Monday, December 13, 2010

NIST Did Test Explosive Theory

Our fellow debunkers over at Conspiracies R Not Us covers it well:

Rather than vindicating the faith, this archive proves that not only were the NIST and 9/11 Commission reports based on rigorous testing, but that engineers, academics and scientists working for the government explicitly tested conspiratorial claims. We have gigs and gigs of video proof that NIST and its affiliates considered every possible angle of the event, and were able to rule out the kinds of hypotheses that today guide what remains of the faith's holy writ.


Terrific job; read the whole post. Once again the Troofers demonstrate their amazing ability to ignore the evidence that rules against them.

Labels: ,

235 Comments:

At 13 December, 2010 08:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'll save Brian the effort:

"The NIST report did not explain the baffling aspects of the towers collapse, including symmetry, totality, speed, and molten iron. Shyam Sunder said the towers collapsed in 9 and 11 seconds. Section 6.14.4 says the towers came down essentially in free-fall speed. Willie Rodriguez! Meatballs on forks! Thermite spray! Elevator shafts! Willie Rodriguez! Pyroclastic flows! Giggling girls! Willie Rodriguez!"

You're welcome, Brian.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ho hum, just more debunker nonsense. "The evidence is all in these terrabytes of data here! See for yourself!" So we're supposed to be impressed that NIST "explicitly tested conspiratorial claims" but only did so in secret, and then after going to all that trouble to disprove the claims, they left the tests out of their report and dismissed the issue with the lying claim that there was no evidence of explosives?

And finally, we're supposed to be impressed by photos of the floor slabs built for the fire tests--which have nothing to do with explosives tests, but by the way are a stellar example of NIST's dishonesty. When the tests on these slabs showed just a few inches of fire-induced sag, NIST threw out the results and put 42" of sag in their computer models.

You guys are as gullible as a bunch of Willie-worshiping truthers.

 
At 13 December, 2010 10:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ho hum, just more debunker nonsense.

I love it how pissy "truthers" get when a big salvo of evidence hits them. Even in Brian's diseased mind, he knows how problematic this is for his religious faith.

So we're supposed to be impressed that NIST "explicitly tested conspiratorial claims" but only did so in secret, and then after going to all that trouble to disprove the claims, they left the tests out of their report and dismissed the issue with the lying claim that there was no evidence of explosives?

There was no evidence of explosives, petgoat. It's all there. Deal with it.

You guys are as gullible as a bunch of Willie-worshiping truthers.

Squeal squeal squeal! Brian, your desperation is sad.

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

Ian, I have no religious faith. You have such great religious faith in official authority that you will accept (without even checking) the claims of a website that declares its blatant bias in its name "Conspiracies R Not Us".

There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections.

You claim "It's all there. Deal with it." It's all where? Somewhere in terrabytes of data you haven't examined yourself? How do you know? Did the archangel Steve tell you that?

The inclusion in the "Not Us" article of irrelevant photos discredits their claims. You guys are as gullible as a bunch of Willie-worshiping truthers.

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:33, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I have no religious faith. You have such great religious faith in official authority that you will accept (without even checking) the claims of a website that declares its blatant bias in its name "Conspiracies R Not Us".

Still no rebuttal to what the website says. You're really desperate, aren't you petgoat?

There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections.

Can you tell the impostor "snug.bug" in the below thread to stop talking about thermite? Since you believe it was explosives, he must not be you, since he thinks it was thermite that did it.

You claim "It's all there. Deal with it." It's all where? Somewhere in terrabytes of data you haven't examined yourself? How do you know? Did the archangel Steve tell you that?

It's all there, petgoat. You lose. Deal with it.

Steve is my uncle, an independent engineer who endorsed the NIST report. He is not an archangel.

The inclusion in the "Not Us" article of irrelevant photos discredits their claims. You guys are as gullible as a bunch of Willie-worshiping truthers.

Squeal squeal squeal!!!

 
At 13 December, 2010 11:41, Blogger Neighborhood Rationalist said...

Ian,

It might be worth noting that I wrote that post after finding the data posted on a 9/11 denier site. The data came from the efforts of 9/11 deniers who knew exactly what they were looking for. There is nothing "secret" about it at this point, and it came out as a result of years of legal action by 9/11 deniers. You also don't have to do much scanning; you can discern what NIST is up to by just downloading the smallest file in the torrent (a measly 212MB). There's virtually no sluthing required on your part.

Also not sure how photos from a series showing the huge amount of effort that went into these tests is irrelevant. Just wanted to s how that these were not roughshod studies.

 
At 13 December, 2010 13:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"squibs"

[blinks in disbelief]

"...eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections."

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

 
At 13 December, 2010 13:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"There is much evidence for use of explosives--squibs, eyewitness testimony, dust clouds including upward ejections."

I got a question for you Truthers:

How can an eyewitness survive an explosion, if indeed that witness was near or next to the explosives?

You said that you have witness testimony, well where's the witness that got blown to hell?

 
At 13 December, 2010 14:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Near as I can tell, the most Troofers have been able to make of this material is a YouTube channel with all videos in which somebody says "explosion" or something goes "kaboom".

Maybe somewhere in these terabytes of information there's the secret of THOUSANDS OF TONS OF MOLTEN IRON MICROSPHERES blah blah blah just waiting to be discovered.

 
At 13 December, 2010 14:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, I doubt that anyone who's blown to hell even knows what hit them. Bone fragments found on the Deutsche Bank building across the street (and behind the airplane impact point) were no larger than 1/2 inch.

118 first responders reported flashes or light and/or sounds of explosions. This information is easy to find.

Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices planted in the building. Chief Downey said he thought bombs had been planted in tower two.

Ian, I rebutted what the website said. It was bald assertion with no examples. It pointed to a large file and said there was information in there. It didn't say where the information was. The fact that it posted pictures irrelevant to any investigation of explosives showed that the writer was dishonest, an idiot, or both.

 
At 13 December, 2010 14:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQ, I doubt that anyone who's blown to hell even knows what hit them. Bone fragments found on the Deutsche Bank building across the street (and behind the airplane impact point) were no larger than 1/2 inch.

Brian, your bone fragments do not indicate explosives were in place at the WTC, especially when two aircraft exploded when they slammed into the buildings at 500+ mph. Unless those bone fragments have traces of C4 on them, I don't know what your point is.

118 first responders reported flashes or light and/or sounds of explosions. This information is easy to find.

Which is to be expected at the site of a large, uncontrolled fire.

Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices planted in the building. Chief Downey said he thought bombs had been planted in tower two.

Idle speculation is not evidence.

Ian, I rebutted what the website said.

No you didn't, you just squealed about how much it upsets you.

It was bald assertion with no examples.

False.

It pointed to a large file and said there was information in there. It didn't say where the information was.

And you won't look at it, that's for sure. It might be too painful for someone whose entire life is morbidly wrapped up in a paranoid fantasy.

The fact that it posted pictures irrelevant to any investigation of explosives showed that the writer was dishonest, an idiot, or both.

Brian, you're hysterical about this. It's really funny.

 
At 13 December, 2010 14:56, Blogger Neighborhood Rationalist said...

For your own edification, the first part of the torrent that I downloaded - the smallest archive, coming in at a measly 212mb - contained video of testing the effects of explosives. I named the relevant archive file in the post - you're lazy and gullible and don't care about facts.

Second of all, the pictures weren't "unrelated" - they're pieces of a time-lapse contained in that archive that shows the painstaking efforts NIST went through to recreate key parts of the towers. I don't think that's unrelated to investigating 9/11, do you?

Man, no wonder your movement has crumbled so fast. You wouldn't so much as bother to look at evidence when it gets handed to you.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Snug-bug says:

118 first responders reported flashes or light and/or sounds of explosions. This information is easy to find."

Listen up Bug, those 1st responders aren't your typical explosives experts, ok. They're only rescue workers & firefighters who got on the scene of a fire first. Explosions doesn't constitute "explosives" & you're misrepresenting & quote mining the rescue workers & firemen.

Besides I'm a certified firefighter & your assumtions are dead wrong.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Let this be a lesson to you Truthers about about fire explosions:

http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm

"Fire protection engineers define the term explosion as an "effect" produced by a sudden violent expansion of gases. Some "effects" of an explosion are loud noise and shock waves, which can collapse walls and shatter windows. Searing heat, black clouds of smoke and balls of flame are other deadly effects produced by the sudden violent expansion blast called an explosion.
Fire protection engineers classify explosions into three broad categories: physical explosion; physical/chemical explosion; and chemical explosion."

So what's that about witnesses describing these explosions as "explosives" when they're not?

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

NR, thanks for proving my point, chump. Your article referred to a 300 MB file and claimed that one video in it shows a "theoretical bomb blast". You don't tell us how to find the video or what the findings were.

I didn't say your pictures of the the poured slabs were "unrelated". I said they were "irrelevant". They have nothing to do with your claims of an explosives investigation. Including them as if they did is dishonest.

You haven't dealt with the fact that NIST did not mention these secret investigations in their report, but instead hid behind the fraudulent claim that there was no evidence of the use of explosives.

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

WAQ, why don't you read the actual testimony before pontificating on explosions? Start with Carlsen, Cruthers, Murray, Banaciski, Cachia, Gregory, Reynolds, Rogers, Burke, and Deshore.

The reason the debunkers movement is failing is because they won't even look at the facts, let alone address them.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"NIST did not mention these secret investigations in their report, but instead hid behind the fraudulent claim that there was no evidence of the use of explosives."

Secret investigation? Wow, the paranoia really doesn't stop does it?!

Of course there wasn't any evidence of explosives, because they didn't find any residue at the scene.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The reason the debunkers movement is failing is because they won't even look at the facts, let alone address them."

What "facts" from these people say that they saw explosives being "planted":

Carlsen, Cruthers, Murray, Banaciski, Cachia, Gregory, Reynolds, Rogers, Burke, and Deshore.

Admit it, you have no verifiable facts or evidence to prove the existence of explosives on 9/11.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

NR, thanks for proving my point, chump. Your article referred to a 300 MB file and claimed that one video in it shows a "theoretical bomb blast". You don't tell us how to find the video or what the findings were.

That's because you're lazy and stupid, Brian, which are the same reasons you're unemployed and a truther.

I didn't say your pictures of the the poured slabs were "unrelated". I said they were "irrelevant". They have nothing to do with your claims of an explosives investigation. Including them as if they did is dishonest.

Brian, what the hell do you know about investigations? Your method of "investigating" is watching youtube and parroting 3rd-hand hearsay.

You haven't dealt with the fact that NIST did not mention these secret investigations in their report, but instead hid behind the fraudulent claim that there was no evidence of the use of explosives.

Nobody cares that they weren't in the report. Also, how could the claims about explosives be "fraudulent" if they did the proper investigation and found nothing?

Your beliefs are non-falsifiable, Brian. You're an obsessed liar and religious fanatic.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, if as is claimed, NIST investigated explosions, yes, it was a secret investigation because they did not discuss these studies in their report.

They didn't find any residue at the scene because they didn't look for it.

I brought up the testimony of the first responders (Carlsen, Cruthers, Murray, Banaciski, Cachia, Gregory, Reynolds, Rogers, Burke, and Deshore) to refute the claim that there was no evidence of the use of explosives.

Whether they witnesses the installation or not has no bearing on the fact that their testimony is evidence of explosives. We were talking about evidence, not proof. It takes an honest investigation to find proof. That's why we need one.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQ, why don't you read the actual testimony before pontificating on explosions? Start with Carlsen, Cruthers, Murray, Banaciski, Cachia, Gregory, Reynolds, Rogers, Burke, and Deshore.

Brian, nobody denies explosions at the WTC. You're just dumb enough to think it means explosives were planted there.

The reason the debunkers movement is failing is because they won't even look at the facts, let alone address them.

Aaaand here it is: the moment where he sticks his fingers in his ears, screams "I can't hear you!" and tells us he wins. I knew it was coming, because all this evidence that destroys his cherished beliefs about the NIST report is too much for him to bear.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Whether they witnessed the installation or not has no bearing on the fact that their testimony is evidence of explosives. We were talking about evidence, not proof."

Their testimony also says that they didn't declare that the explosions came from "explosives". So stop quote mining them!

I'm talking about your burden of proof that the witnesses said they saw & heard "explosives" going off.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:25, Blogger Ian G. said...

They didn't find any residue at the scene because they didn't look for it.

Stop lying, petgoat.

We were talking about evidence, not proof. It takes an honest investigation to find proof. That's why we need one.

We had one. It didn't support your religious beliefs, and no new one is going to support your beliefs either. Give it up, petgoat. You lost a long time ago. Try finding something worthwhile to do with your life.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, testimony about explosions just before the building came down is evidence for the use of explosives.

Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices--that's explosives. Chief Downey spoke of bombs--that's explosives. NIST did not explain these statements--they simply claimed that they did not exist.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If Snug-Bug doesn't come back here with sources or evidence of "explosives" being used on 9/11 then his/her theory is as dead as the JFK Theories.

Sorry Bug, but lying isn't gonna get you any where kid!

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, testimony about explosions just before the building came down is evidence for the use of explosives."

Similie's aren't evidence for anything you say.

They all said that it was "LIKE" a bomb or an explosive.

I read what they said kid, you're quotem mining the hell outta them. Stop doing that, it's wrong.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQ, testimony about explosions just before the building came down is evidence for the use of explosives.

No, Brian, it isn't. Sorry.

Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices--that's explosives. Chief Downey spoke of bombs--that's explosives. NIST did not explain these statements--they simply claimed that they did not exist.

False, false, and false.

I have to say, this thread is really making Brian hysterical.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug prevaricates, "...we're supposed to be impressed by photos of the floor slabs built for the fire tests--which have nothing to do with explosives tests, but by the way are a stellar example of NIST's dishonesty."

More bullshit, Brian?

"...Our team, working at ground zero, including myself, never saw indication of explosive use that would have been evident after the event. You just can't clean up all that det cord, shock tube, blasting cap remnants, copper backing from explosive charges, burn marks along clean-cut edges of columns, etc., nor is there any evidence in the thousands of photos taken by the press and dozens of agencies over the following days." -- Brent Blanchard, Demolition Expert; International Society of Explosives Engineers.

That's EXPERT testimony, Brian.

Thus, you lose again. Now, go play in the freeway, Brian.

 
At 13 December, 2010 15:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Snug-Bug,

Dishonesty & lying gets you no where. Why don't you stop before you damage your ego any further?

What do you have to prove, when you don't have any proof at all?

Why do you read what the Truthers tell you to read, without any evidence to their claims?

Are you brainwashed or can you make up your own mind about what happened?

 
At 13 December, 2010 16:33, Blogger Triterope said...

No wonder your movement has crumbled so fast. You wouldn't so much as bother to look at evidence when it gets handed to you.

And that's not the only thing that's been handed to him in this thread.

 
At 13 December, 2010 17:18, Blogger Neighborhood Rationalist said...

"Snug,"

To be clear, I said, ""42A0016," which is about 300mb of video" - as in, the name of the file you should download, and its size once you unzip it. Are you serious? This is the argument you have? This is how desperate 9/11 deniers have become?

