Monday, January 17, 2011

Give that Man a Cigar!

CIT's pretty much burned up all their credibility with the "responsible" wing of the Truthers. JONES, David Chandler, and others have officially denounced the flyover theory as the nuttiness that it is.

So the question now becomes, when does Richard Gage rowback his endorsement of CIT's video, National Security Alert? Remember, that's the video that Gage gushed about:

"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."


Over at Truth Action, speculation is running as to why Gage has not rescinded those statements. My money is on this guess:
So here's my opinion on what I think I "know" to be true...

You don't want to alienate a portion of your audience and potentially jeopardize AE911Truths steady and lucrative income streams.


Yup. Box Boy, like Griffin before him, is a big tent kind of guy; he wants everybody inside his tent as sustaining members.

Labels: , ,

175 Comments:

At 17 January, 2011 09:22, Blogger Greg said...

I'm really beginning to think this whole truth movement is bullshit.......

 
At 17 January, 2011 09:29, Blogger Bill said...

Hey the man is no fool. He knows how to keep them coming.

 
At 17 January, 2011 09:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

You don't want to alienate a portion of your audience and potentially jeopardize AE911Truths steady and lucrative income streams.

Yup, the "truth" movement is all about con artists like Gage and Griffin preying on the gullible, whether that be angry dateless 20-year-olds in black t-shirts, or delusional lunatics like Brian Good.

 
At 17 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mr. Gage made enormous personal sacrifices to get his organization off the ground. You guys seem to think that his current salary of $75k a year is a lot of money. Maybe in Kentucky or Arizona or Chicago it is, but in the San Francisco Bay Area it's not.

Your scorn would be more appropriately directed at William Rodriguez, whose fact-free inspirational stories were packing the gullible in for too long.

 
At 17 January, 2011 10:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Mr. Gage made enormous personal sacrifices to get his organization off the ground.

Lloyd Blankfein was born in a rough housing project in Brooklyn and worked his ass off to become CEO of Goldman Sachs. So what?

You guys seem to think that his current salary of $75k a year is a lot of money.

It ain't bad for the fraud/charlatan business.

Maybe in Kentucky or Arizona or Chicago it is, but in the San Francisco Bay Area it's not.

So why doesn't Gage move to where it's cheap? It's not like he can't run his fraud business from a trailer park in Mississippi?

It's too bad that you're too stupid to see what a fool you are for taking Gage seriously, but you are who you are, Brian: someone too dumb/insane to keep a janitorial job.

 
At 17 January, 2011 10:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Your scorn would be more appropriately directed at William Rodriguez, whose fact-free inspirational stories were packing the gullible in for too long.

Nobody cares about your strutting, lying, bragging hunk of Latin manhood.

 
At 17 January, 2011 12:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Gage sure is not mush of an architect if he had to live on his talents he wouldn't make shit.

So 75k is not bad work for a nothing like him.

 
At 17 January, 2011 12:36, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Let say Gage is losing money at every turn. All that proves is he is a bigger fool that we thought. You can have a certain respect for people cashing in on the conspiracy theorist loons. But someone who is really believe the truther crap and is throwing his life away is not someone to admire but a sad sap indeed.

 
At 17 January, 2011 13:04, Blogger Pat said...

Mr Gage made enormous personal sacrifices, and therefore it's okay that he endorsed CIT's crockumentary? Sounds like you agree with the guy quoted in the OP, that Gage is just going along to get along.

 
At 17 January, 2011 13:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, it's not okay that Gage endorsed CIT's nonsense. It was negligent of him.

 
At 17 January, 2011 13:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

And irresponsible.

 
At 17 January, 2011 15:12, Blogger paul w said...

Negligent and irresponsible.

Yup, and the youtube cardboard box experiment was ludicrous.

 
At 17 January, 2011 15:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, the cardboard box experiment is not ridiculous. It illustrates the concept of structural resistance very well.

