Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Chandler and Bursill

I just got around to listening to this interview today. Some thoughts:

1. The last half of the interview is all "We're not the no-plane at the Pentagon" movement, although Bursill admits at one point that over half the 9-11 Truthers believe just that. Bursill also rails against speculation, but gives his assent when Chandler speculates that none of the planes on 9-11 were actually flown by the hijackers. Why, Bursill (who apparently works in aircraft maintenance) states, there are thousands of ways to fly those planes. Really, John? Then why aren't you detailing that part of the conspiracy?

2. Got a chuckle when Chandler gripes a bit about Richard Gage getting all the face time in Architects and Engineers. Looks like more than a few people are starting to catch onto the fact that Gage's motives are not altruistic.

3. Bursill or Chander (can't remember which) prevaricates a bit when they talk about Gage's endorsement of National Security Alert, claiming that all he really meant to say was "these are some young kids who've done a lot of hard work, and it would be great if the rest of us were as dedicated," but that has been misused. Once again, what Gage said about National Security Alert:
"The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD "National Security Alert" deserves serious attention - particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day."


4. Bursill and Chandler decry the "If X then Y" nature of the CIT theories, where X is "the plane flew north of the Citgo" and Y is "then Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon". But Chandler does the same thing (and Bursill gushes that this is the most incontrovertible evidence he's ever found) when he says, "If Building 7 fell at freefall then it must have been a controlled demolition."

5. Chandler is an obvious right-winger. I mean, active in the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, talks about chickens coming home to roost, wonders where the monument to all the people we killed in Vietnam is. It's pretty apparent that he's somewhere to the starboard of Attila the Hun. Either that or he has some friends who are.

65 Comments:

At 25 January, 2011 17:10, Blogger paul w said...

Bursill...one of the idiot 911oz crew.

I 'debated' this cretin about the pilot skills, and a few other topics, and he did exactly what Brian Good does - ignored or changed the subject.

He's a truther fuckwit, pure and simple, but with a zealot's manic delusional drive.

He was all very polite to begin with, but when I answered his questions with a reality he couldn't accept (it wasn't hard), he soon became abusive and arrogant.

This arsehole would be in a Brown Shirt in an instant.

 
At 25 January, 2011 17:55, Blogger paul w said...

Here is his opinion of Zeitgeist:

"Generally I think it is a very good film!"

In my 'debate' with Bursill and others at 911oz about the pilot skills and the plane at the Pentagon (2008), here are some of his comments,:

"Anyway I've got to go back to work now so I will attempt to teach you some more when I get time.

By the way I work with 767/737 and 747 pilots every day and all that I ask say they don't think they could make that hit. But what the f*&k would they know?

Why don't you just piss off as I'm so sick of your kind....."

and...

"My interest with the Pentagon is why all the secrecy? Why were the FBI confiscating video while their comrades were dieing in the Pentagon? Why can't we view the wreckage of the plane? Why did NORAD stand down? Why did the SAM's fail? Why did the plane hit where they were looking for Rummy’s 2.3 Trillion? Why does the DFDR Data not match the official flight path? Why did we lose the primary radar target of 77 and then ATC were told when 77 reappeared that it was 77 with no actual correlation. Why were the ATC tapes destroyed? Why haven’t we found out about those orders Cheney said still stood? Why can't we see the 80 odd video tapes of the crash? Why Why Why there straight of the top of my head....."

and...

"I will check out what you say but the facts are the area is well surveilled and every inch would be under surveillance. I ain't seen no plane yet so shut the f*&k up until you can show me the plane a------e."

And, this comment AFTER the NIST report:

"I would remind PJW that NIST has yet to explain the actual collapse or provide modelling to prove it could happen at all?"

and..

"Have a nice life PJW but please don't ever tell us your real name as I will find you and expose you for what you are, a traitor to our once great nation.

Thankfully you are so obviously a"troll" that you have only helped our cause!

Farewell you traitorous scum, and good luck in the NWO if you get your way!"

He eventually returned to start rabbiting on about ground speed and equations, by which time I was banned.