NIST makes the files public - you pretend NIST "hid" them. I give you the file name - you say I didn't tell you where to look (boo-hoo!)! Now all you can do is try to quibble about whether I should've given an "about" or an "exactly," of either a zipped or an unzipped file, that I told you how to find.

I'd be really, really PO'ed by your childish stupidity if I weren't laughing so hard.

 
At 13 December, 2010 17:57, Blogger James B. said...

But did NIST test out the Death Star theory? I think not!

 
At 13 December, 2010 18:20, Blogger paul w said...

"118 first responders reported flashes or light and/or sounds of explosions."
snug.bug

What, in the collapse of a 110 story building?

Who would have thought?????

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, NIST says there was no evidence of explosives. Testimony of explosions is evidence of explosives. So NIST is lying.

You say the witnesses said it was "like" an explosive. Please tell us your source for this claim, as you have exposed this source as a liar. Carlson and Reynolds and Rogers and Deshore don't say it was "like" anything. They say ot was explosions.

Chief Turi and Chief Downey didn't say it was like anything. Turi said it was a secondary device and Downey said he thought there were bombs up there.

GutterBall, your expert testimony from Brent Blanchard is about as useful as the expert testimony of a hangman in a murder inquest: "Well, I don't see any rope burns on his neck, so he must have died of natural causes."

NR, NIST "made public" your file only after a FOIA request, and only nine years after 9/11. You told me how to find a massive file. You didn't tell me how to find the video hidden in it about an explosives investigation, and NIST did not discuss this investigation in its report. You did not tell us what the investigation concluded, you dishonestly provided photos that had nothing to do with an explosives investigation, and now you are trying desperately to give the false impression that you did respectable and honest work.

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQ, NIST says there was no evidence of explosives. Testimony of explosions is evidence of explosives. So NIST is lying.

This is the best you can do, petgoat? Jesus, you are pathetic.

Chief Turi and Chief Downey didn't say it was like anything. Turi said it was a secondary device and Downey said he thought there were bombs up there.

More desperate lying from petgoat. This is fun!

GutterBall, your expert testimony from Brent Blanchard is about as useful as the expert testimony of a hangman in a murder inquest: "Well, I don't see any rope burns on his neck, so he must have died of natural causes."

Senseless babbling from a hopeless liar and lunatic. Weee!

NR, NIST "made public" your file only after a FOIA request, and only nine years after 9/11.

So what? It still refutes all of your deranged beliefs about 9/11.

You told me how to find a massive file. You didn't tell me how to find the video hidden in it about an explosives investigation, and NIST did not discuss this investigation in its report.

Aww, poor petgoat is upset!

You did not tell us what the investigation concluded, you dishonestly provided photos that had nothing to do with an explosives investigation, and now you are trying desperately to give the false impression that you did respectable and honest work.

More babbling from an obsessed liar who likes to call people "girls".

Brian, give it up. You're in waaaay over your head. You just don't have the intellect to handle this. Go back to babbling about widows questions. You're much better at that.

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Oh shit, I just figured it all out! The mother of all 9/11 conspiracies!

WTC7 was where NASA's soundstage for faking the moon landings was hidden. The government had to destroy it to maintain the lie, so they flew planes into the Twin Towrrs and the Pentagon just to obscure their real target.

I gotta right a book. Who needs facts?

Those iron spheres? The left-over fabricated moon dust from the massive sound stage.

I gotta make a movie too, where can I find some high school seniors to act as my technical exerts? You know, in case someone questions my integrity...

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I meant write a book. I was just so caught up in my new-found troofer jeenyus...

 
At 13 December, 2010 20:59, Blogger Neighborhood Rationalist said...

*Twitch* The file is the video. The torrent is the data. You have been told precisely where to go. This thread is an instant classic. This guy revels in ignorance, actively arguing that he must be sat down and led through the evidence like a child because he is so unwilling to pursue the truth himself. I'm screen-capping these comments for future generations as a monument to hysterically bad argumentation.

 
At 13 December, 2010 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

The 300 mb file is all about the explosives investigation? Then why can't you tell us what it's about and what they found, and how come you have to imagespam your own article with pictures irrelevant to the explosives investigation? And why don't you give us a teensy weensy little clue as to where your 42A0016 file can be found?

And for the third time, how come NIST didn't discuss that investigation in their report, but instead had to rely on the "we found no evidence" lie?

I'm not reveling in ignorance. I'm pointing out that you are making big claims you're not substantiating.

 
At 13 December, 2010 22:13, OpenID Jrebori682 said...

Inflate a balloon. stick a pin in it. You just demonstrated an explosion with zero explosives. That proves explosives are not needed for explosions, therefore explosions are not evidence of explosives.

That is what teh rational world refers to as critical thinking. Try it.

 
At 13 December, 2010 22:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm not reveling in ignorance. I'm pointing out that you are making big claims you're not substantiating.

False. You're trying to keep your delusions intact, and judging by how hysterical you're acting, it appears some form of reality is sneaking into that warped mind of yours.

Please seek professional help.

 
At 13 December, 2010 22:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jreb, your proving my point. Your pin-pricked balloon is not evidence of explosives because you know what caused the pop. The explosion is evidence of explosives until you show what caused the pop.

Why are you trying to make excuses for discarding evidence? You may as well argue that the pimple on your privates is not evidence of syphilis because it might be just a pimple. But you'd be wrong. Until you get it tested, it's evidence of syphilis.

 
At 14 December, 2010 02:12, Blogger paul w said...

1. "The explosion is evidence of explosives until you show what caused the pop."

So, every bang we hear we HAVE to assume is explosives?

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

2. "The explosion is evidence of explosives until you show what caused the pop."

Maybe, just maybe...and bear with me on this one...the uncontrolled fires on multiple floors caused things to go 'bang'????

3. "The explosion is evidence of explosives until you show what caused the pop."

Maybe, just maybe...and bear with me on this one...the collapse of a 110 story building caused things to go 'bang'???

You know (Brian, this is directed at the others reading this, not you), there isn't much difference between Brian and all other truthers.

911oz just did an interview with someone, and the same tired, debunked arguments came up.

I was going to listen to all of it, but after 5 minutes, just couldn't be bothered.

They ALL need professional help.

 
At 14 December, 2010 04:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Smug.mug (aka Brian Good, contrivance, Pet Goat, punxsutawneybarney, etc) babbles, "...Why are you trying to make excuses for discarding evidence? You may as well argue that the pimple on your privates is not evidence of syphilis because it might be just a pimple. But you'd be wrong. Until you get it tested, it's evidence of syphilis."

Correlation doesn't imply causation, dipshit.

Get back to us when you can pass an examination in elementary logic, Pinocchio.

 
At 14 December, 2010 05:16, OpenID jrebori682 said...

An event is not evidence for the existance of something if that something is not required for the event to occur.

A dog barking is not evidence of a burglar. The dog could be barking at another dog, a cat, a bird, a kid making faces at it, or just because it wants to. It is evidence of a dog however.

Explosives are not required for an explosion, hence an explosion is not evidence of explosives.

If that concept is too hard for you, you may be doomed to be a truther all your life. Sad. I blame the school system, myself.

 
At 14 December, 2010 05:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

Jreb, your proving my point. Your pin-pricked balloon is not evidence of explosives because you know what caused the pop. The explosion is evidence of explosives until you show what caused the pop.

Brian, you have no point, you're just babbling hysterically because you know how damaging this evidence is to your delusional belief in an inside job.

And no, on planet earth, one doesn't immediately default to explosives causing an explosion. You can be as delusional as you want, but the adults will handle the investigation normally.

Why are you trying to make excuses for discarding evidence? You may as well argue that the pimple on your privates is not evidence of syphilis because it might be just a pimple. But you'd be wrong. Until you get it tested, it's evidence of syphilis.

I guess Brian used his allowance money on a hooker recently instead of spending it all on glue to sniff like he usually does.

 
At 14 December, 2010 05:28, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

GB Hey Guitar tard, what does det cord on the ground look like in a pile of rubble? If you said wires, your correct.
But of course Blanchard assumes the buildings used conventional demolition as well. That is what I call the debunker "oxygen" demolition theory. It goes like this...if we don't see it, then it must not exist. It pairs nicely with the "smart air" that traveled several floors below the collapse wave and decided to exit the building at precise points with high velocity discharge. Apparently that smart air doesn't like to exit certain parts of the building ahead of the collapse front. '

Did NIST peform chemical foresnic analysis for explosive residue?

Anyone?? If you said no you would be correct.

So some blog site says NIST tested the explosive theory? Hmmm why would they do that when they saw no evidence of explosives? LOL! You tards are in a logic conundrum.
the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else So now, in NIST logic, explosives weren't used because collapse initiation did not begin at a different part of the building. ROFLMAO! True science jockeys for sure.

A great lie from NIST-
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

Yep. No evidence of explosions elsewhere. Yeaah right.

BTW, good jjob snug.bug.

 
At 14 December, 2010 06:11, Blogger Ian G. said...

Well, mask boy is here to stamp his feet and scream "I can't hear you!" with his fingers in his ears. Unfortunately, he's not as entertaining as Brian Good.

Now we just need dust boy to post on this.

 
At 14 December, 2010 07:12, Blogger Garry said...

I'm trying to figure out what mask-boy is babbling about. Is he trying to tell us that explosive charges could be planted in a building without leaving any tell-tale evidence behind? 'They' must have been using a husha-boom.

Brian Good (AKA snugbug) keeps ranting on about eye-witness testimony on bombs. Shame it was all quote-mined, eh?:

http://www.debunking911.com/quotes.htm
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/whattheyheard

Incidentally, the sight of Brian trying to argue his case against a professional fireman ('WAQ') was comedy gold.

 
At 14 December, 2010 08:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, NIST says there was no evidence of explosives. Testimony of explosions is evidence of explosives. So NIST is lying."

Snug-Bug,

If NIST says that there isn't any evidence for explosives, then why in the hell are you still repeating the same stupid shit over & over? If NIST is "lying", then it's you that is lying.

"You say the witnesses said it was "like" an explosive. Please tell us your source for this claim, as you have exposed this source as a liar"

Hey asshole, you've read what the witnesses said & you quote mined them for keywords like "bomb" & "explosive". So it is you that is the liar, not me or anyone else.

Just because you say it, doesn't mean it's the truth. No evidence of explosives from you, means that you're lying & making up incredible batshit stories from thin air.

Do us all a favor Bug, just STFU!

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Carlson and Reynolds and Rogers and Deshore don't say it was "like" anything. They say it was explosions."

Snug-Bug, you're lying again! Here's why you're lying -

Carlsen explains the explosive sound of floors collapsing:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

Reynolds talking about the noise of human beings hitting the ground:

"Then the noise from the people
hitting, it became so much that we ended up having to turn around and look again."

Rogers explains the reason & the smilie that it looked like a "bomb" from the 1993 explosion:

"I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I
was there in '93."

Deshore explains the sound of human bodies hitting the ground:

"HERE THE BODIES KEPT COMING OUT OF BOTH BUILDINGS SOME OF THEM WERE ON FIRE SOME OF THEM WERE MOVING OTHERS WERE NOT MOVING
AND THE WORST PART WAS AS THEY HIT THE GROUND THEY WOULD GO LIKE SPLUSH SOUND"

I read everything they said & still not a single shred of proof from these witnesses saying that they were caused by "explosives".

Snug-Bug, you lost this one!

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:20, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Bone fragments found on the Deutsche Bank building across the street (and behind the airplane impact point) were no larger than 1/2 inch."

So what?

"118 first responders reported flashes or light and/or sounds of explosions."

So what?

"Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices planted in the building."

So what?

" Chief Downey said he thought bombs had been planted in tower two."

So what?

"Ian, I rebutted what the website said. It was bald assertion with no examples. It pointed to a large file and said there was information in there. It didn't say where the information was. The fact that it posted pictures irrelevant to any investigation of explosives showed that the writer was dishonest, an idiot, or both."

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

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:24, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"WAQ, testimony about explosions just before the building came down is evidence for the use of explosives."

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

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:29, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"The explosion is evidence of explosives until you show what caused the pop."

Insane.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Testimony of explosions is evidence of explosives.

Do you mean "testimony" or "reports"? Testimony is a sworn statement given during a legal proceeding.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, you are showing the debunkers' tendency to leap to unscientific conclusions. Evidence is only evidence. To allow that there is evidence for something just not justify any assumptions. Rationality demands that we distinguish between what we know and do not know. You guys mostly lack the patience for that. You're very hungry for a certainty you don't have.

Maybe fires caused things to go bang, but the fact is that NIST has not investigated these things. So there you are, assuming again. "Things" caused the explosions. A scientific approach would list the "things" that might possibly explode. Soda cans? Refrigerator compressors? Light bulbs? Water pipes? Computer monitors? A scientific approach would survey the witness testimony and place the incidents in space and time. Obviously a number of witnesses reporting explosions just before the collapse began would be significant.

Certainly building collapses cause things to go bang. But many witnesses reported explosions BEFORE the buildings came down.

GutterBall, the fact that "correlation proves causation" is a logical fallacy does not mean, as you seem to think it does, that "correlation disproves causation". Feel free to scatter drywall screws around your driveway, dude.

jre, you're wrong. Something can be evidence of many things at the same time. That's why you can't discard the evidence until you have examined it thoroughly. You can't just say "Honey, the dig is just barking at the moon" until you know.

I never said explosives are required for an explosion. But explosions are evidence for explosives, and until the explosions have been determined to have been caused by something else (something specific, not paul w's Things That Go Boom in Fires), then the explosions remain evidence of explosives. You guys seem to be forgetting that these are trained, experienced firemen, who presumably know all about the kinds of stuff that normally blows up in fires.

WAQ, NIST says there is no evidence of explosives. That's a lie right there. There were squibs, there is superheated dust clouds, there are eyewitness reports, there is the sulfidated steel samples from Appendix C, there is molten steel. NIST did not test for explosive residue. How can you find explosives if you refuse to look for them and don't acknowledge the evidence? NFPA 921 requires testing for explosive residue when there is "high order damage".

Carlson and Reynolds and Rogers and Deshore don't say it was "like" explosions. They say it was explosions. Chief Turi and Chief Downey didn't say it was like anything. Turi said it was a secondary device and Downey said he thought there were bombs up there.

So what happened to NR? When's he going to tell us how to find his magic 42A0016 file that allegedly has all the answers and which apparently nobody here, including Pat, has bothered to check before lauding an anonymous blogger for a "terrific job"?

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Testimony of explosions is evidence of explosives."

Snug-Bug,

According to the Federal Rules of Evidence:

Rule 401. Definition of "Relevant Evidence"

"Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."

Since you're so sure that the witnesses say that it was "explosives", then that fact alone, is less probable without evidence.

Truthers who claim that the witnesses described "explosives" don't know that their witnesses have lacked in their personal knowledge of explosives:

"Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge

A witness may not testify to a matter unless evidence is introduced sufficient to support a finding that the witness has personal knowledge of the matter. Evidence to prove personal knowledge may, but need not, consist of the witness' own testimony. This rule is subject to the provisions of rule 703, relating to opinion testimony by expert witnesses."

Snug-Bug doesn't know WTF he/she is talking about.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:52, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Evidence is only evidence."


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

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:53, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"Rationality demands that we distinguish between what we know and do not know."

