Monday, December 27, 2010

Eggscrutiatingly Stupid

Someone on the 911 Experiments website disproves the paper of Zdenek Bazant, a structural engineering professor at Northwestern University, by, and I kid you not, dropping eggs on top of each other. The fact that only 2 eggs break supposedly proves that the World Trade Center towers should not have collapsed.

In related news I disproved the moon landings using a donut and a cardboard paper towel tube...



Once again, these people are beyond parody.

268 Comments:

At 27 December, 2010 18:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What next? Meatballs on a fork?

 
At 27 December, 2010 18:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Don't forget rake-on-rake, and of course, dropping cardboard boxes.

 
At 27 December, 2010 19:09, Blogger JetBoy said...

*facepalm*

 
At 27 December, 2010 19:52, Blogger Billman said...

For $50,000, I will prove that time travel into the past is possible, using only an orange, electrodes, a bottle of Jack, and a hooker.

In fact.. forget the orange. And the electrodes.

(heh, my verification word was "horne")

 
At 27 December, 2010 20:13, Blogger Neighborhood Rationalist said...

Did anyone notice that ae911truth dropped a "WTC 7 Free Fall" post the other day? Did someone just hit the reset button on these guys? I kid you not, its like they just tore one out of the 2003 playbook.

 
At 27 December, 2010 20:56, Blogger Steve said...

I... I'm speechless. Is this guy for real?

I saw a vid a while back with a guy using ice, wood blocks and cinder blocks to disprove the "official story."

I am unable to comprehend how these fools believe that their little objects can possibly compare to a skyscraper weighing thousands of tons.

 
At 27 December, 2010 21:25, Blogger Greg said...

Truthers, proving the experts wrong before most people have breakfast.

 
At 27 December, 2010 22:43, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

This is your brain. This is a troofer's brain.

Get the picture?

 
At 27 December, 2010 22:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, since Newton's 3rd Law is known to be inapplicable to eggs nothing useful can be shown by this demonstration. And nobody could demonstrate anything about gravity and air resistance by dropping hammers and feathers off a leaning tower. And the notion that Eratosthenes could measure the earth with a couple of sundials and some measuring sticks is just nuts.

Science takes millions and billions. You can't show anything useful with everyday objects.

But I agree, the eggs in no way resemble the towers. To do that you'd need eggs with progressively thicker shells as you went from top to bottom.

And then there's the issue of scale of course. Like there's no way the collapse could be anything other than total or symmetrical. The tower is like an ocean liner, see, too big to be subject to asymmetrical forces. That's why ocean liners are built double-ended--so they can simply be reversed back to their home port, because obviously they're too big to turn around.

 
At 28 December, 2010 00:56, Blogger truth hurts said...

@snug bug: an egg is a solid object.
How can you expect to get the same result as the twin towers collapse by dropping a solid object on top of three other solid objects..

and about newton: checkout verinage demolitions on youtube.

They too seem to be inapplicable to the 3th law of newton...

 
At 28 December, 2010 06:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Hey Brian, can you show us a demonstration of "meatball on a fork"? Can you please videotape yourself jamming a meatball onto a fork? Even better, can you shows us a video demonstration of rake-on-rake?

 
At 28 December, 2010 07:55, Blogger James B. said...

Troofers don't seem to understand the concept of scale. The strength of something scales essentially in one dimension, its weight in three. This is why an ant can lift 100 times its own weight, but the average truther can barely lift the tv remote control. If you built an egg the size of a building, it would explode just sitting there, much less if another egg is dropped on top of it.

 
At 28 December, 2010 08:29, Blogger Patrick said...

More Opie and Anthony fun with truthers:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=tY0UsGTvSyk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2gP6kmMJOE

 
At 28 December, 2010 08:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right, since Newton's 3rd Law is known to be inapplicable to eggs nothing useful can be shown by this demonstration. And nobody could demonstrate anything about gravity and air resistance by dropping hammers and feathers off a leaning tower. And the notion that Eratosthenes could measure the earth with a couple of sundials and some measuring sticks is just nuts.

Shorter Brian: I'm an unappreciated genius who will someday be vindicated and all you girls will be sorry for laughing at me.

 
At 28 December, 2010 09:06, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Right, since Newton's 3rd Law is known to be inapplicable to eggs nothing useful can be shown by this demonstration."

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

 
At 28 December, 2010 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

truth hurts, since Dr. Bazant's analysis assumes that the top block of the WTC is a solid object, use of solid objects to point out problems in his analysis is entirely appropriate. Of course as it is, Bazant's assumption is out to lunch, because the top "block" of the WTC came apart before any pounding of the lower stucture could begin.

James B, if you built an egg the size of a building, you would need to increase the wall thickness rather than just scale it up, and it's likely that tensile elements would be necessary in its shell, but it could be done.

Ian and LL, oh so Newton's 3rd does apply to eggs? Then what's so silly about the experiment?

 
At 28 December, 2010 12:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

truth hurts, since Dr. Bazant's analysis assumes that the top block of the WTC is a solid object, use of solid objects to point out problems in his analysis is entirely appropriate. Of course as it is, Bazant's assumption is out to lunch, because the top "block" of the WTC came apart before any pounding of the lower stucture could begin.

I'm so glad we have a failed janitor with no education or experience in engineering to tell us these things. Just think, we might be listening to the opinions of a PhD from Northwestern!

James B, if you built an egg the size of a building, you would need to increase the wall thickness rather than just scale it up, and it's likely that tensile elements would be necessary in its shell, but it could be done.

Nobody cares.

Ian and LL, oh so Newton's 3rd does apply to eggs? Then what's so silly about the experiment?

Well, for one, he didn't have anything analogous to the death ray beam from space that hit the WTC. He probably should have fired a dart gun from a 45 degree angle at the eggs to simulate the death ray beam.

My Uncle Steve says there are other things wrong with the experiment, and I'll get back to you when he explains them in detail.

 
At 28 December, 2010 12:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, on the topic of analogies, do you think Judy Wood's "Keebler Elves" analogy is valid? Why or why not?

 
At 28 December, 2010 13:05, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

And then there's the issue of scale of course. Like there's no way the collapse could be anything other than total or symmetrical. The tower is like an ocean liner, see, too big to be subject to asymmetrical forces. That's why ocean liners are built double-ended--so they can simply be reversed back to their home port, because obviously they're too big to turn around.

WOW! Now I got to hear how this one works form our resident janitor.

 
At 28 December, 2010 13:08, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Shorter Brian: I'm an unappreciated genius who will someday be vindicated and all you girls will be sorry for laughing at me."

Sure. the janitor thing is just a ruse.

 
At 28 December, 2010 13:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Of course as it is, Bazant's assumption is out to lunch, because the top "block" of the WTC came apart before any pounding of the lower stucture could begin.

So genius, Where did the mass of the top block go to? Did it simply disappear? Was it disintegrated death ray style?

 
At 28 December, 2010 14:34, Blogger truth hurts said...

"since Dr. Bazant's analysis assumes that the top block of the WTC is a solid object"

Which he doesn't.


", use of solid objects to point out problems in his analysis is entirely appropriate."

Nope, because real world examples, like the verinage demolition you obviously didn't look up on youtube shows how Bazant his theory works.

 
At 28 December, 2010 15:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Actually a 110 story chicken egg would have absorbed the impact of a 757, maybe with no penetration, it sure as hell wouldn't have collapsed in on itself.

So if 9/11 was an inside job then we need to be looking for a giant yoke.

Yes, Bwian, the yoke is on you. Although you consistantly make Mr. Wizard cry.

BTW, this is the most hillarious thread this year.

 
At 28 December, 2010 16:12, Blogger Triterope said...

So if 9/11 was an inside job then we need to be looking for a giant yoke.

A proper investigation was never done, because all the structural material was sold to iHop to make omelettes.

 
At 28 December, 2010 16:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

So if 9/11 was an inside job then we need to be looking for a giant yoke.

That could certainly explain the source of the iron and sulfur in the debris

 
At 28 December, 2010 16:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I seen this video, it proves that Truthers are INSANE!

 
At 28 December, 2010 16:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, the mass didn't go anywhere. That's beside the point. Dr. Bazant's analysis requires the top block to behave as a rigid body. That's why it's called the piledriver thoery. If it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work.

th, Dr. Bazant's paper assumes that the top block is a monolithic object. I forgot to comment on the verinage. No conflict with Newton's third there--while the top nibbles on the bottom the bottom nibbles on the top and they reach the ground at the same time.

M Gwegowy Fawwis, (what does the M stand for? Must be weawwy weawwy bad if YOU are ashamed of it) the egg model has nothing to do with airplane impact. But I'm not surprised that someone who thinks you can scale up from a ten-story elevator job to a 2000-story elevator job should get confused on that point.

 
At 28 December, 2010 17:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, the mass didn't go anywhere. That's beside the point. Dr. Bazant's analysis requires the top block to behave as a rigid body. That's why it's called the piledriver thoery. If it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work.

"Garbage"? So the WTC top was made out of banana peels and moldy tangerines? No wonder it collapsed!

th, Dr. Bazant's paper assumes that the top block is a monolithic object. I forgot to comment on the verinage. No conflict with Newton's third there--while the top nibbles on the bottom the bottom nibbles on the top and they reach the ground at the same time.

"Nibbles"? Brian, was the WTC made out of gerbils stacked on top of each other? No wonder it collapsed!

M Gwegowy Fawwis, (what does the M stand for? Must be weawwy weawwy bad if YOU are ashamed of it) the egg model has nothing to do with airplane impact.

It has nothing to do with the WTC at all. If you weren't such a liar and lunatic and sex stalker, you'd see that.

But I'm not surprised that someone who thinks you can scale up from a ten-story elevator job to a 2000-story elevator job should get confused on that point.

Brian, you're babbling like this when you have yet to present a shred of evidence against the attack baboons and micro-nukes theory.

 
At 28 December, 2010 18:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

See this is why Bwian is so hillarious. The key to understanding the WTC collaspe IS that pesky 757 impact.

It is what smart people call the trigger incident. Everything else that happened that day stems from the impact of the two aircraft.

Any experiment to illustrate the collapse of each tower MUST inculde the impact damage or take that into account. It's like explaining the Titanic without the iceberg, the Hindenberg without the fire,or the Johnstown Flood without the water.

The dumbass doesn't explain why the WTC didn't collapse after the 1993, and if you can explain 9/11/2001 with a couple of eggs then 1993 should also apply too.

If a giant yoke is involved then this explains that shipment of attack baboons to one Colonel Sanders.

 
At 28 December, 2010 18:26, Blogger paul w said...

Given that there were 15 miles of elevator shafts, there was no need for any strangers to attach themselves to the elevator crews.

Expert of elevator operations.
Check

Like there's no way the collapse could be anything other than total or symmetrical.

Collapse expert.
check.