You guys will believe anything that an "expert's" computer screen shows you, and you're suspicious of demonstrations involving everyday objects like eggs, concrete paving stones, and cardboard boxes.

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

We're not suspicious of those experiments, they just have nothing to do with 9/11.

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, Newton's First Law and Third Law have nothing to do with 9/11.

It's those Satanic Mooslims, after all--they can make carpets fly.

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:25, Blogger paul w said...

"No, the cardboard box experiment is not ridiculous. It illustrates the concept of structural resistance very well."

Yes, it does.

As far as showing why the buildings should not have fallen as they did, the reason he did it...ludicrous.

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:54, Blogger Triterope said...

JONES, David Chandler, and others have officially denounced the flyover theory as the nuttiness that it is.

Does that even matter anymore? I don't think the endorsement/denouncement of movement "leaders" has the power it used to.

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

It shows why we need an explanation from NIST as to why the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

 
At 17 January, 2011 17:29, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 January, 2011 17:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

No, the buildings didn't come down in free fall.

Didn't happen that way, not one video supports this.

 
At 17 January, 2011 19:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

No, the cardboard box experiment is not ridiculous. It illustrates the concept of structural resistance very well.

No, but this comment illustrates your total scientific illiteracy very well.

You guys will believe anything that an "expert's" computer screen shows you, and you're suspicious of demonstrations involving everyday objects like eggs, concrete paving stones, and cardboard boxes.

You just gotta love Brian's bitterness towards a world that laughs at him. Why should we rely on what a Stanford PhD says after hundreds of hours of modeling instead of relying on a babbling failed janitor with mental illness. Life's not fair!

Right, Newton's First Law and Third Law have nothing to do with 9/11.

Brian, you have no idea what those two laws are.

It shows why we need an explanation from NIST as to why the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Uh, the buildings didn't come down "essentially in free-fall". Asking NIST to explain that is like asking them to explain why the buildings were destroyed by an earthquake. You can't explain things that didn't happen.

 
At 17 January, 2011 19:35, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"You guys will believe anything that an "expert's" computer screen shows you, and you're suspicious of demonstrations involving everyday objects like eggs, concrete paving stones, and cardboard boxes."

That is because smart people know everyday objects can NEVER demonstrate the forces going on at the scale of the WTC. To do this you need to either build something at the actual scale of the WTC or use computers that can reproduce those forces using mathematical calculations. Why do you think they use computer models to test structural designs and not scale models.

That backyard scientist crap is exactly how the con men pray on the simple minded, don't pay any attention to those elitist scientist who use big words and complex explanations, NO believe Billy Ray Bob and his falling bricks.

The fact you are so lacking in basic science understanding that I and most others understand quite well is nothing to base a conspiracy on. It only shows you are stupid and we am smart.

 
At 17 January, 2011 19:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Bet Brian thinks you can do automotive crash test using model cars.

Design aircraft using balsa wood and a rubber band.

All that stuff that people realizes didn't work as children. Brian has the mind of a child, and a not very bright one at that.

 
At 17 January, 2011 21:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Greg, NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder says that the measurements show that they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

DK, there is no scale exemption for Newton's laws. They apply to all things large and small.

Why did NIST use computer models? Because when they built a full-scale model of the floor and subjected it to fire, the results did not come out like they wanted. With computer models it's easier to cheat.

 
At 17 January, 2011 21:25, Blogger paul w said...

Hey, Brian, figuring I'd find out exactly what is meant by 'structural resistance', checked out a few web sites.

Here's Wikipedia's entry on structural engineering theory.
Pretty serious shit for someone like me, Brian, but I'm sure it's childs-play for someone like you;

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

So, figuring you know all about structural resistance, I guess you can tell us the affects of strength, stiffness, Newton's Law of Motion (you'll breeze through that!), Statical determinacy, elasticity, plasticity, The Euler-Bernoulli beam equation (which you know defines the behavior of a beam element and is based on five assumptions), and buckling in regard to Gage's cardboard boxes, and the WTC towers.

