molten steel is irrational.

Ian, at the time the molten metal was pouring out of WTC2 there were no huge fires in WTC2. They were going out, remember?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melted girders. So you have any evidence that these girders were made of something other than steel?

I know it's confusing to you to think that multiple agents might be used to bring the building down for the very purpose of sowing confusion, but it's really not very complicated. For instance, the fact that someone was shot does not prove that they were not poisoned first.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys are trying to reverse engineer the facts from the outcome. That's not the way to truth. The way to truth is to examine the facts before you decide what happened--not to decide what happened and then reject the facts that are inconsistent with your theories.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

There were numerous eyewitnesses to molten metal at the WTC, and reportedly even Leslie Robertson commented on molten steel. One of these eyewitnesses was Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, who said he saw "melting of girders" at the WTC. Your claim that there is no evidence of molten steel is thus mistaken and ignorant and lazy. Had you so much as googled "WTC molten steel" you would have found these.

Brian, how dumb do you have to be to interchange "metal" and "steel" like that?

I've got a thermometer with molten metal in it. OMFG, it must be thermite that did it!!!!

Ian, at the time the molten metal was pouring out of WTC2 there were no huge fires in WTC2. They were going out, remember?

No, Brian, I don't remember. I live on planet earth, not the fantasy world you inhabit.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melted girders. So you have any evidence that these girders were made of something other than steel?

Where did he seem them, petgoat? Did he see them on the 79th floor of WTC 2? It's amazing he survived the collapse of the towers.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

I know it's confusing to you to think that multiple agents might be used to bring the building down for the very purpose of sowing confusion, but it's really not very complicated. For instance, the fact that someone was shot does not prove that they were not poisoned first.

Yes, I'm sure Dick Cheney decided to use thermite, explosives, and airplanes, just to make things unnecessarily complicated and make it more likely that lunatic sex stalkers with too much time on their hands would discover it.

You guys are trying to reverse engineer the facts from the outcome. That's not the way to truth. The way to truth is to examine the facts before you decide what happened--not to decide what happened and then reject the facts that are inconsistent with your theories.

He can't possibly be serious, can he? Brian, this is all you ever do. You're certain 9/11 was an inside job, so you create multiple contradictory scenarios and argue each one. It's thermite that brought the towers down, except when it's explosives. There was no heat damage to the steel except where it melted. There was no oxygen in the towers except where it was needed for the thermobaric weapons to work.

Seek professional help.

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, "molten steel" was the term GutterBall used.

Please provide evidence of huge fires at WTC at the time the molten metal was pouring out. The yellow/orange molten metal (which appears to be steel, because molten aluminum is silvery) poured out a few minutes before the tower fell. The fires were going out. Chief Orio Palmer reported from the 78th floor that there were only isolated pockets of fire.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl “saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.”

Ian, I am by no means certain that 9/11 was an inside job, and it makes me quite angry when lazy truthers make that claim, and so I resent it when you put those words in my mouth. I do not "create" scenarios, I examine them--unlike you, who only ridicules them. I'm sorry that the contradictory nature of reality is frustrating to you, but since everybody knows that a tolerance for ambiguity is a sign of maturity, your attempts to ridicule that trait are self-defeating and damaging to the credibility of this forum.

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

Please provide evidence of huge fires at WTC at the time the molten metal was pouring out.

No.

The yellow/orange molten metal (which appears to be steel, because molten aluminum is silvery) poured out a few minutes before the tower fell. The fires were going out. Chief Orio Palmer reported from the 78th floor that there were only isolated pockets of fire.

False.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl “saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.”

Wow, this clarifies nothing. It's almost as if you're trying to hide the facts from us. You'd never do that, would you petgoat? You'd never, for example, quote mine from what Orio Palmer saw, would you?

Ian, I am by no means certain that 9/11 was an inside job, and it makes me quite angry when lazy truthers make that claim, and so I resent it when you put those words in my mouth.

False. You believe 9/11 was an inside job, petgoat.

I do not "create" scenarios, I examine them--unlike you, who only ridicules them.