For foul language!

Of course, I answered all his questions, but like Brian, it didn't matter.

Another truther moron.

 
At 25 January, 2011 19:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, I'm not aware that I asked you any questions. In general I avoid seeking advice from anonymous internet posters.

 
At 26 January, 2011 06:21, Blogger Bill said...

LOL! Got to love the damage control. 1/2 the TM is running away from CIT and the other half clings desperately to the no plane at the Pentagon nonsense. Gage being the entrepreneur he is of course he won't alienate such clientel, but now they got to play both fields by Chandler making excuses.

 
At 26 January, 2011 18:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat wrote: Chandler is an obvious right-winger. I mean, active in the sanctuary movement in the 1980s, talks about chickens coming home to roost, wonders where the monument to all the people we killed in Vietnam is.

Pat, I don't understand why you consider that evidence of rightist leanings. The sanctuary folks in the 80's were leftists, seeking to protect refugees from the Central American death squads. "Chickens coming home to roost" is the blowback hypothesis that most leftists seem to prefer to "inside job". And I've never seen any right wingers shed any tears for the innocent civilian dead in Vietnam, though the leftists certainly do.

 
At 26 January, 2011 20:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, learn what sarcasm is.

And yes, most left-wingers are not truthers. They realize you're a bunch of loons.

 
At 27 January, 2011 23:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

So all 5 points are satire, is that what you're saying? Satire of what or whom?

 
At 28 January, 2011 07:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Satire:

1. the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

2. a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.

Hence the sentence: "Oh the irony!"

The Conspiracy Theories are satire!
Truthers are spoofers!

 
At 28 January, 2011 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you seem to be missing the point that Ian is claiming that Pat is a spoofer.

 
At 28 January, 2011 12:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

So all 5 points are satire, is that what you're saying? Satire of what or whom?

No, just the "right-winger" comments are sarcasm. I'm not exactly sure what Pat's point is, since 9/11 truth exists in the fever swamps of both the loony right and the loony left.

 
At 28 January, 2011 15:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I see, so Pat had 4 serious points and one sarcastic one--with no hint of snark such as exclamation points.

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

 
At 28 January, 2011 16:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

I see, so Pat had 4 serious points and one sarcastic one--with no hint of snark such as exclamation points.

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-ght.


Brian, remember what I said about "critical thinking"? Leave these kinds of judgments to people capable of it.

 
At 28 January, 2011 16:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I doubt that you ever finished college.

"Critical thinking" is just words to you.

 
At 28 January, 2011 16:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I doubt that you ever finished college.

"Critical thinking" is just words to you.


Brian, your babbling about college is amusing to me.

 
At 28 January, 2011 16:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Ian, I doubt that you ever finished college."

Yeah, and I doubt that you were ever toilet trained, goat molester.

 
At 28 January, 2011 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Ian.

 
At 28 January, 2011 20:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Thanks for confirming my suspicions, Ian.

The suspicions of a failed janitor and sex stalker who has been thrown out of the truth movement are of no interest to me.

 
At 29 January, 2011 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Says the liar who invents psudeo-facts to support his rationalizations.

 
At 29 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Who are you to call anyone a liar, goat molester?

 
At 29 January, 2011 11:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've got no reason not to call people liars, including you, with your bogus claims that Dr. Harris is independent of NIST despite the fact that he was appointed to a prestigious committee by NIST,

You still can't name one independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

 
At 29 January, 2011 11:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

Aaaand Brian continues to babble about nothing.

You still can't name one independent engineer who endorses the NIST report.

Dr. Harris. And Uncle Steve. You lose again, petgoat.

Now name an independent engineer who endorses the law of gravity.

 
At 29 January, 2011 12:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, only a naive and ignorant person like you could believe that Dr. Harris, who was appointed to a committee by NIST, is independent.

Ron Brookman has implicitly endorsed the law of gravity. He said "I believe in the laws of physics".

 
At 29 January, 2011 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More deception and lies, goat molester?