Now, buggered if I know about that, and this is just a guess, but I think...Gage's cardboard box experiment explained nothing other than dropping a box onto another box is different to dropping it straight onto the floor.

And, the difference is?

The lower box gets in the way

 
At 17 January, 2011 22:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

DING DING DING! We have a winner. You understand the significance of Mr. Gage's experiment!

It's a demonstration of Newton's Second Law and the First Law of Thermodynamics.

And we needn't complicate the issue any further than that to demonstrate that we need an honest computer model of the collapse because it's too fast. The energy needed to tear apart the lower structure and deform all that steel and pulverize the concrete must be subtracted from the available kinetic energy and it should have slowed down the
collapse.

Only by taking away the structural resistance of the building can that swift collapse be achieved.

 
At 18 January, 2011 02:44, Blogger paul w said...

WTC 7

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face.

During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

 
At 18 January, 2011 02:45, Blogger paul w said...

WTC Towers

"Was there enough gravitational energy present in the World Trade Center Towers to cause the collapse of the intact floors below the impact floors? Why was the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 not arrested by the intact structure below the floors where columns first began to buckle?"

Yes, there was more than enough gravitational load to cause the collapse of the floors below the level of collapse initiation in both WTC Towers. The vertical capacity of the connections supporting an intact floor below the level of collapse was adequate to carry the load of 11 additional floors if the load was applied gradually and 6 additional floors if the load was applied suddenly (as was the case). Since the number of floors above the approximate floor of collapse initiation exceeded six in each WTC Tower (12 and 29 floors, respectively), the floors below the level of collapse initiation were unable to resist the suddenly applied gravitational load from the upper floors of the buildings. Details of this finding are provided below:

 
At 18 January, 2011 02:47, Blogger paul w said...

Consider a typical floor immediately below the level of collapse initiation and conservatively assume that the floor is still supported on all columns (i.e., the columns below the intact floor did not buckle or peel-off due to the failure of the columns above).

Consider further the truss seat connections between the primary floor trusses and the exterior wall columns or core columns.
The individual connection capacities ranged from 94,000 lb to 395,000 lb, with a total vertical load capacity for the connections on a typical floor of 29,000,000 lb (See Section 5.2.4 of NIST NCSTAR 1-6C).

The total floor area outside the core was approximately 31,000 ft2, and the average load on a floor under service conditions on September 11, 2001 was 80 lb/ft2.

Thus, the total vertical load on a floor outside the core can be estimated by multiplying the floor area (31,000 ft2) by the gravitational load (80 lb/ft2), which yields 2,500,000 lb (this is a conservative load estimate since it ignores the weight contribution of the heavier mechanical floors at the top of each WTC Tower).

By dividing the total vertical connection capacity (29,000,000 lb) of a floor by the total vertical load applied to the connections (2,500,000 lb), the number of floors that can be supported by an intact floor is calculated to be a total of 12 floors or 11 additional floors.

 
At 18 January, 2011 02:48, Blogger paul w said...

This simplified and conservative analysis indicates that the floor connections could have carried only a maximum of about 11 additional floors if the load from these floors were applied statically.

Even this number is (conservatively) high, since the load from above the collapsing floor is being applied suddenly. Since the dynamic amplification factor for a suddenly applied load is 2, an intact floor below the level of collapse initiation could not have supported more than six floors.

Since the number of floors above the level where the collapse initiated, exceeded 6 for both towers (12 for WTC 1 and 29 for WTC 2), neither tower could have arrested the progression of collapse once collapse initiated.

In reality, the highest intact floor was about three (WTC 2) to six (WTC 1) floors below the level of collapse initiation. Thus, more than the 12 to 29 floors reported above actually loaded the intact floor suddenly.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm

 
At 18 January, 2011 02:50, Blogger paul w said...