False.

I'm sorry that the contradictory nature of reality is frustrating to you, but since everybody knows that a tolerance for ambiguity is a sign of maturity, your attempts to ridicule that trait are self-defeating and damaging to the credibility of this forum.

Professional help. Seek it.

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you can't even create a coherent reality for yourself. Don't tell me what I believe.

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you can't even create a coherent reality for yourself. Don't tell me what I believe.

You believe 9/11 was an inside job with absolute religious certainty. You believe it because you're one of society's rejects: a middle-aged man with no job, no family, and no accomplishments. You think 9/11 "truth" is your one path to glory, and a way to have your revenge on those who ignored or ridiculed you through life.

I'm sorry life has been so tough on you, Brian, but lunatic conspiracy theories aren't going to make things better. This is why I constantly suggest seeking psychiatric help. You'll be in much better shape if you start treating your illnesses instead of feeding them.

 
At 13 December, 2010 14:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Please provide evidence of huge fires at WTC at the time the molten metal was pouring out. The yellow/orange molten metal (which appears to be steel, because molten aluminum is silvery) poured out a few minutes before the tower fell. The fires were going out. Chief Orio Palmer reported from the 78th floor that there were only isolated pockets of fire.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl “saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.”

Ian, I am by no means certain that 9/11 was an inside job, and it makes me quite angry when lazy truthers make that claim, and so I resent it when you put those words in my mouth. I do not "create" scenarios, I examine them--unlike you, who only ridicules them. I'm sorry that the contradictory nature of reality is frustrating to you, but since everybody knows that a tolerance for ambiguity is a sign of maturity, your attempts to ridicule that trait are self-defeating and damaging to the credibility of this forum.

 
At 13 December, 2010 14:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, I know you're not capable of subtle thought, but posting the exact same tripe twice doesn't make you look any less ignorant.

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

I posted it again because you did not respond to it, only buried it under girly spam.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, seek professional help. The fact that you use "girly" as an insult is staggering. I can't believe how much of a lunatic you are sometimes.

 
At 13 December, 2010 17:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Dr. Astaneh-Asl 'saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.'"

Lying about Dr. Astaneh-Asl again, Brian?

And you wonder why I refer to you as a pathological liar.

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, if you knew how to google you wouldn't embarrass yourself so often.

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

Ian, what makes you think "girly" is an insult? It's an objective description of your thought processes.

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

That's nice, petgoat. It still doesn't give any credence to your wild beliefs in thermite or explosives.

Ian, what makes you think "girly" is an insult?

Well, you use it in a negative way (calling us "giggling girls", referring to "spam" as "girly").

Besides that, it's obvious that you've never had a normal relationship (sexual or otherwise) with a woman in your life. Given your delusional belief in your own intellectual superiority, you would probably dismiss women as beneath you both intellectually and emotionally after the thousandth rejection. Hence, your consistent labeling of things you consider vapid or frivolous as "girly".

Anyway, petgoat, the many, many intelligent, serious, successful women I've known in my life would probably not waste the time and energy to laugh at the way a liar and lunatic of a failed janitor uses the word "girly".

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

But you not only have plenty of time to waste, you even give the impression of being rather obsessive with your very elaborate fantasies about someone you know nothing about.

I'll assume that you're taking this personal because you are trying to cover up the fact that you can not provide evidence of huge fires in WTC2 at the time the molten iron was pouring out. The fires were going out. That's why
Tower 2 fell first.

 
At 13 December, 2010 21:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

But you not only have plenty of time to waste, you even give the impression of being rather obsessive with your very elaborate fantasies about someone you know nothing about.

Brian, it's not "fantasies", it's predictions based on well-known facts about you as well as your thought patterns on display at this blog.

Also, I come here for the amusement of taunting you and reading your babbling responses to it. It's rather fun in the way that watching Jerry Springer was fun.

I'll assume that you're taking this personal because you are trying to cover up the fact that you can not provide evidence of huge fires in WTC2 at the time the molten iron was pouring out.