In fact, I gave you the names of 10 independent engineers, including Dr. James R. Harris, Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi and Leslie E. Robertson.

Your never ending stream of lies are further exposed, moreover, when I point out that hundreds, if not thousands, of engineering professors endorsed the NIST Report by adopting the changes to academia found therein.

Your idiotic and completely unsubstantiated non-response to the aforementioned list was the usual pile of specious nonsense we've come to expect from a compulsive liar of your ilk. You claim the engineers are connected to NIST without providing a single hyperlink to substantiate your assertion. Then you claim that I need to "learn how to Google." Yet, you refused to "Google" the very information that would prove me wrong.

Now, why would the goat molester refuse to provide hyperlinks to substantiate his assertions? Because he's a compulsive liar and a psychopath who "debates" in a manner that can only be described as bad faith.

And by the way, asshole, here's five more independent engineers to add to the ever growing list: Mete A. Sozen, Paul F. Mlakar, Donald O. Dusenberry and Gerald Haynes.

Thus, you lose again, goat molester.

Now, get on with your latest pack of specious non-arguments, lies and unsubstantiated nonsense--you goat fuckin' Al Qaeda apologist.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, GutterBall, you gave your lying list. You could not show that any of them other than Harris had endorsed the NIST report. Kausel served as "Expert contractor" in Project 6 to NIST's WTC report. Robertson's firm had a contract with NIST. You are just repeating the same lies.

Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar served with Gene Corley and Charles Thornton on the OK City bombing in investigation. Mlakar, P. F.; Dusenberry, D. O.; Harris, J. R.; Haynes, G.; Phan, L. T.; Sozen, M. A. are all listed as authors of a 2004 BFRL (NIST) Publication. Phan was a NIST employee. They are not independent.

GutterBall, you lie and lie and lie.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Making unsubstantiated claims without the benefit of evidence again, asshole?

You have no credibility, goat molester. Thus, unless you provide links to credible sources that categorically substantiate your assertions (read lies), you're just blowing smoke up our collective ass.

No links, no cigar--you goat fucking Al Qaeda apologist.

Now, get your filthy, lying lips off that goat's pecker and get to work gay boi.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

You provide no links for your lies, why should I provide links for the truth?

Here's where Mlakar, P. F.; Dusenberry, D. O.; Harris, J. R.; Haynes, G.; Phan, L. T.; Sozen, M. A. are co-authors of a 2004 NIST report.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bfrl03/auth/auth107.html

How about you start with the endorsements? Show me where your guy endorsed the NIST report, and I'll show you that he's not independent.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker. That's an evasion.

From academia we find the following:

[1] Eduardo Kausel
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
C.E. 1967, University of Chile
M.S. 1972, MIT
Sc.D. 1974, MIT;

[2] John E. Fernandez
Associate Professor of Building Technology - MIT
1989--MArch, Princeton University
1985--BSAD, MIT;

[3] Tomasz Wierzbicki
Professor of Applied Mechanics Director, Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory - MIT
Ph.D. in Applied Mechanics, 1965 Institute of Fundamental Technological
Research, Warsaw, Poland
S.M. in Engine Design, 1960 Warsaw Technical University, Warsaw, Poland;

[4] Liang Xue
Ph.D. Candidate of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
BS in Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1994
BS in Computer Sciences, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1994
MS in Mechanical Engineering, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 1997
MS in Ocean Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2003;

[5] Ahmed F. Ghoniem
Professor of Mechanical Engineering - MIT
B.S. in Mechanical Engineering, July 1973, Cairo University, Egypt
M.S. in Mechanical Engineering, October 1975, Cairo University, Egypt
Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering, June 1980 , University of California, Berkeley;

[6] Oral Buyukozturk
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering - MIT
Ph.D. 1970, Cornell University
M.S. 1969, Cornell University
M.S.C.E. 1963, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, Turkey;

[7] Franz-Josef Ulm
Professor of Engineering Mechanics and Materials - MIT
Diplom Ingenieur (M.Sc.) 1990, TU Munich
Docteur-Ingenieur (Ph.D.) 1994, ENPC, Paris
Habilitation 1998, ENS de Cachan;

[8] Yossi Sheffi
Professor of Engineering Systems - MIT
B.Sc. Technion in Israel - 1975
S.M. - MIT, 1977
Ph.D - MIT 1978.