You making claims of "rationality" in any way shape or form is totally insane.

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:54, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"But many witnesses reported explosions BEFORE the buildings came down."

So what?

 
At 14 December, 2010 09:58, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"I never said explosives are required for an explosion."

"snug.bug said...
WAQ, NIST says there was no evidence of explosives. Testimony of explosions is evidence of explosives."

You do realize that not only are you insane, that you're a liar?

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, NIST says there is no evidence of explosives. That's a lie right there."

Bug,

How can it be a "lie", when you have no evidence to prove it a "lie"? Therefore you're the one lying!

"There were squibs, there is superheated dust clouds, there are eyewitness reports, there is the sulfidated steel samples from Appendix C, there is molten steel."

Squibs are filled with fake blood packets & taped to an actor to give off the realism of being shot. Again, you lie! The Towers weren'tt volcanoes & the pyroclastic flow wasn't "superheated", it was just dust blowing down the streets. Another lie! According to the FLIR taken from the FDNY, the temperature inside the buildings never reached 2,600 degrees F to melt the steel. The temperature was around 2,000 degrees F. Another lie!

"NIST did not test for explosive residue. How can you find explosives if you refuse to look for them and don't acknowledge the evidence? NFPA 921 requires testing for explosive residue when there is "high order damage"."

What evidence is there to prove the existance of explosive residue? There is none! There are no requirements to find explosive residue, it's just standard proceedure to assume that accelerants were used in a common house fire. Again you lie!

"Carlson and Reynolds and Rogers and Deshore don't say it was "like" explosions"

You're lying again you God damned lunatic:

Carlsen explains the explosive sound of floors collapsing:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

Reynolds talking about the noise of human beings hitting the ground:

"Then the noise from the people
hitting, it became so much that we ended up having to turn around and look again."

Rogers explains the reason & the smilie that it looked like a "bomb" from the 1993 explosion:

"I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I
was there in '93."

Deshore explains the sound of human bodies hitting the ground:

"HERE THE BODIES KEPT COMING OUT OF BOTH BUILDINGS SOME OF THEM WERE ON FIRE SOME OF THEM WERE MOVING OTHERS WERE NOT MOVING
AND THE WORST PART WAS AS THEY HIT THE GROUND THEY WOULD GO LIKE SPLUSH SOUND"

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, NIST says there is no evidence of explosives. That's a lie right there."

Bug,

How can it be a "lie", when you have no evidence to prove it a "lie"? Therefore you're the one lying!

"There were squibs, there is superheated dust clouds, there are eyewitness reports, there is the sulfidated steel samples from Appendix C, there is molten steel."

Squibs are filled with fake blood packets & taped to an actor to give off the realism of being shot. Again, you lie! The Towers weren'tt volcanoes & the pyroclastic flow wasn't "superheated", it was just dust blowing down the streets. Another lie! According to the FLIR taken from the FDNY, the temperature inside the buildings never reached 2,600 degrees F to melt the steel. The temperature was around 2,000 degrees F. Another lie!

"NIST did not test for explosive residue. How can you find explosives if you refuse to look for them and don't acknowledge the evidence? NFPA 921 requires testing for explosive residue when there is "high order damage"."

What evidence is there to prove the existance of explosive residue? There is none! There are no requirements to find explosive residue, it's just standard proceedure to assume that accelerants were used in a common house fire. Again you lie!

"Carlson and Reynolds and Rogers and Deshore don't say it was "like" explosions"

You're lying again you God damned lunatic:

Carlsen explains the explosive sound of floors collapsing:

"I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit."

Reynolds talking about the noise of human beings hitting the ground:

"Then the noise from the people
hitting, it became so much that we ended up having to turn around and look again."

Rogers explains the reason & the smilie that it looked like a "bomb" from the 1993 explosion:

"I figured it was a bomb, because it looked like a synchronized deliberate kind of thing. I
was there in '93."

Deshore explains the sound of human bodies hitting the ground:

"HERE THE BODIES KEPT COMING OUT OF BOTH BUILDINGS SOME OF THEM WERE ON FIRE SOME OF THEM WERE MOVING OTHERS WERE NOT MOVING
AND THE WORST PART WAS AS THEY HIT THE GROUND THEY WOULD GO LIKE SPLUSH SOUND"

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Sorry for the repeat, but Bug doesn't understand!

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, for you to impose the most restrictive definitions of "evidence" you can find--federal rules for court proceedings--is quite misleading.

We are not conducting a trial here. We are discussing whether the existing investigations have been adequate and whether new ones are needed. Scientific evidence and federal court evidence are two different animals. In preliminary stages investigators may find leads that are not themselves very good evidence. They follow them up and look for evidence. An example would be someone saying "I think my sister said she knows someone who saw something." Obviously you can't put such a witness on in court. But to fail to follow the lead, saying "That's not evidence, it's just hearsay," is obviously negligent.

NIST did not interview the witnesses. They were witnesses to explosions, not explosives. They have personal knowledge of the explosions, not the explosives.

You guys are constantly misframing things in excessively restrictive ways.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, for you to impose the most restrictive definitions of "evidence" you can find--federal rules for court proceedings--is quite misleading."

Hey Bug,

I'd like to see you tell the Federal Judge that the witnesses described "explosives" being used on 9/11. I'd like to see how you'd hold up to him when he tells you to your face that your facts are not supported by the evidence.

Having common sense & knowledge about the Rules of Evidence isn't very "misleading" at all.

You have a problem showing evidence of explosives, all you can do is talk abou it, like it was some kind of "truth" when all it is is hearsay coming from you.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:10, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Rule 602. Lack of Personal Knowledge

To be completely fair to butt.fuck, FRE isn't going to apply in a NIST investigation. Those rules deal with whether or not a piece of evidence can be admitted in a proceeding, not whether it's particularly credible. A witness present who thought he heard an explosion would satisfy the Personal Knowledge requirement; he doesn't actually have to be correct about it, it just has to be his personal recollection.

What Troofers consistently fail to recognize about "evidence" is that it also has weight (or lack thereof). Absence of physical evidence creates a presumption that you can't generally get around with testimonial evidence alone.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"NIST did not interview the witnesses. They were witnesses to explosions, not explosives. They have personal knowledge of the explosions, not the explosives."

Bug,

Changing the subject from, "They said it was explosives" to "They were witnesses to explosions", aren't ya?

"They have personal knowledge of the explosions, not the explosives."

Ordinary office workers don't have personal knowledge of explosions. Quit lying!

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"You guys are constantly misframing things in excessively restrictive ways."

Yeah right Bug,

And you have no fucking clue about 9/11 do you? No you don't! You know nothing about the events surrounding 9/11.

All you do is come here with your bullshit claims from 2006 & expect us to just admit that you're "right"? Well shit for brains, you're 4 years behind the times & those claims about "explosives" are as dead as they were in 2006.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

An example would be someone saying "I think my sister said she knows someone who saw something." Obviously you can't put such a witness on in court. But to fail to follow the lead, saying "That's not evidence, it's just hearsay," is obviously negligent.

That's where you're wrong. There is nothing negligent about refusing to chase a dubious lead. Quite the opposite, in fact.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

OMG, I can't stop laughing about this website:

http://www.truthjihad.com/good.htm

Snug-Bug, aka Brian Good, just got his ass handed to him from one of his own.

 
At 14 December, 2010 10:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

LL, I'm sorry that you can't distinguish between the statement "there were explosives" and "there is evidence of explosives" but that's not my fault. I bet they have a GED study guide at your local library and I suggest you put some time in with it.

WAQ, I have many times listed the evidence for explosives: squibs, eyewitness testimony, testimony of Chiefs Turi and Downey, superheated dust clouds, sulfidated steel. For NIST to claim that this evidence does not exist is a lie. Furthermore some of their statements about explosives seem to contain finger-crossing weasel-phrases such as "using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001".

Playing semantic games about "squibs" is dishonest, WAQ. Obviously you are very emotional on the issues. Are you capable of having an adult discussion? You know as well as I that nobody is claiming that isolated puffs of pulverized building material ejected at hundreds of feet per second are not exploding bags of blood.

The rapid expansion and upwelling behavior of the dust clouds is indicative of the injection of enormous quantities of heat into the system.

Your hysterical accusations that I am lying while you invoke lack of proof of explosive residue as an excuse for not performing tests for explosive residue are classic debunker-clown comedy! NFPA 921 says "All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria." NIST didn't do that.

Carlson said "there were about ten explosions". Even when he invokes later discussions about floors falling down, he still uses the term "explosions". This suggests the need for further investigation.

Reynolds says "I was distracted by a large explosion from the South Tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction". He is not talking about bodies hitting the pavement.

Reynolds says "There was an explosion.... floor after floor after floor".

Deshore said "this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

You should be ashamed of your lies, WAQ.

Your invocation of a federal judge is indicative of my point about your mistaken framing, WAQ. To demand courtroom proof before you will admit the need for an investigation is ludicrous. How many times do I have to tell you I didn't say the witnesses say "explosives". They saw "explosions".

RGT, what you don't recognize is that NIST didn't investigate the physical evidence it has--including the Appendix C steel samples. It failed to test for explosive residue.

WAQ, the witnesses were first responders, not office workers. We can expect that they were experienced with the kinds of explosions you ordinarily hear in fires.

RGT, you don't know a lead is dubious until you chase it. Al Qaeda was known to use explosives. They used them in 2003, they used them in the African Embassy bombings.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, I have many times listed the evidence for explosives: squibs, eyewitness testimony, testimony of Chiefs Turi and Downey, superheated dust clouds, sulfidated steel."

Snug,

No you haven't! All that you assume is that the witnesses are describing the explosions as similies, the words "like" & "as if" are similies. Similies aren't evidence of explosives.

Quit lying!

"Playing semantic games about "squibs" is dishonest, WAQ."

Really?! And you assume that Hollywood is being "dishonest" when they kill off a hero with squibs attached to them? You're a Kook!

"Your hysterical accusations that I am lying while you invoke lack of proof of explosive residue as an excuse for not performing tests for explosive residue are classic debunker-clown comedy!"

Well you are lying, quite literally out your ass, as it appears. There wasn't any residue of explosives found at Ground Zero. Brent Blanchard made that clear, that he found nothing to suggest explosives were used. So again, you're wrong & proven a big time liar.

"You should be ashamed of your lies, WAQ."

You should be ashamed of stalking people who don't agree with you.

"Your invocation of a federal judge is indicative of my point about your mistaken framing, WAQ"

Really?! Well the Judge will tell the jury that you're a lunatic.

"How many times do I have to tell you I didn't say the witnesses say "explosives". They saw "explosions"."

It was quite the opposite of what you're suggesting, you first said that they said it was "explosives". Do I have to scroll up this page, copy & paste what you said?

"WAQ, the witnesses were first responders, not office workers. We can expect that they were experienced with the kinds of explosions you ordinarily hear in fires."

There were office workers who said someting about the explosions too. Your assumption that explosives were used in a fire laden building is grossly mistaken. The fires would've set off the explosives prematurely. This is one thing you can't understand!

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Carlson said "there were about ten explosions". Even when he invokes later discussions about floors falling down, he still uses the term "explosions". This suggests the need for further investigation."

Carlsen said it was the floors collapsing. No need to have an invesigation! You lose!

"Reynolds says "I was distracted by a large explosion from the South Tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction". He is not talking about bodies hitting the pavement."

Reynolds was describing the impact of the 2nd plane that entered WTC2 & he saw the fireball after it impacted the building. He suggested nothing about "explosives". You lose, again!

"Reynolds says "There was an explosion.... floor after floor after floor"."

That's not evidence of "explosives", he's describing the floors collapsing, like he said they did. You loase, again!

"Deshore said "this flash just kept popping all the way around the building and that building had started to explode. The popping sound, and with each popping sound it was initially an orange and then a red flash came out of the building and then it would just go all around the building on both sides as far as I could see. These popping sounds and the explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

She was describing the sound of bolts & nuts made. They popped off and made an explosion type sound. There is nothing in her testimony to suggest explosives. You lose, again!

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:22, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

The forensic scientific results that should have done on the steel after the collapse. Those results would conclusively prove whether explosives of any sort were used.

But it is a moot point due to the discovery of molten iron and molten iron spheres along with swiss cheese like steel flanges as well as the discovery of thermite based materials within the remains.

A great lie from NIST-
Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

So here is NIST telling us they ONLY looked for blast or explosions in a small part of the building just before initation. Did you notice something in that comment by NIST?
1. They left out the REST of the building.
2. They left out the entire collapse sequence.

Again, you won't find what you aren't looking for.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"You know as well as I that nobody is claiming that isolated puffs of pulverized building material ejected at hundreds of feet per second are not exploding bags of blood."

Snug,

You know as well as I know that NIST was describing the outter columns being "ejected" away from the rest of the building. There is no way in hell that an explosive (as small as they can be) would be powerful enough to eject tons of steel. The collapse of the Towers were peeled like a bannana, gravity helped it along.

Seriously, I truely think you are a fruitcake.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:33, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Yo V (Masked Writer),

"1. They left out the REST of the building.

2. They left out the entire collapse sequence."

Funny, they had bomb sniffing dogs inside the Towers just days earlier & found nothing.

They didn't leave out anything about the collapse. You just ignored important details from NIST.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, your continued lying about the witnesses is self-discrediting. I provided the quotes that showed that many of them did not use similies. They said they witnessed explosions. Chief Turi and Chief Downey both spoke of secondary devices. These were not similies or metaphors. Deal with reality. And learn what "literally" means.

There was no residue of explosives found because NIST, in defiance of NFPA 921 and logic, did not test for residue. Since al Qaeda (in cooperation with the FBI) had previously attempted to bomb the WTC, it would seem reasonable to perform such tests, especially given that the lobby explosions were not rigorously examined and there were reports of explosions in the basement. Since discovery of explosive residue would reflect poorly on a particularly well-connected security consultant, the suspicion is justified that the political implications of explosive residue resulted in scientific blindness on NIST's part.

Brent Blanchard was looking for det cord. There's no reason to think the perps used det cord.

Yes, please copy and paste what I said. I did not say the witnesses said there were explosives. I said the witnesses' testimony about explosions was evidence of explosives. You guys seem to be unable to distinguish between evidence and conclusions, which explains why your opinions are so loopy.

I don't assume that explosives were used. I don't conclude that explosives were used. I don't know if explosives were used. I do know that the investigations were incomplete and dishonest, and I thus conclude that new ones are needed. Fires would not set off explosives prematurely is the explosives were not on the fire floors or if the explosives were hidden inside hollow core columns or other fireproof containers. Fires would also not set off binary explosives before they were mixed.

Your assumption that I disagree with you because I don't understand is mistaken. I have been thinking about and investigating these issues much longer than you.

Carlson says it was explosions. You want to close the books. I want to ask Carlson to testify under oath.

Reynolds said "I was distracted by a large explosion from the south tower and it seemed like fire was shooting out a couple of hundred feet in each direction, then all
of a sudden the top of the tower started coming down in a pancake."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110288.PDF
You are the worst kind of liar, WAQ--a Kevin-Barrett kind of liar. Shame on you.

Rogers described explosions floor by floor. "There was an explosion in the south tower.... Floor after floor after floor.... I figured it was a bomb."