Personal? Brian, I'm just pointing out how absurd it is for an alleged grown man to use an elementary school taunt.

The fires were going out. That's why Tower 2 fell first.

Hey, if it helps you sleep like a snug bug in a rug to believe this, whatever. I still would recommend checking yourself into a mental hospital, since it will do you a lot more good in the long run.

 
At 13 December, 2010 21:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'll assume that you're taking this personal because you are trying to cover up the fact that you can not provide evidence of huge fires in WTC2 at the time the molten iron was pouring out.

Also, Brian, I'll provide evidence that there were huge fires at WTC 2 as soon as you provide evidence that the WTC towers existed. I think they were holograms. So far, nobody has provided any evidence that they existed.

 
At 13 December, 2010 21:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, in other words you CAN'T back up your claims that there were huge fires at the time the molten iron exited WTC2.

Thanks for making that clear.

 
At 13 December, 2010 22:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, in other words you CAN'T back up your claims that there were huge fires at the time the molten iron exited WTC2.

False.

Do you plan on presenting your evidence that the towers existed? What are you waiting for, Brian?

 
At 13 December, 2010 22:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'll suppose you're being so silly because you're trying to spam over GutterBall's humiliation in being shown for a liar about Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

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 14 December, 2010 01:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...I'll suppose you're being so silly because you're trying to spam over GutterBall's humiliation in being shown for a liar about Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl."

Really? No kidding? What's this, Pinocchio?

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

What were you saying, Pinocchio?

 
At 14 December, 2010 01:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...I'll suppose you're being so silly because you're trying to spam over GutterBall's humiliation in being shown for a liar about Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl."

Really? No kidding? What's this, Pinocchio?

Haven't we been over this in the past, Pinocchio?

Read on...

Continued...

 
At 14 December, 2010 01:38, 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., Structures, University of Michigan; M.S.E., Structures, University of Michigan; M.S., Civil Engineering, Tehran Polytechnic Institute; P.E.

What were you saying, Pinocchio?

 
At 14 December, 2010 01:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...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.

What were you saying, Pinocchio?

 
At 14 December, 2010 05:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I'll suppose you're being so silly because you're trying to spam over GutterBall's humiliation in being shown for a liar about Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl.

False. You're the liar, remember? You posted false things about Astaneh-Asl, remember?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

That's nice, now, do you plan on presenting any evidence that the towers existed? You're desperately trying to evade this question.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your post has nothing to do with the issue. Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center". Girders are steel. Thus there was melted steel at the world trade center. Thus ya'all's claim that there is no evidence of molten steel is not true, and NIST's failure to investigate it is inexcusable.

Ian, I did not post anything false about Dr. Astaneh-Asl. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

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

Ian, any questions about the towers' existence are not pertinent to any claims I am making. If the towers do not exist, that only adds to the deficits of the NIST report. The question of huge fires, however, is pertinent to your claims that there were huge fires at the time the molten steel poured out of WTC2. Why won't you provide evidence supporting your claim? Because you can't. The fires in WTC2 were going out. That's why WTC2 fell first.

issue since I am not basing any claims

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

Thus ya'all's claim that there is no evidence of molten steel is not true, and NIST's failure to investigate it is inexcusable.

Why should the NIST care if there was molten steel in the bottom of the pile after fires burned for weeks/months?

Ian, I did not post anything false about Dr. Astaneh-Asl. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

That's nice. It's still not any evidence of an inside job, or thermite, or explosives, or any of the other things you think it's evidence of because you're a delusional liar.

Ian, any questions about the towers' existence are not pertinent to any claims I am making.

False. You're making claims about the towers, and yet you have no evidence that they actually existed.

The question of huge fires, however, is pertinent to your claims that there were huge fires at the time the molten steel poured out of WTC2.

How could molten steel pour out of a building that didn't exist?

Why won't you provide evidence supporting your claim?

Says the guy who has not provided a shred of evidence that the WTC towers ever existed.

The fires in WTC2 were going out. That's why WTC2 fell first.