James B, if you built an egg the size of a building, you would need to increase the wall thickness rather than just scale it up, and it's likely that tensile elements would be necessary in its shell, but it could be done.

Engineering expert.
Check.

DK, the mass didn't go anywhere. That's beside the point. Dr. Bazant's analysis requires the top block to behave as a rigid body. That's why it's called the piledriver thoery. If it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work.

Expert on mass, Newton's Third Law, etc.
Check.

There was ample opportunity to place explosive or incendiary devices in or around the core columns of the towers.

Expert on laying demotion charges, both commercial and covert.
Check.

Elevator maintenance involving the doors takes place throughout the hoistway. Shimming and straightening hoist rails would take place throughout the shaft.

Expert on elevator maintenance.
Check.

Etc.

Brian sounds like every other truther; an expert in so many areas.

I hope they're not just using Google to sound authentic.

Surely not?

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mywon Gwegowy Fawwis, Dr. Bazant's analysis also leaves out the airplane impact. Doesn't that bother you just a little?

The 1993 bomb didn't bring the building down because it wasn't close enough to the columns. I don't know that it could have brought the building down even if it were closer. It was only one bomb, after all.

paul w, I don't have to be expert in any of those areas to bring up certain very obvious and elementary observations about them.

So what's your point? We're all too dumb to understand these things, and we should just let the guys from the government tell us what's what, no matter what, no matter how ridiculous it is? Is that the kind of world you want to leave for the young ones?

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Mywon Gwegowy Fawwis, Dr. Bazant's analysis also leaves out the airplane impact. Doesn't that bother you just a little?

Why should it bother anyone? It's like leaving gravity out of an explanation of what causes something to fall. It's self-evident.

paul w, I don't have to be expert in any of those areas to bring up certain very obvious and elementary observations about them.

True, and the fact that you don't understand even the most basics of these subjects explains why you're an unemployed janitor who babbles about nothing on the internet all day.

So what's your point? We're all too dumb to understand these things, and we should just let the guys from the government tell us what's what, no matter what, no matter how ridiculous it is? Is that the kind of world you want to leave for the young ones?

No, it's that you're too dumb to understand this stuff, and busy people in the fields of engineering and physics aren't going to waste their time addressing the concerns of a babbling lunatic and liar from a fringe conspiracy group.

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

M Gregory Ferris, just a small point, it was 767s that hit the WTC. They're significantly bigger than 757s and thus caused more damage. AA 77 and UA 93 were 757s.

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:31, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, the mass didn't go anywhere. That's beside the point. Dr. Bazant's analysis requires the top block to behave as a rigid body. That's why it's called the piledriver thoery. If it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work.

And this is why your are an idiot. And why you will never get it. You lack the necessary brain power to understand which to bright people is so simple a concept. This is why you will never be anything but a janitor with delusions you have an IQ above room temperature.

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"So what's your point? We're all too dumb to understand these things,"

In your case that is sad but true. Face it Brian your obvious mental handicap will always make you an inferior person in any discussion. You are the sad retarded guy you run into from time to time, except most retards know when they are to stay in their place.

If you were even remotely smarter than a 12 year old you would not be the failure in life you are now, a 56 years old sometime janitor reduced to living with your mom because you can't even care for yourself.

Your only value in life is an example of the low life nature of truthers.

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:47, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Is that the kind of world you want to leave for the young ones?

Don't worry about it Brian, No woman is going to take the risk of swimming in YOUR gene pool. Evolution has a way of driving females away from men like you, They don't want to end up like your mom.

 
At 28 December, 2010 20:59, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"If it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work."

Hey Idiot, an avalanche is just a bunch of snow, but because it has mass it can wipe towns right off the sides of mountains, Mud slides are just dirt and water. Tidal waves are only water. If you don't get the power of mass at that scale, you never will.

Stick to the mop and bucket thing.

 
At 28 December, 2010 21:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, is it too much too ask that you address Dr. Bazant's paper in your remarks instead of your imaginings about my alleged intellectual deficits?

DK, if it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work. That's why Dr. Bazant had to invent the fiction that it was a monolithic piledriver leaping 3 meters to sucker punch the poor unaware defenseless structure below.

The avalanche and the mudslide have a lot of slope to accelerate on. Bazant's freefall acceleration is a fiction--a necessary fiction to explain how a local, partial, and asymmetrical collapse became symmetrical, total, and near-freefall. But still a fiction.

 
At 28 December, 2010 21:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

767...flying fingers do me in again.

Unless they were 757s disguised as 767s...attack baboons are crafty that way.

 
At 29 December, 2010 01:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see you guys are a lot more conversant in attack baboons than in Newton's laws (elementary school physics). I remember being instructed in Newton's third law before I knew how to tie my shoes.

 
At 29 December, 2010 01:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, and you still can't tie your shoes, let alone understand elementary physics.

 
At 29 December, 2010 02:23, Blogger paul w said...

"I remember being instructed in Newton's third law before I knew how to tie my shoes."

Luxury!

At that age, I had to do a paper on analytical mathematics before breakfast.

 
At 29 December, 2010 04:41, Blogger Triterope said...

I had to do two papers on analytical mathematics, with no calculator and only a lump of coal to write with, before breakfast. If I was lucky!

 
At 29 December, 2010 05:44, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"James B, if you built an egg the size of a building, you would need to increase the wall thickness rather than just scale it up"

Dear Boron,

You're a fucking moron.

Yours,
The Universe

 
At 29 December, 2010 05:46, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

Dear Brian,

"We're all too dumb to understand these things"

No, Boron, ot's just you.

Yours,

The Universe

 
At 29 December, 2010 06:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, if it's just a bunch of garbage it doesn't work. That's why Dr. Bazant had to invent the fiction that it was a monolithic piledriver leaping 3 meters to sucker punch the poor unaware defenseless structure below.

Geez, Brian, I can't imagine why you're an unemployed janitor and not an engineering PhD. You seem to have such a good grasp of physics....

The avalanche and the mudslide have a lot of slope to accelerate on. Bazant's freefall acceleration is a fiction--a necessary fiction to explain how a local, partial, and asymmetrical collapse became symmetrical, total, and near-freefall. But still a fiction.

I'm so glad that a failed janitor and delusional liar is here to lecture us on the deficiencies in Bazant's paper. What do you need the academic community for when sex stalkers who used to mop floors for a living know better than they do?

I see you guys are a lot more conversant in attack baboons than in Newton's laws (elementary school physics).

Brian, you were supposed to call us "girls", not "guys". Work on that next time, OK?

I remember being instructed in Newton's third law before I knew how to tie my shoes.

What did I say about being a delusional liar? Brian, I still don't know if you actually believe your hilarious lies, or if you expect us to believe them. Either way, it suggests a need for serious psychiatric treatment.

 
At 29 December, 2010 07:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Comedy from egg-boy... after I posted a YouTube comment questioning his loyalty to the Truth movement because he accepts money from the US government and military, he had this to say:

Just because I have worked on contract for the Government and Military, does not mean I don't oppose their infiltration by criminals who would kill people to get us in to war.

I don't want to hurt the Truth movement. My intention was to show a simple experiment anyone can do, to cast doubt on Bazant's theory. ...

Sorry I have to delete your comment because I don't want my name exposed so much, for personal safety. ... We are dealing with people who have killed before.


Yeah, he's really taken steps to safeguard his identity.

You may notice that "cicorp" is also the name of the guy who recently asked the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation for a grant.

 
At 29 December, 2010 08:46, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I see you guys are a lot more conversant in attack baboons than in Newton's laws (elementary school physics). I remember being instructed in Newton's third law before I knew how to tie my shoes."

Yep, and it didn't take then, and still hasn’t.

So Einstein, we are still waiting to hear how a big ship can not turn around.

 
At 29 December, 2010 09:31, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

RE: Eggboy
I tried to post to his "9/11 Experiment: Cell phone does not work from jet at cruising altitude" and was told "You have been blocked by the owner of this video"

There were no comments but a space to make a comment.

Posting under a different name worked just fine

There were no comments but a space to make a comment.

By the way under schools he post
Maharishi University of Management: which calls itself "Consciousness-Based Education"

Guess REAL education was too hard for him.

 
At 29 December, 2010 10:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never had any reason to want to be an engineering PhD is the short answer. Why aren't you an engineering PhD?

I was instructed in Newton's third law in nursery school. It was a simple demonstration involving colliding chairs on a fresh-waxed floor. Action and equal-and-opposite reaction. You guys who scoff obviously don't understand how simple the third law is, and you couldn't even recognize it at work in the egg-drop experiment or in the verinage demo technique. So your arguments of incredulous credulity about the destruction of the towers are without credibility.

DK, I'm sorry you are too dense to recognize satire when you see it, but blame the paint fumes, not me.

 
At 29 December, 2010 10:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I never had any reason to want to be an engineering PhD is the short answer.

Don't forget that you're too stupid to be an engineering PhD.

Why aren't you an engineering PhD?

Because the math was too tough. See Brian, I admit it when I know I'm not capable of handling an academic exercise. I don't babble about being able to do differential calculus before I was toilet trained.

I was instructed in Newton's third law in nursery school.

See? I don't post bullshit like this.

It was a simple demonstration involving colliding chairs on a fresh-waxed floor. Action and equal-and-opposite reaction.

And you still don't understand how it works, apparently.

So your arguments of incredulous credulity about the destruction of the towers are without credibility.

Nobody cares what an ignorant liar and lunatic like you thinks.

DK, I'm sorry you are too dense to recognize satire when you see it, but blame the paint fumes, not me.

Seek professional help.

 
At 29 December, 2010 10:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I have had ample demonstration in my life that I am not too stupid to be an engineering PhD.

For you to equate Newton's third law--Sesame Street stuff--with differentiation only shows your ignorance. Maybe if you worked on your ignorance (like took a few online junior college courses) your inferiority complex wouldn't run your life such that you have to spend so much time fantasizing about people you imagine to be your inferiors.

 
At 29 December, 2010 11:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I have had ample demonstration in my life that I am not too stupid to be an engineering PhD.

To whom? Most people here see a failed janitor who doesn't understand the first thing about physics or engineering.

For you to equate Newton's third law--Sesame Street stuff--with differentiation only shows your ignorance.

I didn't, I just pointed out that you're a deranged liar.

Maybe if you worked on your ignorance (like took a few online junior college courses) your inferiority complex wouldn't run your life such that you have to spend so much time fantasizing about people you imagine to be your inferiors.

Brian, I can probably get you a job sweeping the floor at some of the companies I consult with. You'd have to move out of your parents place and to Kentucky, Indiana, or Ohio, if that's OK.

I don't consider you an inferior. I consider you someone in desperate need of help.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, "most people here" see what they want to through a combination of invented data points, faulty logic (especially circular reasoning and false dichotomies), unjustified inferences, and misplaced faith in authority.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:17, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, I'm sorry you are too dense to recognize satire when you see it, but blame the paint fumes, not me.