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110290.PDF

Deshore says: "The explosions were getting bigger, going both up and down and then all around the building."

You are making a fool of yourself.
Your argument that what explosives are not powerful enough to do, gravity alone did without explosives does not make any sense.

Were the bomb sniffing dogs trained to sniff out thermite? Couldn't explosives be packed in airtight containers to evade the dogs?

NIST left out all the important things--everything that happened after collapse initiation: symmetry and totality and speed of collapse, pulverization of the concrete, molten iron, evidence for explosives. You say a lot of stuff that just ain't true.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

But it is a moot point due to the discovery of molten iron and molten iron spheres along with swiss cheese like steel flanges as well as the discovery of thermite based materials within the remains.

None of those point to explosives.

So here is NIST telling us they ONLY looked for blast or explosions in a small part of the building just before initation.

Uh, no. The 82nd floor down and the 98th floor down is most of the building, in both cases. And wouldn't blasts be required to initiate the collapse -- and therefore, need to occur just before initiation?

Again, you won't find what you aren't looking for.

Corollary: you can only find what's really there.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

You won't find what you aren't looking for, you can only find what's really there, and you can't know what's not there until you honestly look for it and fail to find it.

WAQo style logic saying "We don't have to look for it because you haven't proved that it's there" is humiliating to this forum, though it seems that few of you are bright enough to recognize that.

 
At 14 December, 2010 11:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, what you don't recognize is that NIST didn't investigate the physical evidence it has--including the Appendix C steel samples. It failed to test for explosive residue.

You need to identify a valid reason why NIST should have tested for explosive residue.

RGT, you don't know a lead is dubious until you chase it. Al Qaeda was known to use explosives. They used them in 2003, they used them in the African Embassy bombings.

Experienced investigators are in fact pretty good at ruling out implausible leads. Of course it's possible to falsely exclude something or somebody, but there's no indication that happened with NIST's investigation.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

WAQo style logic saying "We don't have to look for it because you haven't proved that it's there" is humiliating to this forum, though it seems that few of you are bright enough to recognize that.

Not really. You're living in a world of logical abstraction, but investigators need to also apply common sense and experience. NIST didn't spend a lot of time looking for explosives for the same reason that you (probably) don't spend time looking up your own ass for golf balls.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

Actually they did use similies, everyone here can point them out to you if you wish, I can point them out to you also!

They spoke of, but never confrimed that it was explosives devices. Their quotes were quoe mined by you. You picked out keywords from the witnesses, such as: "Bombs, explosives & secondary devices".

This is quote mining buddy, you're lack of intelligence isn't very rewarding for you, is it?

Because it never existed! The claims of "explosives" mean Queen Dick to this debate.


You have no evidence to prove this lunatic claim. You're just wording it out like it's the "truth". Well it isn't the truth, is it?


And Willie Rodriguez, the FDNY & the French cameramen some how escaped these "explosions" unharmed. Since they survived, it looks like they proved you wrong.


Did he find any? No, he didn't! So you're poor ass excuse for "explosives" is cut short by Blanchards testimony.


You don't know anything, therefore you can't know for certain that the investigation was "incomplete & dishonest", because you don't know. Gotcha!


Wanna make a bet? Throw a firecracker in a fire & see what happenes shit for brains.


You don't understand & you never will. Ever read about Fire Science? No, I guess you never would read it or understand it.


Did Carlsen determine if they were caused by "explosives"? Yes or No!


He was talking about the 2nd plane impact into WTC2. You have nothing to prove with that statement.


Since it is the Holidays & Christmas is around the bend. I can say that you're a God damn fruitcake. You don't have any kind of evidence to save yourself to call me a liar.


He was commenting about the floor collapses, not "bombs".


She doesn't know what a popping of bolts is like. Hence her lack of knowledge!


If I or anyone would PUSH you out of an airplane, instead of using explosives to push your stupid ass out. Wouldn't your stupid ass fall to the ground at terminal velocity of about 120 mph? Yes, your silly ass would be pulled to Earth by gravity.


Considering that the fascade was made out of aluminum sheets & that rust formed on the steel, it would be impossible for the dogs to sniff out thermite because the building would be old & the dogs weren't trained to sniff those materials out.

There is no such thing as an "air-tight" container. It's like saying that the Titanic was "unsinkable". Plus, why do you think tires deflate after a long time?

It's very true about what I say. You just can't admit when you're wrong about alot of things.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:10, Blogger Garry said...

'Al Qaeda was known to use explosives. They used them in 2003, they used them in the African Embassy bombings'.

In Nairobi and Dar-es-Salaam in August 1998 they used trucks backed with explosives driven by suicide bombers. On 9/11 they hijacked airliners packed with fuel, and crashed them at high speed into their targets. They didn't need bombs to inflict catastrophic damage on WTCs 1 and 2.

As for your supposed 'witness testimony', you have been shown repeatedly that the first-responders you cite had their recollections quote-mined and distorted, and that they did not confirm that bombs had gone off in the WTC towers before their collapse.

You truly do need psychiatric help.

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

"WAQo style logic saying "We don't have to look for it because you haven't proved that it's there" is humiliating to this forum, though it seems that few of you are bright enough to recognize that."

Attacking my logic truely degrades your lack of phsyical evidence for "explosives".

My logic is this you moron:

If you eliminate the impossible (that explosives were used on 9/11), whatever remains, however improbable (that there wasn't any explosives used on 9/11), must be the truth.

Whatever remains is that there were no explosives used on 9/11. And that's the truth!

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian Good, aka Snug-Bug, thinks he can "win" his arguement with me about those alleged "explosives".

That poor sonvabitch doesn't have any common sense left in him.

His logic is this:

"If I think, therefore I am."

So he thinks that the witnesses are describing "bombs, secondary devices, explosives" therefore, in his own twisted mind they are "real".

Out of all the witnesses, who described these explosions, not a single 1 can confirm that they wre caused by "explosives".

They all said that it was "as if" a bomb had gone off or that it sounded "like" an explosive.

Brian is way over his head & can't admit that he's a lying douchebag.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, NIST should have tested for explosives as part of a conscientious investigation of eyewitness testimony about explosions, the blast in the lobby, the superheated dust, the squibs, and the statements on secondary devices by Chiefs Turi and Downey. Also because of al Qaeda's history of attacks using explosives. Also because scientific rigor and NPFA 921 18.15 demand it "All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria."

In the case of NIST, the pressure that could be brought to bear by the political appointee at the top creates much doubt that the decision not to test for explosives one one based on investigatorial experience.

I don't look for golf balls up my ass because I don't have world class experts such as Chief Ray Downey telling me that I should.

WAQ, actually they DO NOT use similies. Your bald lies are getting quite tiresome. The witnesses describe explosions, as my quotes clearly show, and your lies fail to refute it.

People were killed in the lobby by blasts in the elevator shaft. I don't recall that NIST ever seriously investigated whether it's possible for jet fuel to fall down a 1200 foot elevator shaft and arrive at the bottom in sufficient quantities to explode.

Blanchard's comments relate to conventional CD jobs, which the WTC obviously was not. So they are as irrelevant as a hitman saying "Well, any pro will use a 9 mm, so this guy here who was shot with a .45 is obviously a suicide."

I know that the investigation was incomplete because I can name the things they failed to investigate. I know the investigation was dishonest for the same reason, and because Shyam Sunder is a liar.

Carlsen said : "Building two, the south tower.... there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started
to come down."

That's not the plane hitting. WAQ, it's very ignorant to lie so bltantly.

If you pushed me out of an airplane, I would fall at terminal velocity. If you pushed me out of a helicopter onto the top of a 90-story building, it would not. Do you have a point?

There are gas-tight containers--nitrogen, helium, and oxygen are commonly stored in them at high pressures.

Garry, the witnesses' statements were not distorted. They said there were explosions. Chief Turi and Chief Downey spoke of secondary devices.

Your belief that al qaeda "didn't need bombs to inflict catastrophic damage" is simply a circular argument from credulity: <>

WAQ, your attempt to improve your logical failure only makes it worse. There's nothng impossible about planting explosives in a building--especially when there are 15 miles of elevator shafts to hide them in.

WAQ, it is not for the witnesses to confirm anything. Witnesses are not investigators. They simply tell what they saw. It is for the investigators to confirm what they saw. If the investigators believe the witnesses saw cans of hairspray exploding, they need to test exploding cans and confirm that.

The witnesses I quoted did not say "like" an explosion. They said "explosion". Your persistent lying about this is highly discrediting to you.

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Let's see, how many pathetic lies can one pack into one post?

the superheated dust, the squibs

There was no superheated dust, and no squibs, and while I'm at it, no molten iron pouring from WTC 2, nor were the fires going out. But other than this, you're on the right track, petgoat.

I don't recall that NIST ever seriously investigated whether it's possible for jet fuel to fall down a 1200 foot elevator shaft and arrive at the bottom in sufficient quantities to explode.

Apparently, the NIST should have investigated the anti-gravity properties of jet fuel because an obsessed liar and failed janitor wants to know about them.

Blanchard's comments relate to conventional CD jobs, which the WTC obviously was not.

True. Most CDs don't use jetliners as missiles to bring the buildings down.

I know that the investigation was incomplete because I can name the things they failed to investigate.

Micro-nukes, death-ray beams, and modified attack baboons, among other things...

I know the investigation was dishonest for the same reason, and because Shyam Sunder is a liar.

And yet you're so desperate for 9/11 truth to be plausible that you'll dishonestly cite this "liar" when babbling about the speed at which the buildings collapsed....

Garry, the witnesses' statements were not distorted. They said there were explosions. Chief Turi and Chief Downey spoke of secondary devices.

Nobody cares.

There's nothng impossible about planting explosives in a building--especially when there are 15 miles of elevator shafts to hide them in.

True, which is why NIST investigated this possibility. They found nothing. You're not really good at this whole "thinking" thing, are you petgoat?

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

Actually you're wrong about them not using similies. Everyone read what the witnesses said in their testimony. Nothing in your power can ever change thier statements. You quote mined their statements & you know for a fact that you did it deliberatly. Therefore you're lying!

And Willie Rodriguez survived this blast? You are a fucking lunatic!

And would it be possible to rig 47 floors or a building that's already on fire? Answer the question you turd!

Carlsen heard the 2nd plane, you can't change his statement.

My point is, the buildings never reached terminal velocity to achieve "free fall speed".

You can't name the things they "failed" to investigae because there isn't anything for you to name.

Gas containers = propane type tanks. List any witnesses who saw people plant these gas containers in the buildings.

What witnesses saw the explosives being planted in the elevator shafts? Come on, you said you had witnesses confirming that they saw something.

The witnesses are telling everyone here that there's no evidence for the placement of "explosives".

"Your persistent lying about this is highly discrediting to you."

And you are quite the dodge artist aren't you?

You say: "They aren't similies!" Actually they are, & you're dodging the truth that they used similies in their statements.

I rest my case you fruitloop!

 
At 14 December, 2010 12:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

If the investigators believe the witnesses saw cans of hairspray exploding, they need to test exploding cans and confirm that.

And then when they investigate the exploding hairspray can claims and find they have no merit, we can expect obsessed liars who are failed janitors to tell everyone that the investigations were dishonest.

The witnesses I quoted did not say "like" an explosion. They said "explosion". Your persistent lying about this is highly discrediting to you.

False.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:02, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Hey Brian, aka Snug-Bug:

You claim:

The World Trade Centers were destroyed by explosives, as a result of Controlled Demolition, in the basement and plane impact areas. Firefighters heard explosives going off.

My answer:

This would be impossible since there were people in the basement at the time, William Rodrigez, FDNY firefighters and NYPD police officers were very much alive at the time and so were French cameramen filming. Explosives in the plane impact areas would not have survived the nearly 1 hour of burning time. They would have detonated after an immediate fire and the primacords would've been severed or rendered useless by the planes impact. William Rodrigez, a janitor in WTC1, was in Basement Level 1 with his supervisor, at the time Flight 175 impacted the building and heard nothing. He did not say anything about ever seeing an explosive device in the basement or one going off there. No "controlled demolition" occured, and that theory has no evidence to support it. A controlled demolition starts at the bottom to the top, not the top to the bottom. Plus the fires that raged inside both towers would've set the demolition prematurely, causing the towers to fall sooner than later. But the towers fell later, about 1 hour later, by the extreme fires that raged to soften the steel and causing the bolts and rivets to pop, the fires inside the towers reached between 1,300*F to about 2,000*F, well below the 2,600*F+ heat to melt steel.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Now make up some kind of an excuse Brian. I'd like to read how you're gonna dodge that!

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:07, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I forgot this Brian:

Explosive shape charges leave behind copper when exploded. Not a single piece of WTC steel that was looked at had any type of copper residue on the columns. The "controlled demolition" theory can't exist because elements don't exist to confirm that 9/11 was an "Inside Job". The FDNY firefighters heard what represented explosives. They heard things exploding inside offices that would be combustible in an office, such as: TV's, computer monitors, electrical wiring, coping machines, furniture, ect. Another possible explosive sound they heard would've been the fuel tanks for the generators, the bolts and rivets holding the outter and inner columns popping from the collaspe.

Again, try and dodge it!

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the witnesses I quoted-- Rogers, Deshore, Carlsen, and Reynolds--did NOT use similies. Your persistent lying is disgusting.

Who needs to rig 47 stories? You blow out the core at the bottom and the building comes down.

Building on fire? If the fire is on floor 96 and you're on floor 56, what's the problem?

Carlsen wasn't even at the site until after the plane hit. You are just babbling.

NIST says in section 6.14.4 that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". If you disagree, take it up with NIST.

NIST failed to investigate the symmetry and totality and speed of collapse, the pulverization of concrete, the lobby explosions, the reports of explosions, and the molten iron.

Planting propane tanks is not the issue. Dog-proof containers is the issue. Drug smugglers know all about how to confuse sniffer dogs.

I wish you would not try to restate my case. You are not competent to state your own case.

Fires would not set off explosives prematurely is the explosives were not on the fire floors or if the explosives were hidden inside hollow core columns or other fireproof containers. Fires would also not set off binary explosives before they were mixed.

Controlled demolitions have been done from the top, from the middle, and the bottom. Obviously for tall structures like the WTC top-down is the only way to control it. NIST has no physical evidence to support its claims of weakened steel--no core steel samples showing heating above 480 F.

How do you know there's no copper residue on the steel? What if the perps used aluminum casings on the shaped charges instead of copper?

NIST did no tests to find what noises are made by popping computer monitors, etc. They did no scientific examination of explosion at all. Your handwaving arguments are not sufficient. We need a rigorous investigation, and we didn't get one.

 
At 14 December, 2010 13:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, the witnesses I quoted-- Rogers, Deshore, Carlsen, and Reynolds--did NOT use similies. Your persistent lying is disgusting."

If I'm "lying", then how come I read their statements that weren't quoe mined & they were saying "as if" & "like" in their statements? You're shooting the messenger here you quote-mining idiot.

"You blow out the core at the bottom and the building comes down."

But how did Willie survive? Answer that!

"Carlsen wasn't even at the site until after the plane hit."

So you changed from explosives to planes? Ok!

Free fall speed is 120 mph. Look it up moron!