How could a building that doesn't exist fall or have fires?

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, molten iron poured out of WTC2 a few minutes before it came down.

I have a lot of evidence that the towers existed, including nespaper articles and government reports. I've seen them myself. You have no evidence that they didn't exist, and you've provided no evidence of huge fires at the time the molten iron poured out of WTC2.

You're being silly in exactly the way an 8-year-old girl is silly when she's trying to be cute. Stop humping my knee, Ian.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, molten iron poured out of WTC2 a few minutes before it came down.

Still no evidence that WTC 2 existed. Brian, what are you trying to hide from us?

I have a lot of evidence that the towers existed, including nespaper articles and government reports. I've seen them myself. You have no evidence that they didn't exist, and you've provided no evidence of huge fires at the time the molten iron poured out of WTC2.

Hmm, newspaper articles and government reports? You mean like the NIST report? Hmm, I don't recall any of them talking about thermite or explosives. I guess you're wrong about that, petgoat.

And you're right, I've provided no evidence that they didn't exist, just as you've provided no evidence that molten iron was pouring out of the towers or that the fires were going out.

You're really too dumb for this, Brian. Give it up.

You're being silly in exactly the way an 8-year-old girl is silly when she's trying to be cute. Stop humping my knee, Ian.

More "girls" stuff. Seek professional help.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you may find your silly pseudo-sophism stimulating. Some of us who have personal connections to 9/11 find dumb jokes about it offensive.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

And let's not let Ian's clowning cover up Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statement to PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" and GutterBall's persistent lies about this fact.

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

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you may find your silly pseudo-sophism stimulating. Some of us who have personal connections to 9/11 find dumb jokes about it offensive.

What personal connection do you have to 9/11? Your sexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez is not a connection.

Also, I find accusations of mass murder against without the slightest shred of evidence to be offensive, especially in tandem with exonerating those who actually did the crime.

And let's not let Ian's clowning cover up Dr. Astaneh-Asl's statement to PBS "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center" and GutterBall's persistent lies about this fact.

Babbling endlessly about this doesn't make it evidence of explosives or thermite, Brian.

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

Ian, there is no question that 9/11 was a case of mass murder--there is much evidence of that. Why should demanding a credible investigation of what happened offend you? Only because you leap to conclusions about what that implies, and for some reason you are very threatened by that. Your own squeamishness about the truth is no reason to deny the victims the justice they deserve.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl's report of melted girders shows GutterBall and NIST as liars when they claim there was no molten steel--and it also shows NIST's failure to investigate the mechanism of melting to be negligent.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, there is no question that 9/11 was a case of mass murder--there is much evidence of that.

True.

Why should demanding a credible investigation of what happened offend you?

It doesn't. We had one. What offends me is that you want a kangaroo court-type investigation that will tell you what you want to hear, and what you want to hear has no basis in reality. You're an obsessed liar and failed janitor who thinks 9/11 truth will give your life some sort of redemption from the abject failure it has been so far. It ain't happening, petgoat. Deal with it.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl's report of melted girders shows GutterBall and NIST as liars when they claim there was no molten steel--and it also shows NIST's failure to investigate the mechanism of melting to be negligent.

False.

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

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Dr. Astaneh-Asl's report of melted girders shows GutterBall and NIST as liars when they claim there was no molten steel."

I didn't lie--and I have no need to lie.

In fact, I directly quoted Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl who said, "[t]hose are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

Furthermore, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl has never proven that molten steel was found at ground zero, He made the claim, but he offered no evidence to substantiate his claim.

Continued...

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The PBS article you quote mined, moreover, directly contradicts your specious argument, Brian. And I quote:

"...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

Thus, it's clear that Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl believes "fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed," which directly contradicts your deliberate misinterpretation of his remarks. Thus, you lose again, Brian.

You're a liar, Brian--and a bad liar at that.

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

GutterBall, you are obviously one of those pathetic souls who is constitutionally incapable of admitting when he is wrong.