Well Brian, it is not like you are not stupid enough to believe such stuff.

Remember it was me who had to school you on the issues of scaling, and now you act as if you knew it all along.

It really burns you Brian that I am a better person in every way that you will ever be.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, "most people here" see what they want to through a combination of invented data points, faulty logic (especially circular reasoning and false dichotomies), unjustified inferences, and misplaced faith in authority.

False. Most people here see a liar and lunatic with a desperate, religious need for his 9/11 fantasies to be true in order to give meaning to his empty life.

I'm sorry if that hurts, petgoat, but it's why I keep telling you to seek professional help.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, when I was instructed in scaling when I was seven years old. I was, after all, the one who pointed out that a giant egg would require non-linear scaling of the shell thickness, and probably tensile reinforcement as well.

The day you have to school me in anything I'd better just just up.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:34, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I don't consider you an inferior. I consider you someone in desperate need of help.

But Ian, Brian IS inferior, that is what bugs him so much and why he latch onto the inferior people in the 9/11 truth thing. It's not a politically corrects thing to say but yes, some people do not have the intellectual cognitive power that others have. And some like Brian are in the area of abilities that border on the retarded.

You will note he often makes reference to things he learned as a child, as if that is important. Everyone learned that stuff, but for poor old Brian it's important because that is as far as it went. He had the mind of a child, a mind that would only allow him to make it as far as janitor and no further. That alone is proof of his inferior mental state. An idiot job, for an idiot.

You can't even insult the poor sod, a bright person would at least return the insult with something clever, but he is devoid of the sense of humor intelligent people have. And no doubt he has had to endure lots of insults.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:38, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, when I was instructed in scaling when I was seven years old. I was, after all, the one who pointed out that a giant egg would require non-linear scaling of the shell thickness, and probably tensile reinforcement as well.

Brian I schooled you on this when you were so impressed by BoxBoys cardboard box nonsense. You were clueless then and are still clueless, and yes, just like when you were seven. That is not saying much.

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Brian, is it not true that you are what people call, "Simple" as not to hurt your feelings.

That people in the truther movement realized having an obvious "Simple" guy like you in their group embarrassing?

 
At 29 December, 2010 12:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, obviously everybody DIDN'T learn that Sesame Street stuff because here you are ridiculing a perfectly good experiment illustrating Newton's Third Law and ridiculing me for showing some knowledge of the problems of scaling.

Gage's box experiment is not nonsense, and your belief that it has something to do with scaling is ridiculous and ignorant. The boxes are to illustrate conservation of energy--a very simple concept that seems to escape you.

 
At 29 December, 2010 13:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, when I was instructed in scaling when I was seven years old.

Another thing that makes you so entertaining is how hilarious your lies are. You don't even try to make them sound plausible.

DK, obviously everybody DIDN'T learn that Sesame Street stuff because here you are ridiculing a perfectly good experiment illustrating Newton's Third Law and ridiculing me for showing some knowledge of the problems of scaling.

No, we're ridiculing the egg dude and you because you think you're being profound and clever when you're really too stupid to understand the concepts you babble about.

I mean, I can make a video demonstrating how neutrinos don't exist by throwing a tennis ball on the ground, but it wouldn't demonstrate anything other than my own idiocy if I did that.

Gage's box experiment is not nonsense, and your belief that it has something to do with scaling is ridiculous and ignorant.

And the fact that you believe this shows why you're a failed janitor, Gage is a failed architect, and truthers are a failed movement.

 
At 29 December, 2010 13:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

me for showing some knowledge of the problems of scaling.

That you got from me when you didn't know shit. And clear you know nothing of Newtons Laws. to a retard like you it's just words that you THINK makes you sound smart. Trouble is you will never be smart enough to understand the issues.

So grab your mop and do something you can do.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm sorry your educational background was so impoverished. Apparently yours doesn't scale linearly to mine and maybe you should just recognize that. Yes, I had scaling at seven. Why giant ants are impossible. It ain't rocket science.

And by acting as if Newton's 3rd Law is not profound, you're only showing your ignorance.

Dave, you have yet to teach me anything. You're just a run-of-the-mill example of someone overly impressed with his own mediocre mind. The rust belt is full of them--which is why it's the rust belt.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I'm sorry your educational background was so impoverished. Apparently yours doesn't scale linearly to mine and maybe you should just recognize that. Yes, I had scaling at seven. Why giant ants are impossible. It ain't rocket science.

And yet despite this amazing education of yours and your precociousness, you're an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and spends all day on the internet calling people "girls" as an insult. Hmmm....

And by acting as if Newton's 3rd Law is not profound, you're only showing your ignorance.

Who said anything about Newton's 3rd Law? I'm just pointing out how little you and Gage and Egg Dude understand it.

Brian, you could enroll a colobus monkey at MIT and claim it received a superior education, but that doesn't mean it actually learned anything. You can babble all you want about your amazing education. It's obvious you learned nothing in school.

Dave, you have yet to teach me anything. You're just a run-of-the-mill example of someone overly impressed with his own mediocre mind. The rust belt is full of them--which is why it's the rust belt.

The "rust belt"? Brian, please stop babbling about terms you don't understand in the least.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Again, it astonishes me how much Brian is just overflowing with anger and resentment and bitterness towards a world that just won't recognize his unparalleled genius and has consigned him to a life of failure.

At the risk of godwining this thread, if the internet had existed in 1910 Vienna, I could picture Hitler babbling on art message boards about how much more talented he was than the "girls" who mocked him and his delusions much the same way Brian has been babbling away here for damn near two years.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am not now and have never been an unemployed janitor.

Willie Rodriguez, on the other hand, is an unemployed janitor. His federal court lawsuit claimed that when the towers fell, he lost his livelihood--as if he couldn't take a bit of training and upgrade his skills from picking up cigarette butts and used condoms in the stairwell to shining up sinks and mirrors and faucets like respectable janitors do.

 
At 29 December, 2010 14:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I am not now and have never been an unemployed janitor.

False.

Willie Rodriguez, on the other hand, is an unemployed janitor. His federal court lawsuit claimed that when the towers fell, he lost his livelihood--as if he couldn't take a bit of training and upgrade his skills from picking up cigarette butts and used condoms in the stairwell to shining up sinks and mirrors and faucets like respectable janitors do.

Nobody cares about your sexual infatuation with this man.

 
At 29 December, 2010 15:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, that your preoccupation with my educational status and your blatant projection upon me of your own sexual obsessions are not embarrassing to you is only a measure of your ignorance.

The topic of the thread is an experiment that is a clear demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law--which is pertinent to the thesis in Dr. Bazant's paper, which I am quite confident none of you have read.

That you choose to mistake the map (eggs) for the territory (the laws of physics) and prefer gossip to science is a damning illustration of the state of debunking culture.

 
At 29 December, 2010 15:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 December, 2010 15:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug whines, "...That you choose to mistake the map (eggs) for the territory (the laws of physics) and prefer gossip to science is a damning illustration of the state of debunking culture."

Tell us about it, Mr. Meatball on a fork.

 
At 29 December, 2010 15:39, Blogger Triterope said...

Ian, I have had ample demonstration in my life that I am not too stupid to be an engineering PhD.

http://www.imdb.com/character/ch0029626/quotes

 
At 29 December, 2010 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, there's no point in trying to tell you anything until you get your colon clean enough to clear out your ears.

 
At 29 December, 2010 16:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, Pet Goat, are you angry because I have a real education?

You seem to have mistaken a sharp tongue for a keen mind.

 
At 29 December, 2010 18:01, Blogger 911TNLZ said...

Don't just sit there...DO SOMETHING. JOIN THE LLOYDE ENGLAND FLAGGING PARTY! DON'T LET US TWOOFERS OUT FLAG YOU LOL!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeR_KoXOXZ8

 
At 29 December, 2010 19:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, that your preoccupation with my educational status and your blatant projection upon me of your own sexual obsessions are not embarrassing to you is only a measure of your ignorance.

I'm really bothering you by mentioning this stuff, huh Brian?

The topic of the thread is an experiment that is a clear demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law

Nobody cares.

which is pertinent to the thesis in Dr. Bazant's paper,

False.

which I am quite confident none of you have read.

False.

That you choose to mistake the map (eggs) for the territory (the laws of physics) and prefer gossip to science is a damning illustration of the state of debunking culture.

There is no "debunking culture". There are a small group of people laughing at the delusional babblings of a failed janitor and sex stalker.

GutterBall, there's no point in trying to tell you anything until you get your colon clean enough to clear out your ears.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 29 December, 2010 19:42, Blogger Triterope said...

That you choose to mistake the map (eggs) for the territory (the laws of physics)

Brian, the map has to actually resemble the territory in some way. That's the entire joke of this thread -- one that's sailed over your head, as usual.

 
At 29 December, 2010 20:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, what you guys don't get is that the eggs are subject to the same laws of physics as the towers. Thus your snickering about eggs is just stupid.

 
At 29 December, 2010 20:19, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 December, 2010 20:35, Blogger Triterope said...

eggs are subject to the same laws of physics as the towers.

Yes, that's true. It's also completely fucking meaningless.

 
At 29 December, 2010 20:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

No it's not meaningless. If you would bother to read Dr. Bazant's paper you would see that Newton's 3rd Law explains why his mechanism can not work.

The eggs are about Newton's 3rd, and Bazant is about very brainy and superficially plausible rationalizations for ignoring it.

 
At 29 December, 2010 21:14, Blogger Ian G. said...

No it's not meaningless. If you would bother to read Dr. Bazant's paper you would see that Newton's 3rd Law explains why his mechanism can not work.

Brian, you should probably give this up. You're not demonstrating anything other than your utter inability to understand physics.

The eggs are about Newton's 3rd, and Bazant is about very brainy and superficially plausible rationalizations for ignoring it.

Brian, would you mind explaining Newton's 3rd Law to us, as you understand it?

 
At 29 December, 2010 21:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. As the "piledriver" nibbles away at the building, the building nibbles the piledriver--and more so, because the lower structure is necessarily built more robustly than the lighter upper structure is.

 
At 29 December, 2010 22:30, Blogger James B. said...

Oh give me a break. The eggs demonstrate nothing. This is like taking two matchbook cars, running them together, and then claiming that proves that it is "impossible for a car to get damaged in a head on collision, because of the physical concept conservation of momentum".

 
At 29 December, 2010 23:01, Blogger Pat said...

What a yolk.

 
At 29 December, 2010 23:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Whatever you say, guys.

 
At 30 December, 2010 02:00, Blogger truth hurts said...

@snug.bug:
the pile driver theory is used in verinage demolitions.

according to your version of newtons 3th law, those type of demolitions are impossible.

 
At 30 December, 2010 05:03, Blogger Triterope said...