"The energy needed to tear apart the lower structure and deform all that steel and pulverize the concrete must be subtracted from the available kinetic energy and it should have slowed down the
collapse."

Oh, Bwian...they did not subtract from the available kinetic energy!

In fact, I don't think they even mentioned it!!!

Those dumb-asses!

 
At 18 January, 2011 02:51, Blogger paul w said...

I'm wondering if they even know what a cardboard box looks like!!!

Probably not!!!

 
At 18 January, 2011 03:11, Blogger paul w said...

"Were the basic principles of conservation of momentum and energy satisfied in NIST’s analysis of the structural response of the towers to the aircraft impact and the fires?"

'Yes. The basic principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of energy were satisfied in these analyses.

In the case of the aircraft impact analyses, which involved a moving aircraft (velocity) and an initially stationary building, the analysis did, indeed, account for conservation of momentum and energy (kinetic energy, strain energy).

After each tower had finished oscillating from the aircraft impact, the subsequent degradation of the structure involved only minute (essentially zero) velocities.

Thus, a static analysis of the structural response and collapse initiation was appropriate.

Since the velocities were zero and since momentum is equal to mass times velocity, the momentum terms also equaled zero and therefore dropped out of the governing equations.

The analyses accounted for conservation of energy.'

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/faqs12007.cfm


Wow, Bwian, They DID mention 'kinetic energy'!!!

Ohhhh....but NOT cardboard boxes, the dumb-asses!!!

 
At 18 January, 2011 03:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Only by taking away the structural resistance of the building can that swift collapse be achieved.

Ever notice how Troof Scientists never get around to testing the converse of their experiments? That is, take some everyday object like a cardboard box, remove its structural resistance, and reproduce effects similar to the observed WTC collapse? Why do you suppose Troof Scientists are afraid to go there?

 
At 18 January, 2011 04:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

M Greg, NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder says that the measurements show that they came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False and false. You're either illiterate or a liar, Brian.

DK, there is no scale exemption for Newton's laws. They apply to all things large and small.

That's nice, Brian.

Why did NIST use computer models? Because when they built a full-scale model of the floor and subjected it to fire, the results did not come out like they wanted. With computer models it's easier to cheat.

So in other words, they weren't able to build a model that would act like the WTC.

 
At 18 January, 2011 09:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Unlike truther claims the building did not collapse totally, parts of the towers stood until being taken down in the clean-up. People were pulled form the core of WTC1. Of course most of the structure below ground was intact including the cores that truther say was "blown up". listening to truther idiots you would think the towers completely reduced to dust, unfortunately for them just a quick look at the aftermath shows that is not true.

I heard descriptions of the collapse of WTC1 as it being peeled like a banana, the sides being pushed outward as the internal structure fell inward, and you can see that in pictures. So you only need to use enough energy to undermine the structure below, not destroy the structure, contrary to the thinking of children like Brian.

Think of it this way, if you have a table with a heavy load on it and you want to make it collapse you don't need to destroy the legs you only need to knock them enough out of vertical so the load can not be distributed into the floor. In fact that is how a real controlled demolition works unlike the idiots truther version that has everything being blown up.

Of course anyone who can count and watch a video can confirm the towers didn't fall at free-fall. I guess Brian is still trying to lean how to count.

 
At 18 January, 2011 09:45, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

NIST built a full-scale model of the floor NOT test how much heat would be put out in an office fire, and how much of that heat would get to the steel structure. Even they knew it could not be truly representational of the actual event. Remember you have up to 6 floors at a time fully involved in fire creating much more heat.

So the fact our village idiot Brian doesn’t even know the facts of the test is not surprising.

 
At 18 January, 2011 09:47, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I should have said
NIST built a full-scale model of the floor to test how much heat would

 
At 18 January, 2011 09:50, Blogger Pat said...

So egg on egg = box on box = rake on rake?