You lied. You lied when you claimed 12/13 at 17:58 that I lied about Dr. Astaneh-Asl. He told PBS that he "saw melting of girders". You said that was a lie. It was not a lie. You lied. I didn't misinterpret his remarks, and your claim that I did is a lie.

NIST lies when it claims there is no evidence of molten steel. And eveyone on this board lies who claims that there is no evidence of molten steel. There was molten steel.

This is all very simple, and you're trying, because of your pathetic inability to admit when you are wrong, to make it complicated.

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

Brian, quit trying to bury GuitarBill's posts with your squealing spam.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, proof that Gutterball lied at 17:58 12/13 is not squealing spam.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, proof that Gutterball lied at 17:58 12/13 is not squealing spam.

Brian, everything you post is spam, because you're an obsessed liar whose religious views on 9/11 are non-falsifiable. You're lying about GuitarBill right here, for example.

Also, you lie about the widows having questions, and you lie about Willie Rodriguez, among other things.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I proved that GutterBall lied. At 17:58 12/13 he said something that was not true, and I proved it was not true.

The widows have questions. They had 300 questions, and they only got 27 answers. They have 271 questions. Your claim that they do not is based on some kind of dishonest semantic game by which some widows count and other widows do not.

I don't lie about Willie Rodriguez. Why would I do that? Willie is a con artist who for too long greatly discredited the truth movement by stealing his glory from the dead. Fortunately Willie's career as a hero seems to be about over.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I proved that GutterBall lied. At 17:58 12/13 he said something that was not true, and I proved it was not true.

Stop lying, Brian.

The widows have questions. They had 300 questions, and they only got 27 answers. They have 271 questions. Your claim that they do not is based on some kind of dishonest semantic game by which some widows count and other widows do not.

False. The widows say they have no questions. You lose, Brian.

I don't lie about Willie Rodriguez. Why would I do that?

Because you're sexually obsessed with the man and want to have revenge on him for rejecting you.

 
At 14 December, 2010 17:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the widows never said they had no questions. Even that 2005 statement you like to cite said that not all their questions were answered. You lie and lie and lie.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:05, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the widows never said they had no questions. Even that 2005 statement you like to cite said that not all their questions were answered. You lie and lie and lie.

Nobody cares, petgoat. I do like that you dodged my point about your sexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez, however.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:13, Blogger Triterope said...

Some of us who have personal connections to 9/11 find dumb jokes about it offensive.

Tell us Brian, what is your personal connection to 9/11?

 
At 14 December, 2010 21:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't dodge it. I ignored it. It's not a point. It's your fantasy, most likely a projection. You spend an awful lot of energy fantasizing about the sex life of someone you don't even know, Ian. You'd do better to spend your energies reading your GED study guide.

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

Wow, petgoat really squeals a lot when someone points out how obsessed he is with Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, why don't you and GutterBall trade words for a while. You use "prevaricates" and let GutterBall go with the "squealing". You sound like a couple of Mynah Birds, your vocabularies are so limited.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, why don't you and GutterBall trade words for a while. You use "prevaricates" and let GutterBall go with the "squealing". You sound like a couple of Mynah Birds, your vocabularies are so limited.

Nah, I'd rather point out how much you squeal about Willie Rodriguez and your sexual obsession with the man.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's the problem, Ian. Your obsessive fantasizing about someone you don't even know is degrading the quality of the discussion.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

That's the problem, Ian. Your obsessive fantasizing about someone you don't even know is degrading the quality of the discussion.

OK, let's change the topic then. Have you submitted your "meatball on a fork" model to a journal of engineering yet?

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's petgoat's meatball on a fork model, and there's no need to submit it to a journal because it's trivial. It's true utility is in illustrating how ludicrous the piledriver model is.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, it's petgoat's meatball on a fork model, and there's no need to submit it to a journal because it's trivial. It's true utility is in illustrating how ludicrous the piledriver model is.

Ah yes, you're not petgoat. I guess that would explain why he told me that the widows have no questions and called you a liar and sex stalker. I told you all the truthers want nothing to do with you.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's nice, Ian.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home