If you would bother to read Dr. Bazant's paper you would see that Newton's 3rd Law explains why his mechanism can not work.

I read Dr. Bazant's paper. The word "egg" does not appear in it anywhere.

 
At 30 December, 2010 07:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

OK, so you know this part.

As the "piledriver" nibbles away at the building, the building nibbles the piledriver--and more so, because the lower structure is necessarily built more robustly than the lighter upper structure is.

Um.....no. Go back to high school, try not to sniff glue this time, and try again.

Whatever you say, guys.

Exactly. We're the ones with reality on our side, you're the one in a lunatic fringe group that can't get any of its goals accomplished, remember?

 
At 30 December, 2010 07:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

Basically, what it comes down to with Brian is that he just can't believe the WTC could have collapsed they way they did. It just looked to weird to him. All those years of mopping floors and emptying trash cans gave him the expertise to judge whether the buildings should have collapsed like they did. That, and a lot of nights watching Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay movies while smoking grass.

 
At 30 December, 2010 07:39, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

truth hurts"like the verinage demolition you obviously didn't look up on youtube shows how Bazant his theory works."
There is no similarity. It appears that 1/2 of something can crush down the remaining 1/2. I don't recall anyone denying that. It is the 1/10 of something crushing down the remaining 9/10 at free fall acceleration that is the problem.
Secondly, in that video there is a JOLT measured when part A meets part B. That is what is missing in the 9/11 collapses. By the way both sections disintegrate simultaneously. No need for "crush up" to wait for the completion of "crush down"!You fail!

Frank Greening, "Newton’s 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself."
http://the911forum.freeforums.org/newton-s-3rd-law-and-the-collapse-of-wtc-1-t153.html

Yep, physics suspended on 9/11 for the official theory to be true from the co-author of the error riddled Bazant paper.
More nutbar examples from an OSer to try to explain the collapse...no eggs needed-
From Mr. Greening,
"I place a concrete block on a tall cardboard box...."
An "analogy would be a tower made out of wooden dominoes weakly glued together at each end."

Even the official story co-author needs to use ridiculous examples to explain himself.

 
At 30 December, 2010 08:03, Blogger Ian G. said...

Shorter mask boy: I can't believe the towers collapsed the way they did. All those nights of watching "V for Vendetta" while masturbating make me an expert on building collapses.

 
At 30 December, 2010 08:32, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

IanG

Thanks for the response, Ian. I almost forgot that debunkers ALWAYS resort to ad-hom childish remarks when confronted with a factual brick that shatters their glass reality.

Now Ian, as you seem to be focused on other men masturbating, why not get out of that middle school mind set and go find other examples where Newton's 3rd Law is suspended!!

 
At 30 December, 2010 08:38, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

IanGExactly. We're the ones with reality on our side..."

Yeah reality where the 3rd Law of Newton is suspended. Which reality is that, Ian?
Stop focusing on other men masturbating and explain this reality that you have on your side!

 
At 30 December, 2010 09:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

shorter mask boy: I failed high school physics because instead of studying for the final, I was masturbating while watching "V for Vendetta".

 
At 30 December, 2010 09:24, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"As the "piledriver" nibbles away at the building, the building nibbles the piledriver--and more so, because the lower structure is necessarily built more robustly than the lighter upper structure is."

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

 
At 30 December, 2010 09:26, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"It appears that 1/2 of something can crush down the remaining 1/2. I don't recall anyone denying that. It is the 1/10 of something crushing down the remaining 9/10 at free fall acceleration that is the problem.
Secondly, in that video there is a JOLT measured when part A meets part B. That is what is missing in the 9/11 collapses. By the way both sections disintegrate simultaneously. No need for "crush up" to wait for the completion of "crush down"!You fail!"

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

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

th, my version of Newton's 3rd is no different from Newton's. Obviously verinage is possible. Only an Ace Baker would try to deny it. Of course using a concrete structure helps. Steel structures absorb a lot of energy in springy reactions--particularly when the lower structure has so much more mass than the upper one does. Also, verinage requires simultaneous symmetrical failure of all the columns on a floor--something difficult to achieve from asymmetrical fires. Another issue is that there was no pile driver-- video of the north tower clearly shows the top "block" coming apart before it even begins to impinge on the lower structure.

Ian, basically it comes down to NIST not even trying to convince us that their version of reality is true. They throw 10,000 pages of bullshit at us and they dodge all the important questions, and you have to ask yourself why honest scientists would behave that way. I never heard of Emmerich or Bay and I don't smoke grass. You certainly do like to fantasize about me.

Good points, TMW, about the missing jolt, the presence of the jolt in the verinage, and the issue of 1/10 of the structure taking down the other 90% (and actually since the top columns have less than 7% of the mass of the bottom columns, a mass-based characterization would be even more dramatically skewed).

These guys need to go to David Chandler High School for some physics lessons.

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Re: top columns and bottom, I'm simply comparing the 1/4"-wall columns to the 4"-wall columns, not the entire upper structure to the entire lower structure.

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It appears that 1/2 of something can crush down the remaining 1/2. I don't recall anyone denying that. It is the 1/10 of something crushing down the remaining 9/10 at free fall acceleration that is the problem.

Where is the threshold at which it becomes impossible for the top to crush the bottom? Is it where the top is 49%?

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"I was instructed in Newton's third law in nursery school."

Holy shit! No way! Impossible!

Actually that's the most moronic sentence in the history of man kind. WTG Brian, for being that moron!

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, basically it comes down to NIST not even trying to convince us that their version of reality is true. They throw 10,000 pages of bullshit at us and they dodge all the important questions, and you have to ask yourself why honest scientists would behave that way.

Who is "us", Brian? You're the only one babbling about the "dishonesty" of NIST, and you're a deranged lunatic.

I never heard of Emmerich or Bay

Jesus, Brian, do you EVER leave your parents' basement? Emmerich and Bay are hacks that make shitty movies (OK, "The Rock" and "Independence Day" were fine) but I know who they are.

I don't smoke grass.

Maybe you should. At very least, it will make you less of an obsessed liar.

These guys need to go to David Chandler High School for some physics lessons.

Says the failed janitor who lives with his parents at age 58 and calls people "girls" on the internet all day.

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:47, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Brian,

You come at us without any evidence, so in reaction to your failure, the opposite reaction is for us to show you the evidence which we have.

So there you have it stupid!

 
At 30 December, 2010 10:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, thanks for raising an intelligent point. I've been saying for a long time that's the essential question.

Obviously by the time the collapse gets to floor 50 the lower structure is unable to resist the crushing force of accumulated debris and total progressive collapse is inevitable.

The question is, when is this state reached? Bazant short-circuits the process by imagining that on one entire floor all the columns are simultaneously vaporized and the entire top structure falls 3 meters and sucker-punches the lower structure in perfect registration--every upper column slamming down on every lower column and then total (and symmetrical) progressive collapse is inevitable. And that's where NIST stops their report.

Obviously what really happened is a lot more complicated and that's where the question is--how does a partial, local, asymmetrical collapse involving maybe a few floors on one side of the building become symmetrical and total? At what point is the total collapse truly inevitable? NIST finds it convenient to assume that ANY collapse makes total collapse inevitable. Thinking people aren't buyimg it.

Thanks again, RGT. (And thanks to these other ankle-biters for their self-revealing comments.)

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

The question is, when is this state reached? Bazant short-circuits the process by imagining that on one entire floor all the columns are simultaneously vaporized and the entire top structure falls 3 meters and sucker-punches the lower structure in perfect registration--every upper column slamming down on every lower column and then total (and symmetrical) progressive collapse is inevitable. And that's where NIST stops their report.

Again, this kind of gibberish demonstrates nothing but your complete and utter ignorance of anything related to the collapse, Brian. You can babble all you want about NIST, but you can't expect sane people to take you seriously when you write this stuff.

Thinking people aren't buyimg it.

False. YOU aren't buying it, because you're ignorant and insane.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you understood the report you are defending you would see that what you call gibberish is a cogent characterization of what the report says. If there's any part of that statement you don't understand, please point it out to me and I will explain it.

So as AE911Truth counts its 1400th credentialed signator, how come you guys still can't come up with even one independent supporter of the NIST report?

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:13, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I think Brian should give up about the NIST arguement. He's not getting any where near the truth of how the Towers actually fell.

I've got a question for Brian:

250,000 tons of mass is coming down on you, do you think you'd be able to stop the mass from completely destroying the structure you're standing in?


Yes or No, Brian?! Don't give me a long winded excuse why you won't answer the question.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if you understood the report you are defending you would see that what you call gibberish is a cogent characterization of what the report says. If there's any part of that statement you don't understand, please point it out to me and I will explain it.

More delusional babbling from a failed janitor and sex stalker.

So as AE911Truth counts its 1400th credentialed signator, how come you guys still can't come up with even one independent supporter of the NIST report?

I named Uncle Steve. You fail again, petgoat. Also, nobody cares about Gage's group.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian is deranged.

In fact, he was given a perfectly viable gravitational collapse model that explains the overwhelming forces behind collapse, and all he can do is lie, obfuscate and dance around like a fairy in heat and squeal like a recalcitrant child.

You have to laugh when confronted with a trailer park-educated degenerate who prattles on about Newton's third law while completely ignoring gravitational theory.

Don't you have a goat to molest, Brian?

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, 250,000 tons is half the mass of the entire complex, so your question is meaningless.

Ian, your Uncle Steve has not publicly endorsed the NIST report, nor has he provided his credentials so I can check his independence.

GutterBall, there is no official collapse model. That's the problem. All they have is a collapse initiation model. They completely dodge the obligation to present a collapse model. That's why we need further investigations.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, 250,000 tons is half the mass of the entire complex, so your question is meaningless."

Dodge noted Brian!

Not only can't you stop the 250,000 tons, but you can't stop it from destroying the entire building.

See Brian, gravity wins in the end. No explosives are required!

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh and GutterBall, no I don't have a goat and I wouldn't leave it alone with you for even a minute if I did.

If you pay me $500 I can get you some nice rats and you can molest them all you want.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"That's why we need further investigations."

No, we don't Brian!

Perhaps we should investigate your psychological background first, before moving onto bigger things.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, your question is meaningless. As I already stipulated in the discussion with RGT, by the time you get 1/3 of the mass moving the total collapse is inevitable. Your hypothetical involves more than 1/2 of the entire complex in motion. It has no point.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The structural engineers gave you a collapse mechanism, which was defined in the NIST Report.

We also know the upper section of the building slammed into the lower section with a force that was 30X (times) the static weight of the upper section. And that's why the total collapse of the building was inevitable--because every floor that met the upper section added more dynamic force. In other words, as each floor is crushed by the upper section, the dynamic force increases in a cumulative fashion.

Continued...

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your Uncle Steve has not publicly endorsed the NIST report, nor has he provided his credentials so I can check his independence.

False. You just don't know how to google.

You lose again, petgoat.