[9] Dr. James R. Harris
Principal, J.R. Harris & Company
Specialty: Structural engineering

[10] Leslie E. Robertson
Principal, Leslie E. Robertson & Associates

From ASCE we find:

[1] Mete A. Sozen, Ph.D., S.E.
Kettlehut Distinguished Professor of Structural Engineering, Purdue University
Specialty: Behavior of reinforced-concrete structures

[2] Paul F. Mlakar, Ph.D., P.E.
Team Leader
Technical Director, Army Engineer Research and Development Center
Specialty: Blast-resistant design

[3] Donald O. Dusenberry, P.E.
Principal, Simpson Gumpertz & Heger, Inc.
Specialty: Blast effects and structural design

[4] Gerald Haynes, P.E.
Fire Protection Engineer, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Specialty: Fire protection

Now, I want a categorical refutation of the aforementioned list, goat molester. And remember, no links to credible sources, no cigar.

Got it, goat molester?

Now, get to work, goat fucker.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And by the way, goat molester. Providing a hyperlink to an unrelated report written by independent contractors does not prove a conflict of interest.

The fact is that you're applying your own, dishonest definition of "conflict of interest" in order to play your usual dishonest games.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I can cut and paste lists too. You have not shown that any of those people endorse the NIST report. Even with Dr. Harris, all we have is your unsubstantiated claim.

Kausel was a contributor to the NIST report. He's not independent.

Plus, you have not shown where ANY of those people have endorsed the NIST report. Why are you finding this so difficult? I'll tell you--because nobody with any integrity wants to endorse it!

Do you enjoy making yourself look stupid?

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, co-authorship of a report with a NIST employee takes away the engineers' independence. I'm sorry you're not bright enough or experienced enough to realize that. Maybe that has something to do with why in your career you are not entrusted with making expensive purchases.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi are not independent because their colleague Kausel was a contributor to the NIST report. They would not be expected to say anything critical of the report.

Note you have not shown where they endorsed it.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Again, that's not an answer, goat fucker, that's an evasion.

Here's an example of an engineering body adopting the recommendations found in the NIST Report on WTC--and I quote:

"...Changes to Building Codes and Standards. First comprehensive set of eight model building code changes based on recommendations from NIST’s WTC investigation were adopted by the International Building Code in 2007. Second set of eight model building code changes based on NIST’s WTC recommendations were approved by technical committees and are awaiting approval, along with potential appeals on several other code changes, at the Final Action Hearing for the 2009 edition of the International Building Code. NIST’s WTC Recommendations have spurred actions to develop new provisions/ guidelines within other standards, codes, and industry organizations, such as: National Fire Protection Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat."

http://www.slideshare.net/bootz15/nist-wtc-7-technical-briefing-082608

That's another nail in your coffin, goat fucker.

The aforementioned, goat molester, is an example of substantiation.

Let's see if the goat molester can live up to the aforementioned standards of evidence (don't hold your breath).

Now, get to work, goat fucker.

 
At 29 January, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester lies, "...co-authorship of a report with a NIST employee takes away the engineers' independence."

That's YOUR defintion of "conflict of interest"--you piece of shit.

Show me one credible source that backs your specious definition of "conflict of interest."

I won't hold my breath.

Now, get your lips off that goat's wang, and get to work--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

 
At 29 January, 2011 14:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, goat molester--you dish-rag dork--try and convince us that the adoption of "guidelines within other standards, codes, and industry organizations, such as: National Fire Protection Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat" doesn't equal an implicit endorsement of the NIST Report by the aforementioned engineering bodies.

Go for it--you lying, no account, two-faced, underhanded degenerate.