 
At 18 January, 2011 10:00, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

It'a a common thing with kooks to think the big conspiracy can be exposed by some common Joe Blow working in his garage. It give hope to the stupid and uneducated as if they too can be heros without the actual hard work of knowing shit.

Last truther I talked to in person also believe the hype that some guy in his garage built a carburetor that would get 200MPG out of a car that only got 14MPG. Only the oil companies had the car companies not using it! As if GM give a fuck what BP wants. These conspiracy theorist know as much about thermal efficiency as they do of structural engineering.

But that is a appeal to the common man fallacy, they too can expose the truth using eggs, cardboard boxes and 50s automotive technology.

 
At 18 January, 2011 10:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

paul, if you actually look at the video you'll see there is no overt action of the face of the building to support NIST's "stage one" claim of a 40% longer collapse time. They claim that something happened in the lower stories where we can't see it. Why they did the roofline not move?

The notion of a sudden application of the entire mass of the top "block" to one poor defenseless story at the top of the lower structure is a complete fantasy.
Any such interaction would have more resembled petgoat's "rake attacks rake" model more than a piledriver attacking a weak pile.
In fact the video shows that the upper block of tower one came apart before the lower structure began to fail.

 
At 18 January, 2011 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, 80 pounds is an unrealistically large live load. Good for conservative engineering, but for collapse estimates it's blatant cheating. That's cases of copy paper standing on end two cases high over every foot of every floor.

Yes, NIST doesn't mention the energy of dismembering the structure and twisting the steel and pulverizing the concrete. That's my point. By stopping the analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, they can avoid the embarrassing math that shows that under the circumstances the essentially free fall collapse is impossible without added energy inputs in the form of explosives or incendiaries.

Note NIST's sleight of hand. The issue is conservation of energy in the collapse. NIST answers about conservation of energy in the plane impact and fires. Blatant dishonesty.

 
At 18 January, 2011 10:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, yes, by all means think of a table. The only way to make it come straight down is to weaken all four legs at the same time. Any legs left unweakened and it tips. So how did fire do that? Thanks for proving my point.

NIST says the towers came down "essentially in free fall". If you don't believe them, you should be asking for new investigations you can believe.

You never had 6 floors fully involved. Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is exhausted.

No Pat, egg on egg <> box on box <> rake on rake. Egg on egg is Newton's 3rd; Box on box and rake on rake are Newton's 2d and the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics.

DK, the fundamental laws of Newtonian physics can be demonstrated with eggs, boxes, and rakes. Your selective ridicule is noted. Did you ridicule Dr. Bazant for likening the tower to a piledriver? Did you ridicule Dr. Eagar for likening the floors to pancakes and the connectors to zippers?

 
At 18 January, 2011 11:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

The notion of a sudden application of the entire mass of the top "block" to one poor defenseless story at the top of the lower structure is a complete fantasy.

Hey, a failed janitor says so. It must be true!

In fact the video shows that the upper block of tower one came apart before the lower structure began to fail.

Because this means....the mass was lost? I didn't know something broken into thirds was less massive than the same thing unbroken.

By stopping the analysis at the moment of collapse initiation, they can avoid the embarrassing math that shows that under the circumstances the essentially free fall collapse is impossible without added energy inputs in the form of explosives or incendiaries.

We should listen to him guys. Nobody understands this math better than a failed janitor who can't read.

Note NIST's sleight of hand. The issue is conservation of energy in the collapse. NIST answers about conservation of energy in the plane impact and fires. Blatant dishonesty.

See what I mean?

 
At 18 January, 2011 11:28, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, yes, by all means think of a table. The only way to make it come straight down is to weaken all four legs at the same time. Any legs left unweakened and it tips. So how did fire do that? Thanks for proving my point.

Uh, the fire weakened the steel. Learn to Google.

NIST says the towers came down "essentially in free fall". If you don't believe them, you should be asking for new investigations you can believe.