All they have is a collapse initiation model. They completely dodge the obligation to present a collapse model.

It's called "gravity". Learn to google, petgoat.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

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

End of story.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Your hypothetical involves more than 1/2 of the entire complex in motion. It has no point."

Brian,

According to the actual weight of 1 of the towers, it's estimated at 1,000,000 tons. 250,000 tons is only 1/4th of the weight of the building. You're not only exaggerating the true weight of the building, but you're also lying.

So it's not "pointless". Also you're not a structural engineer. You're just a lonely unemployed janitor who life is utterly pointless right now.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, that collapse mechanism was not quantified mathematically. It did not allow for the fact that rattling the debris around would consume much of the kinetic energy, nor allow for the fact that pulverizing the concrete, tearing, twisting and crushing the steel, and breaking structural connections would consume energy.

Ian, if you accept "gravity" as a collapse model, then I expect you to expect "fatality" as a coroner's finding of cause of death.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

As each floor crashed through the next floor the accelerations were indeed brief, on the order of a millisecond each; however, at least 30 G's per each subsequent acceleration. As a result, this is more than enough energy to demolish the towers.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, where do you get your figures? There was 100,000 tons of steel and 80,000 tons of concrete floors in each tower. The rest was ancillary buildings and foundations and the office contents.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"that collapse mechanism was not quantified mathematically."

Brian,

I've asked one of your classmates who knows you, they said that you sucked at mathematics.

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Brian, pretend that the laws of gravity and conservation of mass don't exist.

Who do you think you're fooling, Pinocchio?

 
At 30 December, 2010 11:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, GutterBall, the proposed collapse mechanism requires the piledriver to remain intact all the way down. But as we see in WTC1, it came apart before the lower structure began to fail.

There was no model. Just a ludicrous, impossible, counterfactual, evidence-free, handwaving rationalization.

 
At 30 December, 2010 12:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, where do you get your figures?"

"No Brians" Brian,

Off the internet, duh!

It's not that hard to figure out that the planes impacts & the weight on top of the impacts had something to do with the collapses.

Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

 
At 30 December, 2010 12:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Also, GutterBall, the proposed collapse mechanism requires the piledriver [SIC] to remain intact all the way down."

A blatant, bald-faced lie.

Try again, goat molester.

 
At 30 December, 2010 12:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, that collapse mechanism was not quantified mathematically.

Google "gravitational constant" petgoat, and you'll get a mathematical expression of gravity.

Ian, if you accept "gravity" as a collapse model, then I expect you to expect "fatality" as a coroner's finding of cause of death.

False. Gravity caused the collapse. Death did not cause a death. Learn what analogies are.

Also, GutterBall, the proposed collapse mechanism requires the piledriver to remain intact all the way down. But as we see in WTC1, it came apart before the lower structure began to fail.

This reminds me of that old Yogi Berra anecdote: "Yogi, do you want your pizza cut into quarters or eighths?" "Quarters, I couldn't eat eight slices."

There was no model. Just a ludicrous, impossible, counterfactual, evidence-free, handwaving rationalization.

It's called gravity, petgoat. Learn to google.

 
At 30 December, 2010 12:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Isn't it about that time of day where Brian calls us "girls"? I can see he's starting to lose his composure.

 
At 30 December, 2010 12:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Since the planes impacted both towers, the equilibrium of the structure was comprimised.

Brian doesn't know what the definition of equilibrium is.

 
At 30 December, 2010 13:28, Blogger Triterope said...

My word verification is "babling."

That's all I really wanted to say.

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, even if it were true that I suck at math (and it's not) that has nothing to do with the fact that NIST did not model the collapse mathematically.

So you get your figures "off the internet"? That's real smart of you. Do you get your lunch "off the sidewalk" too, drink your water out of the gutter? Why not ask Ian's Uncle Steve?



GutterBall, when did I pretend that the laws of gravity and conservation of mass do not exist? What does CoM have to do with anything? Are you just babbling sciency stuff to try to sound smart?

If you had read Dr. Bazant's paper you would know that his mechanism requires the top bloxck to remain intact all the way down.

Ian, gravity does not cause collapses. That's just the point. Structural failure causes collapses, and it does so under certain physical laws.

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, even if it were true that I suck at math (and it's not) that has nothing to do with the fact that NIST did not model the collapse mathematically."

Brian,

The Titanic sank because mathematics worked against it. The break-up of the ship was also mathematics. You know shit about mathematics!

"So you get your figures "off the internet"? That's real smart of you. Do you get your lunch "off the sidewalk" too, drink your water out of the gutter? Why not ask Ian's Uncle Steve?

Awe, did I hit a nerve Brian? If you were any smarter, you'd have a job in a school giving mathematic equations to students instead of being an unemployed janitor.

God, your life must suck!

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:13, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQ, even if it were true that I suck at math (and it's not) that has nothing to do with the fact that NIST did not model the collapse mathematically.

Who cares if they modeled the collapse mathematically? The building collapsed, we know why.

GutterBall, when did I pretend that the laws of gravity and conservation of mass do not exist?

When you babble about the pile driver.

Are you just babbling sciency stuff to try to sound smart?

No, that's what you do. That, and your howlers about how you were doing integral calculus when you were in kindergarten.

Ian, gravity does not cause collapses.

Gravity does not cause things to fall?

Structural failure causes collapses, and it does so under certain physical laws.

The laws of physics were violated?

I guess you missed how airplanes crashed into the towers and caused massive fires. You'd know about this if you'd learn to google.

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:15, Blogger paul w said...

"Collapse Mechanism"

Just wanted to say it.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, but when I say it, I feel so... hmmm....how to explain...important.

Yes, important.

And, clever.

Collapse Mechanism.

Hmmm...does it work for you?

It works for me.

You know, I love it when my truther buddies and I talk about the collapse mechanism.

I don't know, it just feels so... right.

Why not? We're adults, we can say any word we want, like 'Newtons Third Law', 'physics' and...I really like this...'progressive collapse'.

That's my personal favorite.

I just wish some girls could listen to us talk. I know they'd be so impressed.

And excited.

I know I am.

Hey, Brian and The Masked Writer, why don't we meet, and...talk.

No pressure, we can just relax, get to know each other, and maybe, if we're comfortable, we can reveal our favorite words, those we keep secret...those we're too shy to say?

I'll start...explosive ejections.

Ohhh.

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian was quoted saying:

"Any idiot can reject anything."

He goes on to say:

"NIST did not model the collapse mathematically."

He clearly rejects the mathematics of the Towers collapses.

When I said that he sucks at math, I seriously meant it!

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...If you had read Dr. Bazant's paper you would know that his mechanism requires the top bloxck [SIC] to remain intact all the way down."

There you go again, goat molester. Do you honestly think I'll allow you to cherry pick Zdenek P. Bazant's "Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?" Bazant's paper was published to the web on 13 September 2001; thus, his conclusions are tentative at best. Furthermore, it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick a paper and agree with the the portions that support your argument, while rejecting to paper itself. I provided, moreover, the relevant quotation from the NIST Report, which is the definitive source on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you can't debate honestly, goat molester, don't debate at all. After all, you're wasting SLC's bandwidth.

 
At 30 December, 2010 14:48, Blogger william said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...If you had read Dr. Bazant's paper you would know that his mechanism requires the top bloxck [SIC] to remain intact all the way down."

There you go again, goat molester. Do you honestly think I'll allow you to cherry pick Zdenek P. Bazant's "Why did the World Trade Center towers collapse?" Bazant's paper was published to the web on 13 September 2001; thus, his conclusions are tentative at best. Furthermore, it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick a paper and agree with the the portions that support your argument, while rejecting to paper itself.

Continued...

 
At 30 December, 2010 16:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, we don't know why the buildings collapsed until we understand why they collapsed the way they did. "Because of gravity" doesn't cut it.

A discussion is really degenerating when the only post worth a response is Ian's.

 
At 30 December, 2010 17:14, Blogger william said...

Up to your old tricks again, goat molester? How many times must I explain to you that cherry picking is intellectually dishonest?

You can't cherry pick Bazant's paper and agree with the sections that support your lunacy, while simultaneously rejecting out of hand the sections that prove you're wrong.

In fact, I provided, the relevant quotation from the NIST Report, which is the definitive source on the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: If you can't debate honestly, goat molester, don't debate at all. After all, you're wasting SLC's bandwidth.

 
At 30 December, 2010 17:41, Blogger Triterope said...

goat molester, you're wasting SLC's bandwidth.

I don't know about that. There's the entertainment value...

 
At 30 December, 2010 19:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the "relevant quotation" provides no calculations. It's just a handwaving argument.

 
At 30 December, 2010 21:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, we don't know why the buildings collapsed until we understand why they collapsed the way they did. "Because of gravity" doesn't cut it.

Brian, 767s hit the towers, causing massive damage and starting huge fires. Learn to google.

GutterBall, the "relevant quotation" provides no calculations. It's just a handwaving argument.

Nobody cares.

 
At 30 December, 2010 22:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the damage wasn't massive. IIRC NIST's initial "realistic" estimate in WTC1 was that 3 core columns were severed. The buildings were designed to take a hit from 4-engine 707 going 600 miles per hour. They were built for a hurricane, with perimeter columns rated at 20X their dead load.

The fires weren't massive. The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes. Fires in the south tower were going out when the building came down. I have asked you to provide pictures of these massive fires, and you refuse to do it. It's because you can't find them. There are pretty impressive fires for the first ten minutes--until the jet fuel burns off. Brian Clark walked down from the 84th floor--above the impact zone, and he saw only a few flames. He stopped at the 31st floor to make phone calls!

Most engineers were surprised when the towers fell. Your complacency on these issues is only because of your ignorance and the persistent self-deception.

 
At 30 December, 2010 23:13, Blogger paul w said...

It's difficult to separate parody from reality with Brian, but here goes:

"Ian, the damage wasn't massive."

In your own words, please tell us why the damage from a plane slamming into the Towers cannot be described as 'massive'.

IIRC NIST's initial "realistic" estimate in WTC1 was that 3 core columns were severed.

In your own words, please explain the meaning of the word 'initial', and it's bearing on this comment.

"The buildings were designed to take a hit from 4-engine 707 going 600 miles per hour."

False. The Towers were designed plane travelling at low speed, for example, lost in fog.

Please provide the evidence for your comment. From a non-truther site, please.

"They were built for a hurricane, with perimeter columns rated at 20X their dead load."

Please provide the evidence for this (from a non-truther site).

Also, please provide your evidence that a building designed to withstand a hurricane could also withstand the impact of a passenger plane at high speed (from a non-truther site).

"The fires weren't massive."

In your own words, please tell us why the fires were not 'massive'. If possible, provide evidence of this from a firefighter source.

"The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes."

Please answer; did the fire continue after ten minutes of impact?

"Fires in the south tower were going out when the building came down."