"lobby explosions, the reports of explosions, and the molten iron"

Again, how did Willie survive? Molten iron didn' exist, the temps were too low, around 2,000 degrees F. Not 2,600 degrees F.

"Dog-proof containers is the issue."

There is no such thing as a dog proof container. If you own a dog you'd know that.

"You are not competent to state your own case."

Then how come you're in a bitchy type mood if I wasn't competent?

"Fires would not set off explosives prematurely is the explosives were not on the fire floors or if the explosives were hidden inside hollow core columns or other fireproof containers"

Lies & more lies!

"How do you know there's no copper residue on the steel?"

Why don't you e-mail a CD expert like I did? They all use shape charges with copper on them to slice through the metal. If you don't know that then you're an idiot.

"Your handwaving arguments are not sufficient"

And you're also not a qualified or certified firefighter to make that claim agains me.

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

WAQo, clearly you DIDN'T read the statements of Reynolds et. al, or you wouldn't have got so mixed uop about Carlsen's.

I didn't say that anyone blew out the core at the bottom, so your question about Willie is meaningless. You guys take statements out of context to blow smoke to cover over your lies.
How did Willie survive? Because he left the building before the guys who didn't survive did.

WAQ, you're not carrying on a conversation, you're just free-associating and you don't even understand the context when the subject is your own remarks.

Actually you seem to be going TILT!
Molten iron was testified to by many witnesses, including Dr. Astaneh-Asl. There are dog proof containers, I know.

So on your planet fires on the 96th floor would set off explosives on the 56th floor?

So what if CD experts use copper casings for shaped charges? Wouldn't that be a good reason for covert ops to use aluminum casings? "That'll fool all the idiots. They'll look for copper residue and they're so dumb they won't even notice the aluminum."

The handwaving arguments of an anonymous internet poster are not sufficient to bridge over the holes in the NIST report, and if you think they should be it only goes to prove your lack of qualifications.

 
At 14 December, 2010 14:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the witnesses I quoted did not use similies. I did not say the core was blown out. Willie survived because he left the building before it fell down. Your post is simply a mess of babbling free-associations. You seem to be losing it.

If CD practitioners normally use copper casings for their shaped charges, that would be a good reason for the perps to use aluminum casings. "Hey, the idiots will look for copper and won't find any, and it will never occur to them to ask about the aluminum."

Handwaving arguments from an anonymous internet poster are not sufficient to paper over the holes in the NIST story. Anyone with a brain knows that.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, you're trying to bury WAQ's posts in your hysterical squealing spam.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually WAQo's post was itself a pretty hysterical squeal. He forgot the context of his own remarks. I guess that happens a lot to people who cut and paste their opinions from other websites instead of relying on their own knowledge and research.

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

So Brian, have you found any proof that the WTC towers existed yet, or are you just going to bury my questions in spam as you always do?

 
At 14 December, 2010 15:53, Blogger paul w said...

"Rationality demands..""
snug.bug

Lol!

Actually, your sad efforts for a conversation, ANY conversation, is quite tragic.

Seek professional help, please.

 
At 14 December, 2010 16:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Just to keep score, Bwian and the Masked Typer are somehow smarter than the hundreds of people who handled the steel from the WTC either at Ground Zero, or later out at the Freshkills site.

Even though neither one has ever conducted an investigation, worked with explosives, worked with steel, or has any forensic training both feel qualified to question the work of those who do.

Had explosive been used it would have been obvious to anyone with military experience. Since many of the police, firefighters, and steel workers had served their country they could have easily spotted damage from explosives. They would have flagged it and reported it to the press. Especially the NYPD and NYFD folks who lost family, and friends in the collapses. Anyone who believes that those guys would remain silent in the face of evidence of explosives being used to bring down the towers is...well... a fucking moron. You see, evidence of additional explosives would mean that other terrorists are still running around breathing, and the NYPD would make it their personal mission to hunt them down to make them pay.

So the idea that NYPD and NYFD investigators would see evidence of an explosion then chose to ignore it is insulting. The idea that they would agree to keep silent as part of a larger consipacy shows a pathetic lack of knowledge about the NYPD.

The idea that NYPD or the NYFD would play along with a conspiracy to conceal the truth is one that needs to be taken up with them directly. I would also pay to be there to watch the troofers confront the NYPD for their part in the cover up, I really would.

 
At 14 December, 2010 16:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

So the idea that NYPD and NYFD investigators would see evidence of an explosion then chose to ignore it is insulting. The idea that they would agree to keep silent as part of a larger consipacy shows a pathetic lack of knowledge about the NYPD.

I've often felt that the truthers beliefs about who would accept money to keep silent is more of a reflection of their own greed an cowardice than anything else. Brian and mask boy and dust boy and David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage would take the money and shut up, even if their own family members had been murdered by their own government.

 
At 14 December, 2010 17:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Greg, what seems to have escaped you is I'm not criticizing the work they did so much as the work they didn't do. Gordon Ross has pictures of downed columns with pushed in surfaces consistent with explosive overpressure.

One of the effects of the "scoop and dump" operation was that NYPD and FDNY personnel would not have an opportunity to investigate, and I'm not aware that there were any FDNY or NYPD investigators on the site. I suspect you are creating a completely fictional investigation and then claiming it didn't find anything.

 
At 14 December, 2010 17:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

So now you guys are attributing to truthers the claims that investigators who never were are getting payoffs, and then projecting such venality on the truthers who never said such a thing.

It's too bad that your imaginations are at the same time so powerful and so impoverished.
When you conjure up a hallucination vivid as life, it's just a dumpster and a pay phone.

 
At 14 December, 2010 19:27, Blogger Triterope said...

Have you ever seen one of those videos where somebody makes their friend watch "Two Girls One Cup" and tapes their reactions? I feel like I'm watching one of those right now, as our friend WAQ gets his first look into The Crazy World of Brian Good.

Just start at the top of this thread, search for every instance where "WhyAskQuestions said..." something to Brian Good and read them. You can just feel the veins bulging in his neck the deeper you get in the thread, as he tries to find new ways to explain the same fourth-grade concepts to Brian, and as Brian continues to flummox these efforts as only he can.

I'm so used to Brian's argument style by now that I'd almost forgotten what a world class loony he is.

 
At 14 December, 2010 19:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can certainly see the veins bulging in the WAQo's neck and forehead until finally at 13:41 he just goes completely TILT! and starts babbling incoherently about stuff like "shape charges", forgetting the context of things he brought up himself, citing random and irrelevant factoids, making stupid claims about dog-proof containers. That didn't take long, did it?

Just a little dose of truth completely blew his mind. I love it when that happens.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Just a little dose of truth completely blew his mind. I love it when that happens.

Yes, he did have to face the truth that there are human beings out there who are as delusional and pathological as you are.

Brian, you're so obnoxious that the truth movement threw you out. As far as I know, you're the only person (aside from maybe Nico) who has been banned by the truthers. Not even Bill Deagle was kicked out like you were. How's that for comedy?

Also, unlike Kevin Barrett and Carol Brouillet, nobody here is angry at you for being such a lunatic. We all just laugh at you.

 
At 14 December, 2010 20:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, you're so obnoxious that the truth movement threw you out.

Now that's funny.

 
At 14 December, 2010 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what gives you the idea that the truth movement threw me out? Did Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett and Sander Hicks tell you that? Did your uncle Steve whisper in your Rice Crispies this morning? And you believed them?

Sure, when the truth is obnoxious, I'm obnoxious. I tell the truth. Con artists, liars, and sloppy researchers have a problem with that. Like you.

 
At 14 December, 2010 21:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 December, 2010 21:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what happened to NR? When's he going to tell us how to find his magic 42A0016 file that allegedly has all the answers and which apparently nobody here, including Pat, has bothered to check before lauding an anonymous blogger for a "terrific job"?

So see, I'm obnoxious all right. I point out the holes in the theory, the internal contradictions, the self-deception, the wishful thinking, the lying. Dishonest people find that obnoxious. Honest people appreciate it.

 
At 15 December, 2010 02:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian G. wrote, "...Brian, you're so obnoxious that the truth movement threw you out. As far as I know, you're the only person (aside from maybe Nico) who has been banned by the truthers. Not even Bill Deagle was kicked out like you were. How's that for comedy?"

ROTFLMAO!

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:18, Blogger The Masked Writer said...

Why ask questionsThey didn't leave out anything about the collapse. You just ignored important details from NIST.

You sir are clueless or an outright liar. Do tell us where to find the analysis of the entire collapse?
Oh that is right they didn't model the entire collapse, they stopped at initiation. Are you new to the lying debunking game or what?

Again NIST's method, "lets look at just a small segment of the buildling for a short period time, ignore the entire body of evidence, and claim it doesn't look like a common controlled demoloition intiation, therefore
there was no evidence of explosives used. NIST had a jump on you debunkers...they were using the fallacy of omission waaaay before you tards. GREAAAT scientific analysis on a historical first for high rise steel framed structures!!!!
It is not there if you don't look for it.
Government science jockeys at their best! ROFLMAO.

What is just is bad is a bunch of computer jockeys claiming NIST did test the explosive theory blah blah yet NIST's own comments as to why they didn't test the explosive theory are laid out for the public to see. A logic conudrum. It is too bad you self-proclaimend debunkers jump upon every word another debunker states as if it is factual only to find out it is complete bullshit.

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:24, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, the witnesses' statements were not distorted. They said there were explosions'.

Liar. Explain away this.

'“I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?”--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory'.

That's how you troofers render Gregory's recollections. This is what he actually said:

'I know I was with an officer from Ladder 146, a Lieutenant Evangelista, who ultimately called me up a couple of days later just to find out how I was. We both for whatever reason -- again, I don't know how valid this is with everything that was going on at that particular point in time, but for some reason I thought that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw low-leve] flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes in front of the building, and I agreed with him because I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I mean, it could have been as a result of the building collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash flash and then it looked like the building came down.

Q.: Was that on the lower level of the building or up where the fire was?

A: No, the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building, how when they blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him, but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy, but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing right next to me. He said did you see anything by the building? And I said what do you mean by see anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said, yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw them, too.

I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever'.

That's just one of many examples I could pick out, Brian. Do you want me to carry on?

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:31, Blogger Garry said...

'Your belief that al qaeda "didn't need bombs to inflict catastrophic damage" is simply a circular argument from credulity'.

So someone crashes a 767 with 10,000 gallons of aviation fuel into a skyscraper at 466 mph (in the case of AA11) and 545 mph (UA175), and that's not going to have any impact on the building's survivability.

You are a windowlicker, aren't you?

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:47, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, what gives you the idea that the truth movement threw me out? Did Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett and Sander Hicks tell you that?

Um, yes. These people are truthers, and when they tell me you've been kicked out of the movement, I tend to believe them. If a bishop told me someone was excommunicated from the Catholic Church, I'd tend to believe him too.

Richard Gage kicked out of AE911 Truth because you were stalking Rodriguez from an AE911 Truth e-mail account. You've been banned from posting at 911oz, and so on.

The truthers universally hate your guts and want nothing to do with you. I can't name a single one who will vouch for you. It's hilarious.

 
At 15 December, 2010 05:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

So what happened to NR? When's he going to tell us how to find his magic 42A0016 file that allegedly has all the answers and which apparently nobody here, including Pat, has bothered to check before lauding an anonymous blogger for a "terrific job"?

Brian, just because you never checked it doesn't mean other people didn't look at it. I know what's in there is too painful for you to accept, so you'll just stick your fingers in your ears, but the sane people here don't do that.

So see, I'm obnoxious all right. I point out the holes in the theory, the internal contradictions, the self-deception, the wishful thinking, the lying. Dishonest people find that obnoxious. Honest people appreciate it.

Whatever, Brian. You can keep this delusional thinking going while the rest of the world laughs at you. I suggest psychiatric help.

 
At 15 December, 2010 07:16, Blogger Triterope said...

Ian, what gives you the idea that the truth movement threw me out? Did Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett and Sander Hicks tell you that?

What kind of fucked up logic is that?

Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Sander Hicks ARE the truth movement. If they throw you out of the movement, then you're thrown out of the movement. By definition!

Now, I grant you that these men are not the sole decision-makers of the Truth movement, or even its leaders. No definitive leadership structure or decision-making process exists. But there certainly isn't any evidence that any faction of the Truth movement accepts you as a welcome participant. However, plenty of pages have been written about your obnoxious behavior. by Truthers in position to observe it.

And what's this about Sander Hicks? Never heard you mention him before. Did you make a new enemy, Brian? Better check his website.

And since I can already hear your rebuttals in my head, let me go ahead and pre-write my responses:

"TR, what makes you think Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Sander Hicks are prominent people in the Truth movement?" (The definition of the word 'prominent', and the tiniest familiarization with the subject matter.)

"TR, no one never actually said I was thrown out of the truth movement." (True, no one said those exact words, but the posts in question are clearly attempts to warn other Truthers not to involve you.)

"TR, Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Sander Hicks are not real Truthers like I am." (True Scotsman fallacy.)

 
At 15 December, 2010 08:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, the witnesses I quoted all described explosions. Chief Turi and Chief Downey spoke of secondary devices. I did not distort the witnesses I quoted, and I did not quote Stephen Gregory.

But let's look at Stephen Gregory's statement. He reported flashes of light at a low level of the building BEFORE it came down. He reported that this observation was corroborated by Lt. Evangelista. Being in a highly political position, he is obviously very nervous about the possibility of being politically incorrect, but even so he is honest enough to report what he saw, though he could have kept silent about it. If it was just electrical failures, after all, why bother to report it? But he did report it, and NIST did not investigate it. If it was nothing, why did he bother to report it?

Garry, your attempt to use a straw men ("not going to have any impact on the building's survivability") as a blunt instrument is of course doomed to failure. Try a weapon with a point--a sharp and durable point. Dr. Thomas Eagar likened the planes' impact to a bullet hitting a tree--negligible. NIST's initial "realistic" estimates of column damage in the WTC did not generate a collapse in their computer models, so they upped the damage estimates to get the desired results.

Ian, Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett may be "inside jobby job" advocates, but they're not truthers. Their persistent and deliberate lies, like yours, are inconsistent with the principles of the truth movement. Whoever has told you I got kicked out of the truth movement is lying to you.

So who among you has located the secret 42A0016 file? How come nobody, not even the one who reported on it, has any quotes from the investigation?

TR, you don't know what you're talking about. Nice job of writing responses to made-up "quotes". Your attempt to use a straw men as a blunt instrument is of course doomed to failure. Try a weapon with a point--a sharp and durable point.

So who among you has located the secret 42A0016 file? How come nobody, not even the one who reported on it, has any quotes from the investigation? How come you all want to gossip about me instead of discussing the totally lame thing Pat calls a "terrific job"? As a work of journalism it was dishonest, incomplete, failed to substantiate its claims, and so was self-discrediting. If a truther wrote something that bad I would say the same thing. It was a "terrible horrific jobby-job".

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, the witnesses I quoted did not use similies."

Brian,

In reality, you quote mined their statements & left out the similies they used.

"I did not say the core was blown out. Willie survived because he left the building before it fell down. Your post is simply a mess of babbling free-associations. You seem to be losing it."