 
At 29 January, 2011 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, if the consensus in the engineering community was, as you seem to be claiming, that the NIST report is admirable and honest, then you should be able to find some evidence of this. (And no, increasing the width of fire exit stairs will not cut it.)

Instead of providing endorsements from independent engineers, you keep citing the same old list of the same incestuous bunch--and you can't even show where they endorse the NIST report. Why is that?

Leave the conflict of interest issue aside for now, it's obviously too rarified for your muzzy little head. When did any of those people (other than Robertson) endorse the NIST report? Why won't you answer the simple question?

 
At 29 January, 2011 14:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, nobody cares about your babbling about independent engineers. We're more interested in why you continue to pretend you're not punxsutawneybarney and when you plan on getting your "meatball on a fork" and "rake on rake" models published in an engineering journal.

 
At 29 January, 2011 14:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat molester, ignore the following--and I quote:

"...Changes to Building Codes and Standards. First comprehensive set of eight model building code changes based on recommendations from NIST’s WTC investigation were adopted by the International Building Code in 2007. Second set of eight model building code changes based on NIST’s WTC recommendations were approved by technical committees and are awaiting approval, along with potential appeals on several other code changes, at the Final Action Hearing for the 2009 edition of the International Building Code. NIST’s WTC Recommendations have spurred actions to develop new provisions/ guidelines within other standards, codes, and industry organizations, such as: National Fire Protection Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat."

http://www.slideshare.net/bootz15/nist-wtc-7-technical-briefing-082608

Thus, you lose again, goat fucker, because the following organizations--National Fire Protection Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat--all endorse the NIST Report.

And the following organizations represent HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of engineering professionals.

Now, take your idiotic, 100% fact-free nonsense back to the cave you crawled out of and go fuck yourself--you sleazy, no account, worthless, lying, stupid, dishonest, bestiality practicing degenerate.

 
At 29 January, 2011 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, NIST certainly did some valuable review of fire safety standards, and those would surely be endorsed by the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth just as much as the other institutions you mention.

You know as well as I that you are only trying to weasel your way out of the issue.

1400 architects and engineers want new 9/11 reports. You and others here have claimed that the majority in the engineering community believe the NIST report to be adequate--but you can not name even one engineer who overtly endorses the NIST report's findings about the building collapses.

I can name one--Leslie Robertson--but since his firm had a contract with NIST his can not be considered an independent opinion.

So I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of people who endorse the NIST report's adequacy and honesty in terms of addressing the building collapses.

 
At 29 January, 2011 14:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More squealing bullshit, goat molester?

AE911 "truth" can't disagree with and attack the NIST Report and simultaneously endorse the conclusions found therein--you sleazy, lying, incompetent, goat fallator.

FACT: You can't have it both ways--you duplicitous, lying, brain-dead, terracotta toothed felcher.

That's nothing more than cognitive dissonance on a grand scale. And you're not getting away with it, stupid.

FACT: The following engineering organizations, which are comprised of HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of engineering professionals all endorse the NIST Report: National Fire Protection Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat.

Face it, goat molester, you lose again, because not only are you incompetent, you're a liar.

Now, give it up and stop trying to bury your latest defeat under a mountain of squealing and spam--you no account, sleazy, worthless, lying, stupid, dishonest, bestiality practicing degenerate.

 
At 29 January, 2011 15:22, Blogger Ian G. said...

1400 architects and engineers want new 9/11 reports.

Nobody cares.

You and others here have claimed that the majority in the engineering community believe the NIST report to be adequate

They do.

but you can not name even one engineer who overtly endorses the NIST report's findings about the building collapses.

False.

I can name one--Leslie Robertson--but since his firm had a contract with NIST his can not be considered an independent opinion.

Nobody cares.

So I'm still waiting for you to provide the names of people who endorse the NIST report's adequacy and honesty in terms of addressing the building collapses.

Dr. Harris, for one.

Also, Brian, your attempts to bury my posts in your squealing spam aren't working. People can still see that you have not presented a shred of evidence that the WTC towers existed and thus cannot refute the possibility that the cheating, lying floozies your call "widows" were in on 9/11.