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"There are pretty impressive fires for the first ten minutes--until the jet fuel burns off."

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"Most engineers were surprised when the towers fell".

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"Your complacency on these issues is only because of your ignorance and the persistent self-deception."

In your own words, please explain why the above comment is not irony.

 
At 30 December, 2010 23:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, the "relevant quotation" provides no calculations."

Calculations? What do you know about mathematics, goat molester?

Let me give you a conservatives estimate of your skills in terms of mathematics: Zip. Nada. Zilch.

 
At 31 December, 2010 00:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

paulw, the damage wasn't massive because 99.5% of the building did not suffer structural damage.

The initial estimate of structural damage was "realistic". When plugged into the computer model that failed to generate a collapse. Thus the damage estimates were simply tweaked upward until the desired results were generated.

The buildings were designed to take a hit from a 707 at 600 mph. See "City in the Sky" p. 131.

Perimeter columns were rated for 20X the dead load. See Skilling,
ENR, 4/2/64.

Dr. Thomas Eagar (MIT) likened the impact from the plane to "a bullet hitting a tree". Negligible. Google the phrase, it's in his ppt.

Fires were not massive. There are no pictures of massive fires. Not even those taken in the first ten minutes before the jet fuel burned off were massive.

"Most structural engineers were surprised" see NOVA.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

GutterBall, what do I know about math? Enough not to cite a simple perl parlor trick as evidence of my education.

 
At 31 December, 2010 00:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Here's Dr. Eagar's powerpoint. Looks like MIT scrubbed it, but here's the cache.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:HSWTytt-v4QJ:eagar.mit.edu/EagarPresentations/WTC_TMS_2002.ppt+bullet+hitting+a+tree+eagar&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

 
At 31 December, 2010 00:37, Blogger paul w said...

"Most structural engineers were surprised" see NOVA.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/dyk.html

In your own words, please state your views of the following comments from the same article.

'Though no evidence has turned up that the fires burned hot enough to melt any of the steel, eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength because of the intensity of the fire.'

'Many structural engineers feel the weak link in the chain within the towers was the angle clips that held the floor trusses between the interior and exterior steel columns.'

'The angle clips were smaller pieces of steel than the columns and therefore gave out first.'

'Each floor was designed to support approximately 1,300 tons beyond its own weight, but when one or more gave way in the intense fire of the impact zone, the combined weight of higher floors crashing down reached into the tens of thousands of tons.'

'There was no chance of either tower tipping over, for a 500,000-ton building has too much inertia to fall any way except virtually straight down.'

'Each 208-foot-wide building would had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base.'

'Each building collapsed in about ten seconds, hitting the ground with an estimated speed of about 125 miles per hour.'

'The collapse was a near free-fall. With no restraint, the collapse would have taken eight seconds and would have impacted at about 185 miles per hour.'

'The reason the 110-story towers collapsed into a rubble pile only a few stories high was that they were about 95 percent air.'

 
At 31 December, 2010 00:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why should I? You're just trying to bury under meaningless quibble the fact that I answered all your frigging questions!

 
At 31 December, 2010 01:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 31 December, 2010 01:04, Blogger paul w said...

"The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark."
Leslie E Robinson
National Academy of Engineering
http://www.members.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument

Also:

"Ian, the damage wasn't massive."

In your own words, please tell us why the damage from a plane slamming into the Towers cannot be described as 'massive'.

IIRC NIST's initial "realistic" estimate in WTC1 was that 3 core columns were severed.

In your own words, please explain the meaning of the word 'initial', and it's bearing on this comment.

"They were built for a hurricane, with perimeter columns rated at 20X their dead load."

Please provide your evidence that a building designed to withstand a hurricane could also withstand the impact of a passenger plane at high speed (from a non-truther site).

"The fires weren't massive."

See:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/eye/wtc-imagery.htm

In your own words, please tell us why the fires could be seen from space, but were not 'massive'.

"The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes."

Please answer; did the fire continue after ten minutes of impact?

"Fires in the south tower were going out when the building came down."

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"There are pretty impressive fires for the first ten minutes--until the jet fuel burns off."

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"Your complacency on these issues is only because of your ignorance and the persistent self-deception."

In your own words, please explain why the above comment is not irony.

 
At 31 December, 2010 05:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dr. Thomas Eagar (MIT) likened the impact from the plane to "a bullet hitting a tree". Negligible. Google the phrase, it's in his ppt.

The force of impact and the resulting structural damage are two different things. A bullet to the head makes you fall down, but not from the impact. In that same ppt Eager acknowledges the extraordinary circumstances of "heavy structural damage". In any case, he seems to find nothing suspicious about a fire-induced symmetrical collapse.

Eager does get it wrong in that presentation when he says "Analysis eliminates myths". Clearly not the case for some people.

 
At 31 December, 2010 06:43, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

GB-As each floor crashed through the next floor the accelerations were indeed brief...
GB takes the past and brings it back to the future...sorry pancakes are served with breakfast.

Snugbug Keep it up! You make this cess pool entertaining by exposing the ignorance of these folks.

Did you happen to notice how they all avoided the co-author of the official story Bazant paper has to promote the suspension of Newton's 3rd Law in order for his global collapse theory to be valid?

Again, physics suspended on 9/11 for the somewhat official collapse theory to be true!

Keep holding on to your reality....

 
At 31 December, 2010 06:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Did you happen to notice how they all avoided the co-author of the official story Bazant paper has to promote the suspension of Newton's 3rd Law in order for his global collapse theory to be valid?

...or maybe a loser who sits in his parents basement masturbating over Natalie Portman (she's taken dude, sorry) doesn't know the first thing about the physics he talks about....

 
At 31 December, 2010 08:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Frank Greening, "Newton's 3rd Law does not apply to the internal forces causing an open-structured body to collapse in on itself."

That is accurate. Newton's Third Law describes action/reaction of two bodies colliding. It would apply to me beating you over the head with a tire iron, but not to me ripping your entrails out through your anus. See the difference? No need to "suspend the laws of physics", whatever that's supposed to mean.

 
At 31 December, 2010 08:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

No need to "suspend the laws of physics", whatever that's supposed to mean.

It's an attempt to sound clever from the kind of intellectual mediocrity who thinks a "V for Vendetta" mask is edgy. Or failed janitors with delusions of grandeur, take your pick.

 
At 31 December, 2010 09:05, Blogger Triterope said...

You're just trying to bury under meaningless quibble

Brian, your entire act is nothing but meaningless quibble.

 
At 31 December, 2010 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Only when you clowns make it that way. The major point--that the official reports are dishonest, unbelievable, and incomplete--is hardly a quibble. Mostly youse gals refuse to engage in substantive discussion, preferring to snigger at each other's dumb jokes and gossip about people you don't know.

 
At 31 December, 2010 11:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

The major point--that the official reports are dishonest, unbelievable, and incomplete--is hardly a quibble.

Right, it's simply a delusion in the mind of a deranged liar and sex stalker. Nobody sane has any problem with official reports.

Mostly youse gals refuse to engage in substantive discussion, preferring to snigger at each other's dumb jokes and gossip about people you don't know.

What do you want us to do, Brian? Every one of your nonsensical talking points has been thoroughly debunked, and after 9+ years, the truthers have accomplished absolutely nothing.

There's nothing left to do but laugh at a failed janitor who lives at home with his parents at age 58, has been thrown out of the truth movement for stalking other truthers, and who uses "girls" as an insult.

You're hilarious, Brian. You're so hopelessly insane that nobody can help but laugh at you.

 
At 31 December, 2010 11:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, we have accomplished a great deal. We have pointed out inconsistencies, impossibilities, and much that is left unexplained in the official reports--so much so that polls show that only 16% of the American people believe the official reports and 36% believe LIHOP or worse is somewhat likely or very likely. And those polls were four years ago. One suspects that the numbers are greater now and so the pollsters are afraid to ask.

We have demonstrated the cowardice of the mainstream media, and done much to steer people to alternative media. We have much improved the quality of public discourse by pointing out logical fallacies in many of the mainstream talking points. And we're not going away.

50 years from now the blatant dishonesty of the official reports will be just as obvious as it is, for anyone who bothers to look, today.

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:23, Blogger paul w said...

Why should I? You're just trying to bury under meaningless quibble the fact that I answered all your frigging questions!

Wrong (yet again).

Here are the questions you did not answer:

"Ian, the damage wasn't massive."

In your own words, please tell us why the damage from a plane slamming into the Towers cannot be described as 'massive'.

"They were built for a hurricane, with perimeter columns rated at 20X their dead load."

Please provide your evidence that a building designed to withstand a hurricane could also withstand the impact of a passenger plane at high speed (from a non-truther site).

"The fires weren't massive."

In your own words, please tell us why the fires were not 'massive'. If possible, provide evidence of this from a firefighter source (and, simply saying the fires were not massive is not enough – show a photo of the fires and explain why it is not massive)

"The jet fuel burned off in ten minutes."

Please answer; did the fire continue after ten minutes of impact?

"Fires in the south tower were going out when the building came down."

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"There are pretty impressive fires for the first ten minutes--until the jet fuel burns off."

Please provide the evidence for your comment (from a non-truther site).

"Your complacency on these issues is only because of your ignorance and the persistent self-deception."

In your own words, please explain why the above comment is not irony.

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:34, Blogger paul w said...

"The fires were not massive"

here are various photos from the attack, including the fires in both WTC Towers.

Please explain why these fires are not 'massive'.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/282415/Military-photos-of-the-Twin-Towers

 
At 31 December, 2010 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, what do I know about math? Enough not to cite a simple perl parlor trick as evidence of my education."

In other words, you don't know a damned thing about math.

Proof?

When we work with derivatives we can say if y is a function of u and u is a function of x, then we can differentiate y with respect to x in the following way: We find the derivative of y with respect to u and we multiply that with the derivative of u with respect to x.

What have I just described?

Go for it, genius. I'm sure a "man" of your alleged intellect can provide the answer in seconds.

 
At 31 December, 2010 14:07, Blogger Triterope said...

Only when you clowns make it that way.

Well, there's some truth to that. Our objective is pretty much just to keep you talking, to see what crazy shit you'll spew next.

I could you could say we "egg" you on.

 
At 31 December, 2010 14:11, Blogger Triterope said...

polls show that only 16% of the American people believe the official reports

Jesus H. Christ, it's Alex Jones' "84 percent" bit again.

 
At 31 December, 2010 14:35, Blogger paul w said...

Ian, we have accomplished a great deal.

Bwahahahaha!

"We have pointed out inconsistencies, impossibilities, and much that is left unexplained in the official reports."

No, you have simply ignored, made shit up, distorted, misquoted and lied.

"so much so that polls show that only 16% of the American people believe the official reports and 36% believe LIHOP or worse is somewhat likely or very likely."

Yes, people not trust governments. Neither do I. That does not prove 9-11 was an inside job, just that people do not trust their governments.