Actually you did say: "That in order to have a CD you must blow out the core." Willie was in the basement at the time of these alleged "explosives" went off. Actually I'm not losing it, you lost this debate the minute you uttered the words "They said it was explosives."

"If CD practitioners normally use copper casings for their shaped charges, that would be a good reason for the perps to use aluminum casings."

Aluminum cases wouldn't stand the intense heat ofthe C-4 explosive. Again your lack of knowledge is showing quite a bit.

"Handwaving arguments from an anonymous internet poster are not sufficient to paper over the holes in the NIST story. Anyone with a brain knows that."

Hey shit for brains, if you had looked you'd know what my name is. But alas, you're too stupid & lazy to look it up. NIST doesn't have
"holes" in their story. The truth is numbnuts is that you quote mined the hell out of the NIST story, like you do with the witness statements.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:07, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, the witnesses I quoted all described explosions'.

OK, let's go through this again. Here's the doctored 'troofer' quote for another first responder you cite, Craig Carlsen:

'we heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. . . . We then realized the building started to come down'.

And this is what he really said:

'I guess about three minutes later you just heard explosions coming from building two, the south tower. It seemed like it took forever, but there were about ten explosions. At the time I didn't realize what it was. We realized later after talking and finding out that it was the floors collapsing to where the plane had hit'.

Take a note of the last two sentences. If you've got any problems understanding them, ask me for help (and check p.6 on this link for the authentic quote):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110505.PDF

Now tell me that the abridged statement is not a blatant distortion of the real quote.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

From our dear paranoid friend in the V for Vendetta mask:

"You sir are clueless or an outright liar. Do tell us where to find the analysis of the entire collapse?"

Hey V,

If I were "clueless or an outright liar" then you sir are the 1 that's clueless & an outright liar because NIST shows the analysis of the entire collapse.

You sir, are a lazy jackass!

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:13, Blogger Garry said...

'But let's look at Stephen Gregory's statement. He reported flashes of light at a low level of the building BEFORE it came down. He reported that this observation was corroborated by Lt. Evangelista'.

You're missing this bit out of his recollections:

'I don't know if that means anything. I mean, I equate it to the building cowing down and pushing things down, it could have been electrical explosions, it could have been whatever'.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/Gregory_Stephen.txt

'Being in a highly political position, he is obviously very nervous about the possibility of being politically incorrect, but even so he is honest enough to report what he saw, though he could have kept silent about it'.

Let me get this straight. You are accusing this man of holding back on info on an attack which killed several of his fellow firefighters. Do you wish to make that accusation to his face? Please let me be around when that happens.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Just a little dose of truth completely blew his mind. I love it when that happens."

Brian,

The only thing that blew my mind was this:

"Brian, you're so obnoxious that the truth movement threw you out. As far as I know, you're the only person (aside from maybe Nico) who has been banned by the truthers. Not even Bill Deagle was kicked out like you were. How's that for comedy?"

So you got kicked out of the TM because they couldn't stand a talking chipmunk who just had to babble like a moron & a jackass.

That's pure comedy gold buddy. I would applaud the TM for booting you out of their litle gang. I guess they realized that you were too much of an ass.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Their persistent and deliberate lies, like yours, are inconsistent with the principles of the truth movement"

Brian,

Actually lying is the principle of the TM. Of course you'd know all about that since you were with them until they kicked you out.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:20, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, your attempt to use a straw men ("not going to have any impact on the building's survivability") as a blunt instrument is of course doomed to failure. Try a weapon with a point--a sharp and durable point. Dr. Thomas Eagar likened the planes' impact to a bullet hitting a tree--negligible'.

Are you sniffing your cleaning solvents? This is what Eagar actually had to say:

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Note the following judgements:

'The World Trade Center was not defectively designed. No designer of the WTC anticipated, nor should have anticipated, a 90,000 L Molotov cocktail on one of the building floors. Skyscrapers are designed to support themselves for three hours in a fire even if the sprinkler system fails to operate. This time should be long enough to evacuate the occupants. The WTC towers lasted for one to two hours—less than the design life, but only because the fire fuel load was so large'.

And this was because two fully-fuelled up 767s were crashed into the two towers at speeds between 400-500mph:

'[The] building was not able to withstand the intense heat of the jet fuel fire. While it was impossible for the fuel-rich, diffuse-flame fire to burn at a temperature high enough to melt the steel, its quick ignition and intense heat caused the steel to lose at least half its strength and to deform, causing buckling or crippling. This weakening and deformation caused a few floors to fall, while the weight of the stories above them crushed the floors below, initiating a domino collapse.

It would be impractical to design buildings to withstand the fuel load induced by a burning commercial airliner. Instead of saving the building, engineers and officials should focus on saving the lives of those inside by designing better safety and evacuation systems'.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

My dear paranoid friend V,

You said to me:

"Are you new to the lying debunking game or what?"

This explains that I'm not "new" nor am I "lying". Take a look at my blog you dumbass:

http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, do you mind showing what similies I left out? I didn't leave any similies out.

I did not say "That in order to have a CD you must blow out the core." your incompetence to follow a simple exchange that you initiated explains why you are so confused about 9/11.

I never said "They said it was explosives." An eight-year old girl knows better than to attribute to people things they never said. Did you go to school in a pit mine?

How do you know C-4 would have been used? How do you know aluminum would not survive, but copper would? How about steel casing? How about asbestos-lined lead casing, titanium casing? The point is, lack of copper casings is meaningless if the perps were making any effort at all to cover their tracks. I heard that John Cole recently made thermite shaped charges that made vertical cuts. He used steel casings.

Look up your name where? If you don't want people to complain about your anonymity, then don't hide behind a pseudonym. You're an anonymous internet poster of doubtful competence in reading comprehension. You make up quotes and you lie.

NIST has a lot of holes in its story:

No physical evidence of heat-weakened steel

Empirical floor sag tests did not support their floor sag model

Failure to investigate molten iron

Failure to investigate Appendix C samples

Failure to investigate reports of explosions

Failure to investigate pulverization of concrete

Failure to explain speed of collapse

Failure to explain symmetry of collapse

Failure to explain totality of collapse

Failure to investigate antenna drop

Failure to test for explosive or incendiary residue

Failure to provide the visualizations associated with the computer models

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, do you mind showing what similies I left out? I didn't leave any similies out."

Brian,

I know that I'm a bigger threat to your parnaoid delusions on here so let me explain it to you in a way a kid is supposed to understand.

If I say that your mother looked like a hooker & she dressed as if she's one. Then she must be a hooker!

Just beause your mother looks LIKE a hooker & dresses AS IF she's one doesn't mean she is a hooker.

You left out the similies of the witness statements, a typcial Truther tactic which I see all the time.

"How do you know C-4 would have been used?"

Ask a CD experts and they'll tell you dumbass.

"How do you know aluminum would not survive, but copper would?"

It all about temperature, which you know nothing about.

"The point is, lack of copper casings is meaningless if the perps were making any effort at all to cover their tracks."

Actually the lack of copper residue on the steel is meaningful to you beause you know you're wrong about "explosives" being used on 9/11.

You can talk shit about explosives all day long to me, it wouldn't make a damn difference because I know you haven't got any evidence to prove it.

You got 2 options right now Brian,

Show us the evidence of explosives or shut the fuck up.

Your choice!

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Look up your name where?"

Brian,

Since you are a lazy little shithead I'll do your homework for you, just this once:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=0dec22a406520291ef343e6f14443c16&t=194557

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, if you are going to accuse me of doing violence to the witnesses' quotes, I wish you would do us all the favor of at least quoting my quote correctly. Here's my quote:

"Building two, the south tower.... there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started
to come down."

Notice he says first he heard the explosions, and then the building came down. That's the part that YOU left out of the quote, blatantly distorting it. Notice also he talks about later "finding out that it was the floors collapsing." Finding out from who? Somebody who threatened his job?

He describes it as explosions. It is thus evidence of explosions. It doesn't matter what he decided later. He is not an expert in explosions. It is evidence of explosions that should have been investigated and clarified and not ignored. Only somebody who is in an extreme and unseemly hurry to close the books would hand-wave away testimony like that and say "nothing there" without clarifying the issues. That's why people like me who are not controlled demolition true believers are still on the job demanding an honest and complete and believable investigation.

WAQo, NIST does not provide an analysis of the entire collapse. You don't know what you're talking about and you make up your facts.
NIST basically says, well, the floors pulled in the perimeter columns on one side, the collapse propagated at the speed of sound to the other side, and we all know from the videos what happened after that, so there you have it!

That is not an analysis. It's a narrative, and it's full of holes.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry 9:13

I didn't miss anything in Stephen Gregory's statement. I didn't accuse him of anything. In fact I specifically praised him for his candor in telling of his observations of flashes of light that might indicate the use of incendiaries or explosives--even though he was in a sensitive political position and his observations were politically incorrect, and he could have easily convinced himself that it was meaningless, just an electrical failure or something.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

I know what caused the collapse of the buildings, since I'm qualified enough to know exactly how it happened.

The planes impacted the buildings, they caused damage to the inner & outter columns & comprimising the fire proofing foam. The weight on top was transferred to the existing columns below. The jet fuel ignited after the planes impacted, causing multiple fires on multiple floors. The fuel burned off & the existing material inside the the buildings continued to burn. Since the fire proof foam was blown off, the steel was vulnerable to the fires. The fires weakened the steel & caused them to buckle & also caused the structure to collpase.

I didn't take ISO class (Incident Saftey Officer) for nothing.

See Brian, you're lakc of knowledge is that you're not a qualified structural engineer, CD expert, fire investigator or a firefighter. You're just some lazy prick on a computer who can't make anything out of himself, other than being a paranoid jackass.

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian Good, aka Snug-Bug reminds me of a parnaoid dickhead named "Ultima1", that got banned from JREF & is now posting on the David Icke Forum.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?p=1059515116#post1059515116

 
At 15 December, 2010 09:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

It's funny that Dave52 from the D. Icke Forum says this:

"I asked the Demolition experts the following question...

QUESTION: Is it possible to rig and implode a 47 storey steel framed office block in a matter of hours.


The response I got was:

Quote:
never. not a chance in the world."

Since Dave52 is a known Truther, this should blow Brian's explosive theory out of his delusonal mind.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo 9:15

Your claim of retroactive mind-blowing is amusing, liar.

Your melt-down babbling post was at 13:41. The "obnoxious" post you claimed set you off was at 20:10. You're a liar of the worst sort--the kind that invents facts.

Would you mind providing some evidence of your claim that lying is a principle of the truth movement? Have you noticed that Willie Rodriguez can no longer get a stage, and Kevin Barrett can't get one outside of his narrow base?

You have also failed repeatedly to substantiate your claims that the witnesses Carlsen, Rogers, Reynolds, and Deshore used similies. I therefore conclude that you are lying.

The survival of the aluminum is about HEAT, numbnuts, not temperature. You don't know what you're talking about.

I have listed the evidence of explosives until I'm blue in the face. Testimony of witnesses to explosions, testimony of Chief Turi and Chief Downey to secondary devices. Pulverization of conrete, squibs, flashes of light, explosive ejection of building materials, heat-expansion of dust clouds, symmetry and totality of collapse.

You are an anonymous internet poster. The fact that you provide a link to a website instead of your name only proves it.

You're also a liar.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett may be "inside jobby job" advocates, but they're not truthers. Their persistent and deliberate lies, like yours, are inconsistent with the principles of the truth movement. Whoever has told you I got kicked out of the truth movement is lying to you.

And here's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, just as Triterope expected. Brian, I'll take the truthers word on themselves over yours, since you're a deranged liar. I'll also take their word on you for the same reason.

Brian, please name one prominent truther that still wants you part of his or her organization.

TR, you don't know what you're talking about. Nice job of writing responses to made-up "quotes". Your attempt to use a straw men as a blunt instrument is of course doomed to failure. Try a weapon with a point--a sharp and durable point.

Actually, Brian, you did exactly as he expected, because you're too dumb and obsessed to avoid it.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your claim of retroactive mind-blowing is amusing, liar.

Your melt-down babbling post was at 13:41. The "obnoxious" post you claimed set you off was at 20:10. You're a liar of the worst sort--the kind that invents facts.


Brian, nobody cares. You're just trying to bury my posts in spam because you're embarrassed that you were kicked out of the truth movement.

Would you mind providing some evidence of your claim that lying is a principle of the truth movement? Have you noticed that Willie Rodriguez can no longer get a stage, and Kevin Barrett can't get one outside of his narrow base?

They can't get a platform for their voices because the truth movement is dead, Brian, hence the "narrow base".

You, of course, can't get a platform anywhere because you keep getting banned. You have to babble mindlessly here because Pat and James respect free speech here.

The survival of the aluminum is about HEAT, numbnuts, not temperature.

I don't know.....just please see a psychiatrist, Brian. Unless you're talking about anti-tank HEAT charges and how they were used in destroying the WTC...

I have listed the evidence of explosives until I'm blue in the face. Testimony of witnesses to explosions, testimony of Chief Turi and Chief Downey to secondary devices. Pulverization of conrete, squibs, flashes of light, explosive ejection of building materials, heat-expansion of dust clouds, symmetry and totality of collapse.

And we've told you many times that much of this is irrelevant, and the rest is pure fantasy.

Anyway, Brian, everyone here knows you're a liar, so you can stop babbling now.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo 9:53, the claimed qualifications of an anonymous internet poster like yourself are meaningless because they can't be verified.

Even if they were genuine, they're an irrelevant argument from authority unless you substantiate your claims. When you show your ignorance and when you lie, you blow your credibility.

The problem with your narrative of the collapse is that there is no physical evidence to support it. You don't have the fire-weakened steel. You didn't explain how fires managed to weaken the building in a totally symmetrical manner so that it came straight down. You don't explain the speed of the collapse.

I don't need to be a structural engineer. Qualified structural engineers have told me that asymmetrical damage can not make symmetrical collapses. The only qualified structural engineers who have attempted to convince me otherwise present hand-waving models with ludicrous simplifying assumptions that are not consistent with the observed behavior of the building.

WAQo 9:58. Your belief that I should be impressed by the opinions of an anonymous internet poster at the David Icke forum is just wow loony.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, go outside and play. Grownups are talking.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo 9:53, the claimed qualifications of an anonymous internet poster like yourself are meaningless because they can't be verified.

...is followed in the exact same post with...

Qualified structural engineers have told me that asymmetrical damage can not make symmetrical collapses.

So much for the claims of anonymous internet posters being meaningless!

If you've followed Brian's insane babbling for long enough, you know he's not consistent on any point: sometimes there were huge fires in the towers, sometimes there weren't. Sometimes explosives brought the towers down, sometimes thermite did. Sometimes the towers were oxygen-rich, and sometimes oxygen-poor.

But the one thing he's consistent on is that whatever he says must be accepted as fact prima facie. If Brian says the sky is green, he'll demand proof if someone tells him that it's actually blue. That's how he functions with all of his deranged babbling.

Ian, go outside and play. Grownups are talking.

Brian, do you ever plan on naming any truther organizations that want you part of their group? It would seem to me that you have been completely kicked out of the movement, since you can't name anyone who still supports you.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm sorry that you are so brain-addled, but it's not my fault. The fact is, sometimes there were fires, and sometimes there were not. Before the planes hit, for instance, there were no fires. In less than ten minutes the jet fuel burned off. It seems this is too challenging for you. I never said the towers were oxygen-rich.