 
At 29 January, 2011 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

AE911Truth can certainly disagree with some parts of the report and agree with it recommendations. I don't know where you get this bizarre notion, Bill, that one must buy it all or not at all. So Jews can't believe in the Old Testament unless that acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior? You're nuts!

You try to bury your lack of substance under invective, but the fact remains that you can not back up your claim that your listed engineers have endorsed the collapse theories in the NIST report.

 
At 29 January, 2011 15:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

AE911Truth can certainly disagree with some parts of the report and agree with it recommendations.

False.

So Jews can't believe in the Old Testament unless that acknowledge Jesus as their Lord and Savior? You're nuts!

Your understanding of theology is as bad as your understanding of physics.

You try to bury your lack of substance under invective, but the fact remains that you can not back up your claim that your listed engineers have endorsed the collapse theories in the NIST report.

We're not talking about this anymore, petgoat. We're talking about why you continue to lie about the "widows". Your attempt to bury this issue in babbling spam just shows how desperate you are to not discuss it.

 
At 29 January, 2011 17:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, you're not talking about the fact that neither you nor GutterBall can back up your claims that independent engineers endorse the NIST report's findings about the cause of the WTC's collapse.

 
At 29 January, 2011 17:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Just keep on lying like a rug, goat fucker.

The only person you're managing to fool is yourself.

 
At 29 January, 2011 17:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Prove that I lie, GutterBall. It's easy for me to prove that you lie. You claimed that Dr. Harris was independent. He's a co-author of a 2004 NIST report.

Here's where Mlakar, P. F.; Dusenberry, D. O.; Harris, J. R.; Haynes, G.; Phan, L. T.; Sozen, M. A. are co-authors of a 2004 NIST report.

http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/bfrl03/auth/auth107.html

Why can't you find an independent engineer who will endorse NIST's findings about the collapse mechanism? Could it be there aren't any?

However, 1400 architects and engineers will stick their necks out to say that NIST is FOS.

 
At 29 January, 2011 18:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You claimed that Dr. Harris was independent. He's a co-author of a 2004 NIST report."

That doesn't prove that Dr. Harris has a "conflict of interest."

He is listed by NIST as an independent contractor, whether you accept the truth or not.

And changing the definition of independent contractor to suit your propaganda doesn't prove anything other than your infinite capacity for dishonesty.

The remaining authors are independent contractors, too. Your lies and obfuscation notwithstanding.

Writing a paper for NIST doesn't make them dependent on NIST, nor does the paper prove they have a "conflict of interest."

A REAL conflict of interest in the engineering world would include manufacturing parts and then participating on a selection committee comparing parts manufacturers. Writing a paper for a government organization alone does NOT and never will demonstrate a conflict of interest.

Furthermore, you continue to ignore the following paragraph, which blows a hole a mile wide in your argument--and I quote:

"...Changes to Building Codes and Standards. First comprehensive set of eight model building code changes based on recommendations from NIST’s WTC investigation were adopted by the International Building Code in 2007. Second set of eight model building code changes based on NIST’s WTC recommendations were approved by technical committees and are awaiting approval, along with potential appeals on several other code changes, at the Final Action Hearing for the 2009 edition of the International Building Code. NIST’s WTC Recommendations have spurred actions to develop new provisions/ guidelines within other standards, codes, and industry organizations, such as: National Fire Protection Association, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASTM International, American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat."

http://www.slideshare.net/bootz15/nist-wtc-7-technical-briefing-082608

And you continue to ignore the following, which also blows a hole a mile wide in your idiotic and dishonest argument:

"...Your never ending stream of lies are further exposed, moreover, when I point out that hundreds, if not thousands, of engineering professors endorsed the NIST Report by adopting the changes to academia found therein."

Thus, it is indisputable that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of independent engineers and members of academia have adopted the NIST Report, which is an implicit endorsement of the report.

As a result, you lose the debate again.

 
At 29 January, 2011 18:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another nail in your coffin, goat fucker.