NIST did not say this. Learn to read.

You never had 6 floors fully involved. Office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is exhausted.

We'd better listen to him, guys. Nobody is more of an expert on structural fires than a failed janitor.

No Pat, egg on egg <> box on box <> rake on rake. Egg on egg is Newton's 3rd; Box on box and rake on rake are Newton's 2d and the 1rst Law of Thermodynamics.

And you don't understand any of them.

DK, the fundamental laws of Newtonian physics can be demonstrated with eggs, boxes, and rakes.

Can you drop a bunch of eggs, boxes, and rakes on your head and demonstrate? I'd like to see it on youtube, punxsutawneybarney.

Did you ridicule Dr. Bazant for likening the tower to a piledriver? Did you ridicule Dr. Eagar for likening the floors to pancakes and the connectors to zippers?

No, because they're experts who know what they're talking about. You, on the other hand are a babbling ignorant liar and failed janitor.

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:58, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"DK, the fundamental laws of Newtonian physics can be demonstrated with eggs, boxes, and rakes."

But only at the scale of eggs and boxes, to think otherwise show you are as dumb as a box of rocks, or eggs if you like. You just don't have the intellectual ability to understand that. It's the reason you will never be more than the guy we hire to mop floors. In your case the proof is in the pudding.

 
At 18 January, 2011 13:01, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

In fact the video shows that the upper block of tower one came apart before the lower structure began to fail.

Actually if your can read the tops of both towers rotated slightly before coming down, so they did not come straight down.

 
At 18 January, 2011 13:09, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This was just in the NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/nyregion/17harris.html

A woman who along with other survived the collapse of the north tower recently passed away.

"As Deputy Chief John A. Jonas explained, unlike the south tower, which leaned and toppled over, “ours peeled away like a banana.”

“And we were the banana,” he added. “We were at the bottom.”

Gee! amazing they survived in the core with all that molten thermite or exploding nano thermite, or whatever is the conspiracy theory du jour.

 
At 18 January, 2011 13:13, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Dr. Eagar for likening the floors to pancakes and the connectors to zippers?

I would if he tried to use actual pancakes as proof.

So as we see poor old Brian is so mentally challenge he can't even grasp the simple concept of an analogy. to this retard when you say pancakes he thinks real pancakes.

 
At 18 January, 2011 14:08, Blogger paul w said...

"paul, if you actually look at the video..."

Bwian, I did look 'at the video', and, with my own eyes, and using common sense, saw a 110 story building collapse.

Then, I read the NIST engineers account of what happened.

Bwian, if you actually read the report...

 
At 18 January, 2011 14:08, Blogger paul w said...

Back on topic...Gage has two things on his mind: ching, ching!

 
At 18 January, 2011 15:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Gage says that his A&E for 9/11 Truth is a non-profit organisation. Yet that bastard is reaping in the benefits of gullible, though very stupid, people who send him money because he asks for it.

Isn't there something, in the Federal Government, that can prevent his organisation from recieving money into said non-profit organisation?

What about Gage dodging income tax? We have to get him on something cause what he's doing is for fraudulant reasons.

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, the fundamental laws of physics are not subject to issues of scale. You've been confused by sophists with whiz-bang numbers--the overwhelming assault by 50 gazillion brazillian pounds of steel! It doesn't matter how big it is. There is no expemption from Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics.

The tops rotated slightly and then they came apart 1000 feet in the air, including pulverizing the concrete. This is why there was the rush to clean up the steel--because a scientific deconstruction of the pile would have shown Bazant's theory to be a fantasy.

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:20, Blogger Triterope said...

Isn't there something, in the Federal Government, that can prevent his organisation from recieving money into said non-profit organisation?

Not really. The government can't prosecute the organization for their political position; that gets into free-speech issues.

What about Gage dodging income tax?