Ian, I am not here to discuss myself or my affiliations. Particularly not with persistent, blatant, and stoooopid liars.

Reviewing the thread I am struck by WhyAskQuestion's persistent and blatant lies about my four witnesses' testimony, his claims that they used similies.

No wonder he won't tell us his real name!

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo 9:53, the claimed qualifications of an anonymous internet poster like yourself are meaningless because they can't be verified."

Brian,

But yet they are verified by my fellow brothers in arms, the FDNY.

If you're still calling me a "liar", then in ann seriousness & reality, you're calling the FDNY "liars".

"Even if they were genuine, they're an irrelevant argument from authority unless you substantiate your claims. When you show your ignorance and when you lie, you blow your credibility"

You have no qualifications to make such an arguement against me. You'd have to be a fellow firefighter to prove me wrong. But you're not a firefighter so it's your credibility that's blown.

"The problem with your narrative of the collapse is that there is no physical evidence to support it."

Actually fire is a very real & dangerous form of physcial evidence. You should hold your hand over your stove & burn it, see if fire isn't "real".

"I don't need to be a structural engineer."

You certainly don't need to proetend to be one. In the real world we call that falsification of credentuals.

"WAQo 9:58. Your belief that I should be impressed by the opinions of an anonymous internet poster at the David Icke forum is just wow loony."

That "loony" just proved you wrong about explosives being used on 9/11. Stop being such a big crybaby!

 
At 15 December, 2010 10:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Reviewing the thread I am struck by WhyAskQuestion's persistent and blatant lies about my four witnesses' testimony, his claims that they used similies.

No wonder he won't tell us his real name!"

Really Brian? Am I the one going around quote mining the witnesses & using the keywords: "bombs, explosives, boom, & secondary devices" as an excuse for imaginary "explosives".

My real name appears in this JREF thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=0dec22a406520291ef343e6f14443c16&t=194557

Brian, give up, you lost this debate with me big time. It's time for you to admit that you've been wrong about 9/11.

You can call me a "liar" all you like, but I know you have no evidence to prove that I'm "lying".

All you do is talk shit as if it means something, well in this world it means shit buddy. You can talk the talk, but you can't walk the walk.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, your claim that I am calling FDNY liars is a lie. I am calling an anonymous internet poster, WhyAskQuestions, a liar, because he has lied repeatedly and blatantly in claiming that the witnesses Rogers and Reynolds and Deshore and Carlsen used similies and when he claims that NIST provided an analysis of the collapse.

Why won't you just say your real name? Why the game with the jerfer link?

Anybody who looks at the transcripts of the Carlsen, Rogers, Reynolds and Deshore interviews can see that I quoted them correctly and your claim that they used similies is a lie. Anybody who looks at the NIST report can see that your claim that they did an analysis of the total collapse is a lie.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:13, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"If you've followed Brian's insane babbling for long enough, you know he's not consistent on any point: sometimes there were huge fires in the towers, sometimes there weren't. Sometimes explosives brought the towers down, sometimes thermite did. Sometimes the towers were oxygen-rich, and sometimes oxygen-poor."

Ian,

I know what to expect from a retard who isn't capable of common sense.

Brian's common sense, or lack of, is he pretends to ignore the key elements of 9/11.

Witnesses saw planes impact the WTC buildings, they saw the massive holes in the sides, they saw the smoke & fires, the FDNY was concerned about the buildings structural strength (as indicated with WTC7), & nobody heard explosives going off (even 1/2 mile away).

Now if Brian wants to make a scene out of this, crying: "But they said they heard explosives & explosions prove it." Well he's shit outta luck because there's noone from downtown Manhatten who heard explosives going off. Noone was going to the hospital claiming that their eardrums were blown out. Noone across the Hudson River heard any explosives going off from that 1/2 mile distance.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, your claim that I am calling FDNY liars is a lie. I am calling an anonymous internet poster, WhyAskQuestions, a liar, because he has lied repeatedly...."

Brian,

What would you say if I told you that I'm a FDNY firefighter?

Then you'd be calling that FDNY "liars" when you're calling me a "liar". Therefore you're the one that would be a liar because the FDNY can't lie to the fire investigator or the to Mayor.

So if you call me a "liar", one more time, consider that you're calling the FDNY "liars".

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Anybody who looks at the transcripts of the Carlsen, Rogers, Reynolds and Deshore interviews can see that I quoted them correctly and your claim that they used similies is a lie."

Brian,

Anyone with a brain can see that you're using the keywords: "bombs, explosives, boom, & secondary devices" as an excuse for imaginary "explosives".

"Like" & "As if" are similies, & the witnesses prove that they said the similies in their statements, Brian is just trying in vain to prove that the witnesses are "lying" & calling us a bunch of "liars", when we give him quoted witness statements that haven't been quote mined by him.

None of these people: Carlsen, Rogers, Reynolds and Deshore never mentioned anything in theirinterviews about the use of explosives.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you only continue to lie. Witnesses claim they heard explosions. You're playing a semantic game, saying "they didn't hear explosives". You provide no proof that the explosions weren't explosives. You provide no evidence that they weren't explosives. You provide no evidence whatsoever that tall-building fires routinely produce sounds of explosions whether from soda pop, light bulbs, hairspray or whatever.

By circular reasoning you work from "There's no proof of explosives" to "they didn't hear explosives" to "they didn't hear explosions". But the reason there's no proof is because NIST didn't look for explosives, even though NFPA 921 requires testing for explosive residue when there is "high order damage" and says "All available fuel sources should be considered and eliminated until one fuel can be identified as meeting all of the physical damage criteria."

Here is a page on witnesses to explosions.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?p=841

WAQo I don't care who you are. You make up your facts. I'm not calling FDNY liars. I'm calling an anonymous internet poster who refuses to give his name a liar.

Your claim that Rogers, Reynolds, Carlsen, and Deshore used similies in their statements about explosions is a lie. The fact that they didn't use the word "explosives" is irrelevant. Chief Turi and Chief Downey spoke of secondary devices. I see you haven't found a way to lie about that.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the "Official Story" would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an "Explosion".

So, was the Titanic blown up with explosives, or was it the result of it snapping in two?

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

While the Titanic was sinking, passengers heard explosions in the ship. In this case, the "Official Story" would be wrong, using the same conspiracy theory logic. To this day, no one really knows what exactly caused the sound, only that it sounded like an explosion. Some say it was the steel snapping as the ship broke in two. Others say it was the hot steam engines hitting the cold water which exploded. Using Conspiracy Theory logic, it was blown up because witnesses characterized the sound as an "Explosion".

So, was the Titanic blown up with explosives, or was it the result of it snapping in two?

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, you only continue to lie."

Brian,

And you continue to dodge me.

"You provide no proof that the explosions weren't explosives."

Look who's talking!

"You provide no evidence whatsoever that tall-building fires routinely produce sounds of explosions whether from soda pop, light bulbs, hairspray or whatever."

And you have no evidence to prove that it was from soda pop, light bulbs, hairspray.

"WAQo I don't care who you are. You make up your facts. I'm not calling FDNY liars. I'm calling an anonymous internet poster who refuses to give his name a liar."

Such an understatement & a contridictory claim. I am from the FDNY buddy, so you are calling us a bunch of "liars". Why don't you come up to NY & say that shit in front of my brothers you chickshit.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Chief Turi and Chief Downey spoke of secondary devices. I see you haven't found a way to lie about that."

Brian,

I guess you never researched about the first WTC bombing back in 1993?

Those Chiefs thought it was 1993 all over again.

Brian, you'd never understand.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:47, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

I guess from these witness statements a "train" was heard too:

"http://loosetrains911.blogspot.com/

Nicholas Borrillo -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) on 23rd floor of North Tower:

Then we heard a rumble. We heard it and we felt the whole building shake. It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake. A train is more like it, because with the train you hear the rumbling, and it kind of like moved you around in the hall.

Paul Curran -- Fire Patrolman (F.D.N.Y.) North Tower:

I went back and stood right in front of Eight World Trade Center right by the customs house, and the north tower was set right next to it. Not that much time went by, and all of a sudden the ground just started shaking. It felt like a train was running under my feet.

Joseph Fortis -- E.M.T. (E.M.S.) The ground started shaking like a train was coming. You looked up, and I guess -- I don't know, it was one that came down first or two? Which one?

Keith Murphy -- (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 47]

At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you.

Timothy Julian -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 118]

You know, and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise, and then it sounded like a freight train, rumbling and picking up speed, and I remember I looked up, and I saw it coming down."

So not only do we have "explosives", but we have "trains" as well. According to Brian, we do!

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Before the planes hit, for instance, there were no fires.

True.

In less than ten minutes the jet fuel burned off.

That's nice.

I never said the towers were oxygen-rich.

Well, it's good to see you confirm that your thermobaric weapons hypothesis was just you lying as usual.

Ian, I am not here to discuss myself or my affiliations. Particularly not with persistent, blatant, and stoooopid liars.

You have no affiliations, Brian, because the truth movement hates you for being an obsessed stalker and an obnoxious liar.

You provide no proof that the explosions weren't explosives.

And here we go with the whole "you provide no proof that the sky is blue" thing. Brian says there were explosives in the towers, thus, there were explosives in the towers until we provide irrefutable proof otherwise. This is the way he works with every single thing he babbles about.

So, was the Titanic blown up with explosives, or was it the result of it snapping in two?

Thermite.

Also, Brian, why are you spitting on the graves of the victims by calling the FDNY liars?

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake.

Brian, have you ever considered the possibility that the WTC was brought down by an earthquake? The FDNY said there was an earthquake there, according to the above quote.

 
At 15 December, 2010 11:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo as NFPA 18.1 says, "The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion."

In a sinking ship, there is much violent escaping of air and steam. There are thus many explosions. The WTC was not filling with water. Your comparison to the Titanic is loony. You don't know what you're talking about. Boilers in sinking ships commonly exploded.

It is not for me to prove what caused the observed explosions. It was for NIST to do it, and they didn't. That's my point. You debunkers expect proof before you will even allow an investigation.

You claim you are from FDNY. Since you are an anonymous internet poster who refuses to provide his name and who lies persistently and stupidly, I have no reason to believe you. I am not calling FDNY liars. I am calling you a liar.

So are you claiming Chief Turi and Chief Downey didn't know that planes had hit the building? They didn't know there were fires? They thought it was 93 all over again? How do you know they weren't right?

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Curran and Fortis and Julian and Murphy used similies. That has nothing to do with the fact that
Reynolds, Deshore, Rogers, and Carlsen did not, and your claim that they did was a lie.

The last four described explosions.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The generation and violent escape of gases are the primary criteria of an explosion."

Brian,

Did you know (of course you wouldn't) that they were referring the escape of air?

"In a sinking ship, there is much violent escaping of air and steam. There are thus many explosions. The WTC was not filling with water. Your comparison to the Titanic is loony. You don't know what you're talking about. Boilers in sinking ships commonly exploded."

You said air, & there was plenty of it in the WTCs. The comparison proves that you're being loony. I know what I'm talking about, you just haven't got a clue. Actually you're wrong about the boilers in the Titanic. They didn't explode, all 24 boilers were found on the sea floor intact.

"I am not calling FDNY liars. I am calling you a liar."

I can see that Jason Bermas is your hero. I am from the FDNY, so you are calling us liars.

"How do you know they weren't right?"

Because fire chiefs aren't experts with explosives. Dumbass!

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, Curran and Fortis and Julian and Murphy used similies. That has nothing to do with the fact that
Reynolds, Deshore, Rogers, and Carlsen did not, and your claim that they did was a lie.

The last four described explosions."

Brian,

You're not getting the concept pal, it's not my claim that those firefighters used similies in their statements.

You claim that I'm "lying", when in reality you are saying that the witneswses are lying.

So it's you that lies when you quote mine their satements.

You know, Brian, from this point forward. Anytime you call anyone of us a "liar", we'll have to call you a liar because you haven't shown evidence of "explosives".

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

WAQo, I didn't say the boilers on the Titanic exploded. Unlike you, I generally avoid making claims that are contrary to fact when I don't know.

There is much violent escaping of air in a sinking ship as the water confines and displaces it. While there was certainly air displaced in the WTC in the course of the collapse, I have never before heard anyone claim that such ejected air was the source of the sounds of explosions. Is that what you are claiming? If not, what's your point?

Jason Bermas is not my hero. I am not calling FDNY liars. You say things that are not true. Either you are a liar or you are incompetent to perceive reality. If it's the latter, I'm sorry that's so but the sooner you face the facts the sooner you'll get better.

Chief Turi's and Chief Downey's lack of familiarity with explosives does not mean their opinions about what happened can't be right. They simply can't be authoritative.

Where do you get the idea that I'm saying the witnesses are lying? They described explosions. Thus NIST's claim that there was no evidence of explosives is not true. NIST did not examine the witness testimony about explosions.

I have shown much evidence of explosives--symmetry, squibs, superheated dust clouds, pulverization, witnesses' reports of explosions, evaporated steel, molten iron, microspheres. Your continued denial that there is evidence of explosives is loony.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Unlike you, I generally avoid making claims that are contrary to fact when I don't know."

Brian,

You are making claims that are contridictory to the witness statements. Of course you don't know, you don't know anything.

"I am not calling FDNY liars. You say things that are not true."

Still calling us FDNY firefighters liars I see. I guess ignorance is bliss if you're an incompetent moron.

"Chief Turi's and Chief Downey's lack of familiarity with explosives does not mean their opinions about what happened can't be right. They simply can't be authoritative."

They aren't right about "explosives", because they're no qualified as explosive technitions.

"Where do you get the idea that I'm saying the witnesses are lying?"

When you quote mined their statements from the start of this debate. You're still using their comments about: "bombs, explosives, secondary devices, boom" as keywords for explosives. So you're trying to use their words against them, so you're calling them "liars".

"I have shown much evidence of explosives..."

All you did was talk bullshit pal, you've never even once sourced your info while I was looking at this blog. I followed your comments through the yrs. & not once did you source your info.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Your continued denial that there is evidence of explosives is loony."

Brian,

Well man up & source your claim. It's ok if you don't want to show us the info you have about explosives being "used" on 9/11. We can take a hint that you're making it up as you go & are playing with the witness statements & chopping them into bits & fragments to fit your paranoid delusions of these imaginary "explosives".

Show us the information where patients were admitted to the ER for blown eardrums from these alleged "explosives."

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Thus NIST's claim that there was no evidence of explosives is not true."

Brian,

You aren't an explosives expert nor are you anyway in shape to combat NIST.

NIST has provided businesses from around the world to keep their buildings safe from fire. They tested samples from Ground Zero & they found no trace of explosive residue any where.

You have 2 options:

Write an e-mail to Implosion World

or

Write an e-mail to NIST, telling them that they're "wrong".

I want to see what they say to you. I bet they'd make you have a meltdown, like I'm doing to you right now.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

I have shown much evidence of explosives--symmetry, squibs, superheated dust clouds, pulverization, witnesses' reports of explosions, evaporated steel, molten iron, microspheres. Your continued denial that there is evidence of explosives is loony.