Wikipedia writes, "...More generally, conflicts of interest can be defined as any situation in which an individual or corporation (either private or governmental) is in a position to exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit."

Source: Conflict of interest

Thus, before you can claim the aforementioned engineers have a conflict of interest, YOU MUST PROVE THAT THEY ARE IN A POSITION TO EXPLOIT THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY IN A WAY THAT ALLOWS THEM TO PROFIT FROM OR BENEFIT FROM THE PAPERS THEY'VE WRITTEN.

Tell us, goat molester, how did Drs. Harris, Eduardo Kausel, John E. Fernandez, Tomasz Wierzbicki, Liang Xue, Ahmed F. Ghoniem, Oral Buyukozturk, Franz-Josef Ulm, Yossi Sheffi and Leslie E. Robertson manage to profit or benefit from their relationship with NIST?

How did Drs. Mete A. Sozen, Paul F. Mlakar, Donald O. Dusenberry and Gerald Haynes manage to profit or benefit from their relationship with NIST?

How does writing a paper as an independent contractor allow them to "exploit a professional or official capacity in some way for their personal or corporate benefit"?

Face it, goat fucker, you're lying. In fact, you're deliberately employing a bogus definition of "conflict of interest" as a self-serving vehicle for your bullshit propaganda.

Thus, you lose the debate again, goat fucker.

 
At 30 January, 2011 09:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

Right, you're not talking about the fact that neither you nor GutterBall can back up your claims that independent engineers endorse the NIST report's findings about the cause of the WTC's collapse.

Dr. Harris, petgoat. And Uncle Steve.

Your babbling spam doesn't change the fact that you lost again.

 
At 30 January, 2011 10:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you're very confused on five counts.

#1, you can't see that having a contractual relationship with NIST represents a conflict of interest such that Dr. Harris's opinions about the NIST report are in no way "independent".

#2, you can't see that your continued attempts to litigate the issue of independence only make you look ridiculous because they only show that you have a very, very, very, teeny tiny pool of NIST endorsers to work with. Nothing near the 1400 architects and engineers who think NIST is FOS.

#3 That engineering professionals adopt NIST's fire protection recommendations in no way implies that the professionals find the report on collapse mechanism credible. Probably most of the 1400 architects and engineers who think NIST is FOS would agree with the recommendations.

#4 You seem unable to recognize that someone who has had a contract with NIST tends to hope that they can further contracts with NIST, and this tends to color their comments about NIST's work--also they would surely wish for recommendations and referrals from NIST.

#5 You seem not to recognize that your confusion on the above four points raises a lot of doubt about your professionalism and business sophistication, and thus much doubt about your claim that you were a responsible IT professional in silicon valley before your job was given to some Pakistani teenager.

 
At 30 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody cares, Brian. Until you admit that you're petgoat, everyone is going to laugh at you.

 
At 30 January, 2011 12:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody cares that GutterBall is totally off base, I know.

 
At 30 January, 2011 12:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody cares that GutterBall is totally off base, I know.

Not exactly. Nobody cares that a deranged liar, failed janitor, and sex stalker claims GuitarBill is off base.

Brian, do you seriously think anyone here takes a word you say seriously? We just laugh at you.

 
At 30 January, 2011 13:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

To be more precise, Ian, you giggle at me. I see you have no rebuttal to any of the 5 points I raised above.

 
At 30 January, 2011 19:03, Blogger Ian G. said...

To be more precise, Ian, you giggle at me. I see you have no rebuttal to any of the 5 points I raised above.

What points?

 
At 30 January, 2011 19:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 30 January, 2011 19:52, Blogger Ian G. said...

See what I mean?

You mean that 9/11 is an inside job. Of course, you've presented no evidence of this, so we laugh at you, and you get upset and call people "girls".

 
At 30 January, 2011 20:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Don't tell me what I mean.

 
At 30 January, 2011 20:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

Don't tell me what I mean.

You believe 9/11 is an inside job, petgoat. That's what you mean by all the nonsense you post here. You love Willie Rodriguez and want to marry him. That's what you mean by all the garbage you post on youtube as "punxsutawneybarney".