"And those polls were four years ago. One suspects that the numbers are greater now and so the pollsters are afraid to ask."

They do ask. All the time. It's called 'polling'.

It constantly reveals the same tune; people do not trust their governments.

Having said that, they trust them a lot more than, say, the Iranian regimes, and such.

"We have demonstrated the cowardice of the mainstream media"

You have done no such thing. You have simply said the media was in on it, and will not publish your rubbish.

"and done much to steer people to alternative media."

Wrong again. People were already moving to alternative media.

"We have much improved the quality of public discourse by pointing out logical fallacies in many of the mainstream talking points."

Bwahahahaha!

"And we're not going away."

True. Nor are those who believe the world is ruled by reptilians. Or, gods.

"50 years from now the blatant dishonesty of the official reports will be just as obvious as it is, for anyone who bothers to look, today."

No, you'll be still viewed as the crackpots you are.

 
At 31 December, 2010 14:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

paulw certainly the file is massive.
My hick-town internet service can't handle your scribd, sorry. That wouldn't be your classic "The evidence is all here in this unavailable place" gambit, would it?

 
At 31 December, 2010 14:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, Pinocchio.

Answer the question, Mr. Math expert.

 
At 31 December, 2010 15:00, Blogger paul w said...

"That wouldn't be your classic "The evidence is all here in this unavailable place" gambit, would it?"

No, it's you supposed 'hick-town' internet.

Open the file, then go make a coffee, or do something else while it downloads.

I'm in no hurry. Clearly, neither are you.

More to the point, you blatantly lied that you'd answered all my questions.

I re-posted the questions for you to answer, yet you have not.

This isn't your classic Brian "The evidence is there, how can I squirm out of answering this question" gambit, would it?"

 
At 31 December, 2010 15:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo Goat Molester! What were you saying about "that collapse mechanism was not quantified mathematically"?

Obviously, you can't answer a freshman in college-level question about simple derivatives; yet, you dismiss the NIST Report because "that collapse mechanism was not quantified mathematically"?

That's some serious chutzpah, Pinocchio.

Continued...

 
At 31 December, 2010 15:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

I've said it before an I'll say it again: Brian Good would lie to his mother if he thought for one nanosecond that he could gain and advantage from the lie.

Pathetic.

Tell us, Pinocchio, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can measured in negative engineering units?

 
At 31 December, 2010 19:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, I see a comb. Hair in a comb, no it's hair in a crack in a ruler. Hair ruler, no it's a chair made of rulers. Chair rule. That's it, the chair rule. No, now there's someone in the chair. He's bald, he's evil, he's got Bell's Palsy. It's Cheney ruler. Oh I give up.

paulw, your "inside job" straw man is tiresome and beside the point. The point is investigations we can believe. If we are to have a democratic future we must preserve the expectation that the government will provide truthful reports.

GutterBall, my own math expertise has nothing to do with the fact that NIST provided no calculations quantifying the collapse mechanism.
Your distracting ad hominem is not only dishonest, it's erroneous and dumb.

 
At 31 December, 2010 21:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You don't have any "expertise" in Mathematics, goat molester. That's why you spent 4 hours searching from one end of the 'net to the other for an answer to my simple question.

But I expect that kind of dishonesty from you, goat molester. After all, it's your nature.

It's painfully obvious that you dismiss, without a second of consideration, all evidence that proves you're wrong.

 
At 31 December, 2010 23:58, Blogger paul w said...

So, it WAS a classic Brian "The evidence is there, how can I squirm out of answering this question" gambit!

He could not tell us why the damage from a plane slamming into the Towers cannot be described as 'massive'.

He could not provide evidence that the buildings were designed to withstand a hurricane, but not the impact of a passenger plane at high speed.

He could not provide any e
vidence why the fires were not 'massive'.

My link showed photographic proof of the massive, and sustained, fires that engulfed many floors of the Towers.

He refused to look.

He could not answer; did the fire continue after ten minutes of impact?

Yes, it did. A sustained, and massive, fire engulfed many floors of the towers.

He could not provide any evidence that 'fires in the south tower were going out when the building came down.'

He could not provide any evidence that 'There are pretty impressive fires for the first ten minutes--until the jet fuel burns off.'

Nor could he comment on a site he quoted also provided support for the NIST and FEMA reports.

I think that's called 'quote-mining', Brian.

"Your complacency on these issues is only because of your ignorance and the persistent self-deception."

Yes, Brian, it WAS irony.

 
At 01 January, 2011 11:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, my math acumen has nothing to do with the fact that NIST provided no calculations quantifying the collapse mechanism.

And your math acumen is woefully lacking if you imagine that the amount of time I spend not reading your posts is anything near the amount of time I'm willing to spend carrying water for your dumb intelligence tests.

Paulw, I did tell you why the damage to the towers was not "massive". It was because 99.5% of the structure was not damaged.

Do you honestly believe the WTC was NOT designed for a hurricane?

I provided the reference on design for a 600 mph 707: See "City in the Sky" p. 131.

If you simply look at google images for "WTC fire" you will see the evidence for lack of massive fires. By contrast a picture of the Beijing CCTV fire in the group shows a massive fire.

The jet fuel fire lasted less than ten minutes. After that there was an ordinary office fire that burns at most 20 minutes in one place before moving on.

Jonathan Cole's recent video "9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate" has a TV news report at 0:20 saying the south tower fires were going out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=related

It's not quote-mining to quote NOVA's statement that most structural engineers were surprised when the towers came down. I did not take that quote out of context. There's no reason to discuss that stupid FEMA speculation about "angle clips" that has been totally supplanted by NIST.

 
At 01 January, 2011 11:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

One of the reasons the WTC fires were not massive is provided in the Weidlinger Report. You've all read that, right? It says the office fires were damped because the plane impact brought the ceilings down and poured dust on everything, so we had a lot of smoky smoldering carpets.

 
At 01 January, 2011 12:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, my math acumen has nothing to do with the fact that NIST provided no calculations quantifying the collapse mechanism."

On the contrary, goat molester, it has everything to do with your alleged "math acumen."

You know nothing about mathematics beyond the most elementary level; yet you demand rigorous "calculations quantifying the collapse mechanism," which you wouldn't understand if they were provided.

Thus, you're a blow hard and a liar.

Here genius, apply your alleged "math acumen" and apply the chain rule to the following:

y = (5x^3 + 4x^2)^5

and don't forget to factor out x, Mr. Math Acumen.

 
At 01 January, 2011 12:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...One of the reasons the WTC fires were not massive is provided in the Weidlinger Report. You've all read that, right?"

Lying about the Weidlinger Report, goat molester?

The Weidlinger Report tells us that the stalwart design of the Towers allowed the buildings to withstand the high-speed impact of the Boeing 767s. The Report concludes that the collapse was initiated by a combination of damage from the impact of the aircraft and the resulting fires.

The conclusions found in the Weidlinger Report are based upon FLEX software simulations. The results of the simulation showed that the fires had a significant affect on the structural capacity of the columns. The columns failed as a result of loss of structural integrity caused by fire and massive load redistribution to the remaining columns.

Now stop lying and misrepresenting the conclusions found therein, goat molester.

 
At 01 January, 2011 14:35, Blogger paul w said...

"Paulw, I did tell you why the damage to the towers was not "massive". It was because 99.5% of the structure was not damaged."

An idiotic comment, as you well know. A bullet will kill a person, as will a karate chop; it's all about where the damage is, not necessarily the amount.

Read the NIST and FEMA reports and try to accept reality. The quality of your life may improve.

Fail.

"Do you honestly believe the WTC was NOT designed for a hurricane?"

I do not ask you about my thoughts, as you well know, I asked you to provide evidence that a building designed for a hurricane will also be designed for the impact of a plane crash,as you suggested.

You have not.

Fail.

"I provided the reference on design for a 600 mph 707: See "City in the Sky" p. 131."

Did you not note that I accepted that? Yes, you did.

Fail.

"If you simply look at google images for "WTC fire" you will see the evidence for lack of massive fires. By contrast a picture of the Beijing CCTV fire in the group shows a massive fire."

I provided a link of the fires at WTC. You were too lazy to look.

As you well know, comparing one massive fire to an even more massive fire does not mean the first is no longer 'massive'.

Fail.

"The jet fuel fire lasted less than ten minutes. After that there was an ordinary office fire that burns at most 20 minutes in one place before moving on."

The 'ordinary' office fire was a test used by NIST for temperatures reached, and such.

As you well know, an 'ordinary' office fire is not one that engulfs multiple floors of a 110 story building.

It is truly idiotic (and delusional) to suggest the WTC fires were in any way 'ordinary'.

But...you know that.

Multiple fail.

"Jonathan Cole's recent video "9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate" has a TV news report at 0:20 saying the south tower fires were going out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=related"

That's your proof? One TV report of many? That is not evidence or proof, Brian, it is quote mining.

Fail.

"It's not quote-mining to quote NOVA's statement that most structural engineers were surprised when the towers came down. I did not take that quote out of context. There's no reason to discuss that stupid FEMA speculation about "angle clips" that has been totally supplanted by NIST."

It IS quote mining. You took a comment from a pro-collapse document and imply it meant the opposite.

And, you know it is.

Quote-mining is standard truther practice - it's the only way they, as you, can create legitimacy for their, your, views.

Fail.

Give it up, Brian.

Smoldering carpets? You and I both know that's bullshit; it's just your desperate attempt for conversation, ANY conversation.

It's clear you have a personality disorder. I have no problems with that, and hope you eventually improve or recover, but it's interesting to note that your replies are carbon-copies of those from so-called sane truthers.

I'm sure there is a medical term for the condition.

It's also interesting to note that you are the only truther to actually 'debate' here.

The administrator of 911oz, for example, said he would 'love to', but so far, has declined. As have the rest.

Interesting, eh?

 
At 01 January, 2011 14:45, Blogger Garry said...

Mask-boy is back! I wonder if he thinks we forgot he outed himself as a no-planer:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=2057445341164945567

 
At 01 January, 2011 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the question of whether I would understand the calculations or not have nothing to do with the fact that they present none. You are trying to deflect attention from the inadequacies of the report by attacking me.

The Weidlinger report says debris and dust distributed by the plane crashes inhibited the fires, such that the average air temperatures on the impact floors were between 400 and 700°C (750-1,300°F): significantly lower than those
associated with typical “fully developed” office fires.

I didn't lie about anything.

 
At 01 January, 2011 15:30, Blogger paul w said...

"Paulw, I did tell you why the damage to the towers was not "massive". It was because 99.5% of the structure was not damaged."

An idiotic comment, as you well know. A bullet will kill a person, as will a karate chop; it's all about where the damage is, not necessarily the amount.

Read the NIST and FEMA reports and try to accept reality. The quality of your life may improve.

Fail.