For the billionth time, none of this is evidence. Let's go through it point by point:

"symmetry". What was symmetric about the collapse? WTC 2 most certainly did not fall evenly, as one would expect given the off-center impact of the plane. For the record, WTC 1 didn't collapse in "symmetry" either, but since the extent of your research is watching youtube videos, you wouldn't know this.

"squibs". Escaping air, which you just brought up. Jesus, Brian, how tough is it to keep your own story straight?

"superheated dust clouds". A figment of Brian's imagination. If the dust had been "superheated", we would have had tens of thousands of deaths among people caught in lower Manhattan on the streets. My sister, for one, would be dead.

"pulverization". Things get destroyed when two huge buildings collapse. This is news to you, Brian?

"witnesses' reports of explosions". To be expected in a large, uncontrolled fire.

continued...

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"My sister, for one, would be dead."

Ian,

I'm glad your sister is still alive. I bet Brian is thinking & telling himself:

"Ian's sister is part of the conspiracy. That's why she ran."

Of course this is Truther logic as we all know it. Brian says he's for the 9/11 Victims & Families, FDNY, NYPD, & rescue workers. But on the down side, he degrades them & calls them liars, shills, nmurderers, & gov. agents.

 
At 15 December, 2010 12:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

"evaporated steel". This is just lunacy. Evaporated steel? Iron evaporates at 5182 degrees Fahrenheit. Where on planet earth will one find temperatures like this, other than in a nuclear detonation?

"molten iron". There is no evidence that the metal pouring from 2 WTC was iron.

"microspheres". I would hope a structure full of concrete would have iron microspheres in its wreckage. Otherwise, there might be criminal liability for those who supplied the concrete for the towers' construction.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I am not making statements contradictory to the witnesses. They reported explosions. If they also talked about falling floors, that doesn't change the fact that they reported explosions. Nobody denies that there were falling floors, so there is no contradiction there.

You alone are lying here. I am not calling anyone else a liar but you.

Your claim that the Chiefs' qualifications have something to do with whether they are right or not is illogical. I don't need a PhD in economics to call the stock market. If I say it will go down and it goes down, I was right.

You keep accusing me of using keywords I never used. Reynolds, Rogers, Carlsen and Deshore described explosions, and they did it without similies. Deal with it.
Why would I call them liars? They didn't lie. You did.

I'm not going to put time into sourcing stuff and then have Ian and GutterBall bury it under a lot of girly gossip. If you're not aware of the evidence for explosives, read a couple of books or go to AE911Truth.org.

As to your blown eardrums, maybe it was the people whose bodies were blown into 1/2" bits that had the blown eardrums. Why would you expect a survivor on the ground to have blown eardrums from an explosion on the 95th floor? That's loony!

NFPA 921 section 18.1 says "18.1 - General: "Although an explosion is almost always accompanied by the production of a loud noise, the noise itself is not an essential element in the definition of an explosion."

"Almost always" means "not always". In an op whose perps were motivated keep it covert, it's reasonable to suppose that no expense was spared to keep it quiet by all and any possible means.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

So, as usual, the "truther" evidence tells us little about what happened on 9/11, but a lot about their appalling ignorance of the topic at hand.

Ian,

I'm glad your sister is still alive.


Thanks. Brian (and other truthers) apparently think the dust cloud was analogous to the clouds of ash that surge from an erupting volcano because, well, I dunno, it looked like a volcanic ash cloud.

How many people survive being caught in volcanic ash clouds? Just recently, dozens died when Mount Merapi in Indonesia erupted because they were caught in the eruption surge.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm not going to put time into sourcing stuff and then have Ian and GutterBall bury it under a lot of girly gossip. If you're not aware of the evidence for explosives, read a couple of books or go to AE911Truth.org.

Translation: I'm full of shit. I have absolutely no evidence for the insane claims I make. None. And I still call people "girls" because I'm insane.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo, I am not making statements contradictory to the witnesses. They reported explosions."

Brian,

Yes you are & you're lying about it. Explosions doesn't nessesarily mean explosives were used.

"You alone are lying here. I am not calling anyone else a liar but you."

You know something Brian, Jason Bermas used that same statement against Popular Mechanics & noone said anything about it being true.

"Your claim that the Chiefs' qualifications have something to do with whether they are right or not is illogical."

What's logical is that you're implicating them for soemthing they didn't do.

"You keep accusing me of using keywords I never used."

Doesn't these words ring a bell: "bombs, secondary devices, boom, explosives"? You used them to quote mine the witnesses.

"If you're not aware of the evidence for explosives, read a couple of books or go to AE911Truth.org."

Right, and in the mean time I can ask them how to redesign my house too. I'll probably need a plumber to unclog my drains. An eletrician to redo the electrical. A landscaper to redo the lawn.

"it's reasonable to suppose that no expense was spared to keep it quiet by all and any possible means"

No expense was spared to design the Titanic & it sank within 4 days of it's maiden voyage.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"If I say it will go down and it goes down, I was right."

Brian,

So did you go down on Kevin Barrett?

You said you were right about it, so did you go down on him?

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

How come I get the funny feeling that Brian is going to stalk me next?

Great, just what I need, a sexually active 50 something yr. old hemroid following me around.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Leave me alone- stop the email attacks on me and others. I think it probably harms your reputation more than mine, although it is horrifically embarrassing to me to think that at one time I thought of you as a friend. Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11

Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality.

Carol Brouillet"

Shame on you Brian, trying to attack her & her husband. That's the most dispicible thing I've ever read. You clearly need help!

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"As to your blown eardrums, maybe it was the people whose bodies were blown into 1/2" bits that had the blown eardrums."

Brian, this comment alone shows that you don't care about those that died on 9/11.

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Dr. Fetzer, I have learned to filter out low-quality information."

Brian,

Why did you tell Dr. Fetzer that you only look at low-quality info?

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

 
At 15 December, 2010 13:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Hello,
My name is juliet, i got you from 911scholars.ning.com, and i want to have a good relationship with you, please i need your cooperation,
am yours juliet.
this is my email,
( jomabu116@yahoo.com ) "

Someone should e-mail Juliet that her "Romeo" (Brian Good) is a stalker.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

WACo 12:48, I am certainly in shape to combat NIST. Right off the tip of my tongue I can point out their dishonesty, the holes in their report, their lies. Any idiot can, no expertise required.

NIST never tested for explosive residue. Once again you make up your facts. I don't need to write to NIST. AE911Truth did.

Ian, the superheated dust clouds rose into the sky. You don't know what you're talking about.


WAQo 12:56, I don't call the family members liars and shills. I call you, an anonymous interney poster, a liar because you lie.

Ian 12:57. "Evaporated" steel is from the New York Times, so take it up with James Glanz. Your ignorance about basic issues shows you have not even bothered to read the debunker sites, let alone serious resources like 911research, AE911Truth, and journal of 9/11 studies.

WAQo 1312: I never said explosions means explosives were used. You continue to lie about what I said. Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices. Chief Downey opined on irrefutable grounds that bombs were used.

I never attacked Carol and her husband, and commenting on people who were blown into 1/2" bits hardly shows that I don't care about them.

It is you, who tries to hide the truth, and who lies about 9/11, that doesn't care about the victims.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Right off the tip of my tongue I can point out their dishonesty, the holes in their report, their lies. Any idiot can, no expertise required."

Brian,

So you're calling yourself an idiot?

"Once again you make up your facts"

Once again you're making up shit I didn't say.

"I don't call the family members liars and shills."

Actually you do, Richard Gage once told me that you called them liars & shills in an e-mail.

"I never said explosions means explosives were used."

Doesn't these words ring a bell: "bombs, secondary devices, boom, explosives"?

"Chief Turi spoke of secondary devices. Chief Downey opined on irrefutable grounds that bombs were used."

Are they demolition experts? Yes or No!

"I never attacked Carol and her husband"

Should I e-mail Carol & find out if you're lying or not?

"It is you, who tries to hide the truth, and who lies about 9/11, that doesn't care about the victims."

Then how come you have no evidence to prove that I don't care?

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

Brian,

How about I call Carol on her phone?

Telephone: 650-857-0927

Can I ask her why you harassed her & her husband?

http://www.communitycurrency.org/index.html

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, by all means email Carol.

The evidence that you don't care about the victims is that you lie about 9/11. I think caring and lying do not go together. Lying is disrespectful to the dead. That's why I went after the con artist liar Willie Rodriguez and the bigoted liar Kevin Barrett. And that's why I won't tolerate lies from Ian or GutterBall or you.

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"The evidence that you don't care about the victims is that you lie about 9/11."

Brian,

What evidence do you have to convict me? Admit it that you have none!

"Lying is disrespectful to the dead. That's why I went after the con artist liar Willie Rodriguez and the bigoted liar Kevin Barrett. And that's why I won't tolerate lies from Ian or GutterBall or you."

Again, do you have evidence to convict Ian, GB or me? Yes or No!

 
At 15 December, 2010 14:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

You and Ian and GutterBall convict yourselves.

You convicted yourself when you claimed that Rogers and Reynolds et. al used similies. It was not true and you lied repeatedly.

Ian convicts himself when he claims the widows have no questions. The widows have 273 questions remaining unanswered of 300. Ian lies every time he says "false".

GutterBall convicted himself when he claimed that Dr. Astaneh did not see melted girders.

You guys are an embarrassment to the debunker movement. If I were Pat I would ban the lot of you.

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

I am certainly in shape to combat NIST.

Whatever you say, Brian.

Ian, the superheated dust clouds rose into the sky. You don't know what you're talking about.

That's called "smoke", Brian. It's a byproduct of dirty combustion, that which apparently came from the fires that didn't exist at the WTC.

"Evaporated" steel is from the New York Times, so take it up with James Glanz.

You're the one who claims it's "evidence", Brian. Also, since you lie about every other person you quote, I doubt Glanz's words are what you claim they are.

Yes, by all means email Carol.

This should be interesting.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian convicts himself when he claims the widows have no questions. The widows have 273 questions remaining unanswered of 300. Ian lies every time he says "false".

petgoat said they have no questions, so I'm going with what he told me. He also told me you're a liar and sex stalker who is in love with Willie Rodriguez.

You guys are an embarrassment to the debunker movement. If I were Pat I would ban the lot of you.

Brian, you're really embarrassing yourself with all this desperate squealing.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you don't know about the "evaporated" steel, you're very ignorant about 9/11. And the fact that you're doubtful about it shows even more so how ignorant you are.

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

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

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

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:39, Blogger Garry said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 15:51, Blogger Garry said...

'Garry, if you are going to accuse me of doing violence to the witnesses' quotes, I wish you would do us all the favor of at least quoting my quote correctly. Here's my quote:

"Building two, the south tower.... there were about ten explosions.... We then realized the building started
to come down."'

The fact that you're reduced to removing large parts of his statement in order to prove your point speaks volumes.

'Notice he says first he heard the explosions, and then the building came down. That's the part that YOU left out of the quote, blatantly distorting it.'

No, retard. He heard what he thought sounded like explosions. Have you heard many explosions in your life Brian? Do you know the difference between explosives detonation and combustion as a result of fire. The hell you do.

'Notice also he talks about later "finding out that it was the floors collapsing." Finding out from who? Somebody who threatened his job?'

And have you any evidence that Gregory was intimidated into remaining silent and staying on message? Of course you haven't. You're a troofer. You can make up your own reality.

'He describes it as explosions. It is thus evidence of explosions. It doesn't matter what he decided later. He is not an expert in explosions'.

And neither are you, Brian. You're an unemployed janitor and a sex offender, and that's it.

 
At 15 December, 2010 16:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Garry, I didn't remove large portions. I focused on the testimony about explosions. That was the point. NIST said there was no evidence of explosions, and Mr. Carlsen testified to explosions.

He said he heard ten explosions. He also said he heard them before the building came down, so the notion that they were the floors falling makes no sense. He talks about later "finding out that it was the floors collapsing". See, somebody TOLD HIM it was the floors collapsing. But what he observed was explosions, as he clearly says. He doesn't say they sounded like explosions. He said he heard explosions.

What's needed is an investigation so it can be determined whether the witnesses were coached or intimidated or not. But instead NIST pretended that their testimony did not exist.

Garry, you don't know anything about me but that doesn't stop you from putting a lot of energy into fantasies. Do you think Ian has a crush on me? I had to ask him to quit humping my knee.

 
At 15 December, 2010 17:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if you don't know about the "evaporated" steel, you're very ignorant about 9/11.

So you believe fires caused by diesel fuel brought down WTC 7? Hmm, you're finally being reasonable about this. Good for you, Brian.

Also, Brian, it amazes me that you continue to cling in desperation to the "people heard explosions" stuff as if it means there were explosives in the towers. I mean, this is the BEST you can do to support your belief in an inside job? No wonder the truth movement is dead.

 
At 15 December, 2010 19:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you may be incorrigibly incompetent, but at least you are consistent.

 
At 15 December, 2010 20:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you may be incorrigibly incompetent, but at least you are consistent.

Brian, that article you quoted suggested that diesel fuel could be responsible for the fires that brought down WTC 7. If you don't believe that, why did you show us that article?

 
At 15 December, 2010 20:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

Also, Brian, have you ever asked Dr. Barnett of the "evaporated steel" quote what he thinks brought down WTC 7, or would such a thing be too big a risk to shatter all the delusions you've built up about 9/11?

 
At 15 December, 2010 21:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I shared the NYT article because that was the source of the statement about the "evaporated" steel.

You guys have this amazing attitude that one has to buy into the whole thing to cite any of it. That's nuts. Like I'm not allowed to read the Song of Psalms unless I declare my faith in Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

At the time the article was written, the diesel fuel hypothesis was about the only explanation for what brought down WTC7, but FEMA concluded after looking at it that it had only a low probability of occurrence. NIST finally abandoned the notion late in 2007 and had to invent more fanciful theories.

I don't know what Dr. Barnett thinks. He thought there should be more investigation of the sulfidated steel, but NIST pretended that it didn't exist.

 
At 15 December, 2010 21:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2010 21:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what happened to WhyAskQuestions? It turns out his name is Wil Clark and he lives in Johnstown, PA. I can't find any evidence of his claimed association with FDNY--which probably explains his reluctance to give his name.

He was going to call up Carol Brouillet. Maybe his interview with her didn't go well for him? Did you ever hear the tape of her interview with Troy? She came off very well.

 
At 16 December, 2010 05:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

You guys have this amazing attitude that one has to buy into the whole thing to cite any of it. That's nuts.

You're the one who cited it as "evidence" of CD, remember?

At the time the article was written, the diesel fuel hypothesis was about the only explanation for what brought down WTC7, but FEMA concluded after looking at it that it had only a low probability of occurrence. NIST finally abandoned the notion late in 2007 and had to invent more fanciful theories.

Nobody cares.

I don't know what Dr. Barnett thinks.

That's OK, you don't know anything about 9/11 either.

So what happened to WhyAskQuestions?

It's called "night time", petgoat. People go to sleep. You're the only one babbling away at your computer 24/7.

Did you ever hear the tape of her interview with Troy? She came off very well.

Hmm, it seems like you find her credible. So does that mean I should listen to her when she says you stalked her and tried to break up her marriage?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home