 
At 30 January, 2011 21:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Don't tell me what I mean. You're not competent to articulate what YOU mean.

 
At 30 January, 2011 22:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Don't tell me what I mean. You're not competent to articulate what YOU mean.

Boy, you just never know when to stop babbling, do you petgoat?

 
At 31 January, 2011 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker scribbles, "...#1, you can't see that having a contractual relationship with NIST represents a conflict of interest such that Dr. Harris's opinions about the NIST report are in no way 'independent'."

That's right, goat molester, simply ignore everything I've written that proves you're full-of-shit:

The goat molester can't prove the engineers are dependent on NIST or that they profit from writing reports as independent contractors.

And never mind that Dr. Harris explained to me that he was not paid one red cent to write his reports for NIST.

Call him, asshole, and ask him if I'm lying:

(303)860-9021

 
At 31 January, 2011 19:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker scribbles, "...#2, you can't see that your continued attempts to litigate the issue of independence only make you look ridiculous because they only show that you have a very, very, very, teeny tiny pool of NIST endorsers to work with. Nothing near the 1400 architects and engineers who think NIST is FOS."

That's right, goat molester, continue to ignore everything I've written that proves you're wrong:

The number of engineers who endorse the NIST Report number in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS and include independent engineers and academia.

 
At 31 January, 2011 19:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...#3 That engineering professionals adopt NIST's fire protection recommendations in no way implies that the professionals find the report on collapse mechanism credible. Probably most of the 1400 architects and engineers who think NIST is FOS would agree with the recommendations."

Riiiiight!

Engineers routinely adopt recommendations from reports where the conclusions are in doubt.

Would you care to provide one example where an engineering body or academia adopted recommendations from a report that was based on erroneous conclusions?

Obviously, you've never worked on a design project--you stupid ass.

The recommendations found in the NIST Report add CONSIDERABLE EXPENSE to the successful completion of a design project. As an engineer I can tell you that delivering a design at the lowest cost is a VERY HIGH PRIORITY.

Thus, you're trying to convince us that the ASCE and academia would adopt recommendations that significantly increase the cost of finishing a project with no justification from a report that's based on erroneous conclusions?!?!?!?!?!?

ROTFLMAO!

You're an idiot, goat molester.

Don't quit your day job flippin' hamburgers--you cretin.

 
At 31 January, 2011 19:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester continues to lie, "...#4 You seem unable to recognize that someone who has had a contract with NIST tends to hope that they can further contracts with NIST, and this tends to color their comments about NIST's work--also they would surely wish for recommendations and referrals from NIST."

That's right, goat molester, simply ignore everything I've written that proves you're full-of-shit:

The goat molester can't prove the engineers are dependent on NIST or that they profit from writing reports as independent contractors.

And never mind that Dr. Harris explained to me that he was not paid one red cent to write his reports for NIST.

Call him, asshole, and ask him if I'm lying:

(303) 860-9021

But you won't call Dr. Harris, will you, goat molester?

Why won't you make the call? Because you know I'm telling the truth.

 
At 31 January, 2011 19:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester scribbles, "...#5 You seem not to recognize that your confusion on the above four points raises a lot of doubt about your professionalism and business sophistication, and thus much doubt about your claim that you were a responsible IT professional in silicon valley before your job was given to some Pakistani teenager."

Hilarious!

Now the failed janitor, sex stalker and cretin who lives with his mother is trying to lecture me on "professionalism and business sophistication."

ROTFLMAO!

The aforementioned "four points" are nothing but hot air. In fact, they're substantiated by nothing but wind, bullshit and conjecture.

And all we need to know about you is proven by your continued refusal to dial Dr. Harris's phone number to confirm that I'm telling the truth.

(303) 860-9021

Go for it, Pinocchio. Call the number--you insane coward.

And tell us more about all those engineers who routinely adopt recommendations from reports that are based on erroneous conclusions.

ROTFLMAO!

"What a marooon." -- Bugs Bunny

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home