"Do you honestly believe the WTC was NOT designed for a hurricane?"

I do not ask you about my thoughts, as you well know, I asked you to provide evidence that a building designed for a hurricane will also be designed for the impact of a plane crash,as you suggested.

You have not.

Fail.

"I provided the reference on design for a 600 mph 707: See "City in the Sky" p. 131."

Did you not note that I accepted that? Yes, you did.

Fail.

(Continued)

 
At 01 January, 2011 15:32, Blogger paul w said...

"If you simply look at google images for "WTC fire" you will see the evidence for lack of massive fires. By contrast a picture of the Beijing CCTV fire in the group shows a massive fire."

I provided a link of the fires at WTC. You were too lazy to look.

As you well know, comparing one massive fire to an even more massive fire does not mean the first is no longer 'massive'.

Fail.

"The jet fuel fire lasted less than ten minutes. After that there was an ordinary office fire that burns at most 20 minutes in one place before moving on."

The 'ordinary' office fire was a test used by NIST for temperatures reached, and such.

As you well know, an 'ordinary' office fire is not one that engulfs multiple floors of a 110 story building.

It is truly idiotic (and delusional) to suggest the WTC fires were in any way 'ordinary'.

But...you know that.

Multiple fail.

"Jonathan Cole's recent video "9/11 Experiments: The Great Thermate Debate" has a TV news report at 0:20 saying the south tower fires were going out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=related"

That's your proof? One TV report of many? That is not evidence or proof, Brian, it is quote mining.

Fail.

 
At 01 January, 2011 15:32, Blogger paul w said...

"It's not quote-mining to quote NOVA's statement that most structural engineers were surprised when the towers came down. I did not take that quote out of context. There's no reason to discuss that stupid FEMA speculation about "angle clips" that has been totally supplanted by NIST."

It IS quote mining. You took a comment from a pro-collapse document and imply it meant the opposite.

And, you know it is.

Quote-mining is standard truther practice - it's the only way they, as you, can create legitimacy for their, your, views.

Fail.

Give it up, Brian.

Smoldering carpets? You and I both know that's bullshit; it's just your desperate attempt for conversation, ANY conversation.

It's clear you have a personality disorder. I have no problems with that, and hope you eventually improve or recover, but it's interesting to note that your replies are carbon-copies of those from so-called sane truthers.

I'm sure there is a medical term for the condition.

It's also interesting to note that you are the only truther to actually 'debate' here.

The administrator of 911oz, for example, said he would 'love to', but so far, has declined. As have the rest.

Interesting, eh?

 
At 01 January, 2011 16:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, we have accomplished a great deal. We have pointed out inconsistencies, impossibilities, and much that is left unexplained in the official reports--so much so that polls show that only 16% of the American people believe the official reports and 36% believe LIHOP or worse is somewhat likely or very likely. And those polls were four years ago. One suspects that the numbers are greater now and so the pollsters are afraid to ask.

Whatever helps you sleep at night, Brian. I would like to ask you about another number: 0.12%. That's the percentage of the public that voted for the "truth" candidate, Cynthia McKinney in the 2008 Presidential Election. With such an overwhelming number of Americans on your side, how come Obama and McCain weren't tripping over themselves to say how much they support a new investigation?

Where are all the "truther" elected officials, Brian? Where are all the academics and professionals who are "truthers"? Where are all the firefighter and police unions demanding justice for their brothers? Where are all the military personnel demanding answers for why we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

 
At 01 January, 2011 16:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Guys, Bwian doesn't weed.

He weeds the things that he wants to, but ignores the things that contradict his world views.

He constantly cites reports to prove his points yet when one reads these reports it is clear that these reports draw entirely different conclusions than Bwian does.

The RJ LEE report is a prime example.

 
At 01 January, 2011 16:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

We have demonstrated the cowardice of the mainstream media, and done much to steer people to alternative media. We have much improved the quality of public discourse by pointing out logical fallacies in many of the mainstream talking points. And we're not going away.

Ah yes, "alternative media" like Rush Limbaugh's radio show and Pajamas Media? Or maybe you mean left-wing alternative media, like DailyKos or The Huffington Post? Oh wait, truth bullshit is banned there. Well, there's always democratic underground. Oh wait, they laughed you out of there too for your "meatball on a fork" and "rakeonrake" nonsense.

And of course you're not going away. Neither are the people who believe Elvis is alive or Scientologists. It doesn't mean the general public is going to pay them any mind.

50 years from now the blatant dishonesty of the official reports will be just as obvious as it is, for anyone who bothers to look, today.

And a lot of people think Jesus will come to judge the living and the dead within 50 years. Count me as skeptical, Brian.

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, on planet paulw damage need not be "massive" to be "massive". Thanks for clarifying.

Your continued denial of the fact that the towers were designed to be hit by a 707 at 600 mph is noted. And here I thought you were a sensible one.

A "massive" fire that burns out in 7 minutes because the kerosene burns up is not massive.

Your attempt, like GutterBall's, to divide the literature into canonical and non-canonical texts and then to deny me the use of the canonical for heretical purposes is silly. NOVA says most structural engineers were surprised. That's just a fact. My intent or NOVA's intent has nothing to do with the fact, and your attempt to link those is simply desperate.

Smoldering carpets. Remember the claim that the fireproofing was stripped and shivered off? Where did all that fireproofing go?

Ian, there's nothing nonsensical about the rake-on-rake and meatball-on-a-fork models. In fact they resemble the reality of the WTC much more realistically than the ludicrous "piledriver" model because they are consistent with the laws of physics.

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Your continued denial of the fact that the towers were designed to be hit by a 707 at 600 mph is noted."

Lying again, goat molester?

"...The project was designed for the impact of a...ah...we call it a low-flying, slow flying Boeing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time. Actually the intercontinental version. We envisioned it much as the case would be for the aircraft that struck the Empire State Building in the Second World War. More or less the same condition--lost in the fog--ie, an accidental impact by an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jet that actually hit it. In fact, those jets were flying well above their rated speed at that altitude." -- Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center Towers.

Will you ever cease the lying, goat molester?

Continued...

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your continued denial of the fact that the towers were designed to be hit by a 707 at 600 mph is noted. And here I thought you were a sensible one.

767s are bigger than 707s. Nonetheless, the towers stood until the fires weakened the steel beyond the point of collapse. You always leave that part out, petgoat.

A "massive" fire that burns out in 7 minutes because the kerosene burns up is not massive.

What fire burned out in 7 minutes?

NOVA says most structural engineers were surprised. That's just a fact. My intent or NOVA's intent has nothing to do with the fact, and your attempt to link those is simply desperate.

Nobody cares.

Smoldering carpets. Remember the claim that the fireproofing was stripped and shivered off? Where did all that fireproofing go?

Smoldering carpets! Meatballs on forks! Rakes rakes rakes! Willie Rodriguez! JUST YOU WAIT GENTLEMEN!!!

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

What's this, goat molester?

"...the Boeing 707 was the largest in use when the towers were designed. Robertson conducted a study in late 1964, to calculate the effect of a 707 weighing 263,000 pounds and traveling at 180 mph crashing into one of the towers. He concluded that the tower would remain standing." -- Paul Thomspon.

600 MPH??? BULLSHIT!

The buildings were designed for a 180 MPH impact.

Now, go play in the freeway, goat molester.

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Your attempt, like GutterBall's, to divide the literature into canonical and non-canonical texts and then to deny me the use of the canonical for heretical purposes is silly."

More bald-faced lies--you quote mining, cherry picking bastard?

It's intellectual dishonesty to quote mine a document for information that agrees with your ideas while disagreeing with the conclusions found therein. And if you had an education that spanned beyond a GED you'd know this is true.

Now, go play in the middle of US Highway 101, goat molester.

 
At 01 January, 2011 17:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, there's nothing nonsensical about the rake-on-rake and meatball-on-a-fork models.

False.

In fact they resemble the reality of the WTC much more realistically than the ludicrous "piledriver" model because they are consistent with the laws of physics.

False.

Anyway, petgoat, I see you completely ignored my other questions, so I'll ask them again:

Where are all the "truther" elected officials, Brian? Where are all the academics and professionals who are "truthers"? Where are all the firefighter and police unions demanding justice for their brothers? Where are all the military personnel demanding answers for why we're fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq?

How come Cynthia McKinney got 0.12% of the popular vote in 2008? How come you can't get any ballot initiatives passed that call for a new investigation? How come any public official who goes anywhere near the truth movement (Van Jones, for instance) has his or her political career destroyed?

Peace rallies, immigrant rallies, anti-abortion rallies...these things have drawn tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people for controversial subjects. Where are the truther rallies that number greater than 50 or 100?

 
At 01 January, 2011 19:20, Blogger paul w said...

Brian, you're an idiot.

 
At 02 January, 2011 00:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I have several times pointed out that "City in the Sky" says there were studies done on the building postulating a 707 at 600 mph. If Leslie Robertson did some other studies that does not refute the point.

Ian, NIST has no core steel samples showing heating sufficient to weaken them. The jet fuel fires burned out in less than ten minutes.

GutterBall, what simpleton taught you it's dishonest to take a quote from a source while disagreeing with its conclusion? So I can't quote a psalm unless I sign on with the Book of Revelation?

You are really a sap, you know that?

 
At 02 January, 2011 01:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Snug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, I have several times pointed out that 'City in the Sky' says there were studies done on the building postulating a 707 at 600 mph. If Leslie Robertson did some other studies that does not refute the point."

That's because you think like a failed and uneducated janitor. Frankly, I don't give a flying *%^&$ what "City in the Sky" says. I gave you A DIRECT QUOTE from the Tower's chief structural engineer. The word of the Tower's chief structural engineer WILL ALWAYS TRUMP some worthless book. Thus, YOU LOSE AGAIN, goat molester.

 
At 02 January, 2011 01:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get the idea that Leslie Robertson was the chief structural engineer?

Oh right, from some source with a conclusion you agree with.

 
At 02 January, 2011 01:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...GutterBall, what simpleton taught you it's dishonest to take a quote from a source while disagreeing with its conclusion? So I can't quote a psalm unless I sign on with the Book of Revelation?"

That statement carries a lot of weight--and especially so when one considers that you still don't grasp the concept of quote mining.

Furthermore, the analogy concerning the bible is as idiotic as it is dishonest.

You're cherry picking the NIST Report, which you claim to dispute, while using its contents to bolster your argument. That's intellectual dishonesty on a grand scale.

But none of this should surprise us, because you're a shameless liar and a charlatan.

Now, go play in the middle of US Highway 101, goat molester.

 
At 02 January, 2011 01:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...Where do you get the idea that Leslie Robertson was the chief structural engineer?"

I gave you TWO sources--you jackass.

And you can't refute either source.

Since when do we consult some silly book, written by a neophyte, when we can consult the building's structural engineer?

You're an idiot, goat molester, not to mention a liar.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home