As long as he pays personal income taxes on the salary the organization pays him, he's not dodging income tax. There's no evidence that he's done that. 2010 income tax filings aren't even due for another three months.

As appalling as it is that Richard Gage apparently makes a living peddling hateful conspiracies to chumps, he's probably not doing anything illegal.

And he's hardly alone. There are lots of tax-exempt "charities" in this country that raise money, pay their executives large salaries, and produce nothing of value to society.

 
At 18 January, 2011 18:05, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, the fundamental laws of physics are not subject to issues of scale. You've been confused by sophists with whiz-bang numbers--the overwhelming assault by 50 gazillion brazillian pounds of steel! It doesn't matter how big it is. There is no expemption from Newton's laws or the laws of thermodynamics.

Uh, nobody said the laws of physics are subject to exemption because of size. We're just saying that you're a babbling liar who doesn't understand the first thing about the laws of physics.

The tops rotated slightly and then they came apart 1000 feet in the air, including pulverizing the concrete. This is why there was the rush to clean up the steel--because a scientific deconstruction of the pile would have shown Bazant's theory to be a fantasy.

Please see a psychiatrist, Brian.

 
At 18 January, 2011 19:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Y'all have been claiming that Gage's perfectly good experiment, and the egg experiment are worthless because they are not the scale of the towers. They are perfectly good demonstrations of Newton's laws, and the towers are subject to those same laws.

 
At 18 January, 2011 20:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

Y'all have been claiming that Gage's perfectly good experiment, and the egg experiment are worthless because they are not the scale of the towers.

And not the same material, or structure, and didn't have fires burning in them.

I guess the fact that they're both solid-state matter counts for something....

They are perfectly good demonstrations of Newton's laws, and the towers are subject to those same laws.

And this statement is totally irrelevant. Thanks for proving my point!

 
At 18 January, 2011 22:13, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"M Greg, NIST says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall"."

Either the NIST is full of shit or it's not. You are the one who says that the NIST report is wrong, so why then do you turn around and cite it?

Make up your mind, you loon.

 
At 18 January, 2011 22:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Who should I cite but NIST when I want to discuss what NIST says?

Where I come from, it was always considered smart to quote the other guy to prove your point.

 
At 18 January, 2011 23:13, Blogger Jay said...

"Why did NIST use computer models? Because when they built a full-scale model of the floor and subjected it to fire, the results did not come out like they wanted. With computer models it's easier to cheat."

IM sure he got that from Kevin Ryan and i debunked that in the next video. Which proves Ryan is lying.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pJ6cS3GZBw

 
At 19 January, 2011 01:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Does your video have a point? All I see is a whole lot of fine print. You'll have to do better than that.

 
At 19 January, 2011 02:23, Blogger Jay said...

Lol. If you dont understand how ive proven Ryan wrong, then there is no hope for you...

 
At 19 January, 2011 05:00, Blogger Triterope said...

At least he viewed the video. That's progress for him. We've had threads with photographs where Snugbug all but feigned blindness to avoid looking at them.

 
At 19 January, 2011 06:50, Blogger Ian G. said...

Where I come from, it was always considered smart to quote the other guy to prove your point.

You have no point, petgoat. You're just babbling about nothing, desperately trying to find something that sticks to keep your delusional fantasies about 9/11 alive.

Does your video have a point? All I see is a whole lot of fine print. You'll have to do better than that.

Wow, I'm shocked that a failed janitor and the author of the hilarious "meatball on a fork" model doesn't understand technical details!

 
At 19 January, 2011 08:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's not a case of not understanding. The NIST report ain't rocket science.

It's a matter of Jay obfuscating instead of communicating.

Wow, all those words! They must prove what Jay says!

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

False. You simply don't understand, petgoat. You're a ignorant lunatic who doesn't know the first thing about any of the topics you babble about.

 
At 19 January, 2011 12:34, Blogger Jay said...

No Brian, it means that Ryan is lying, or that he is an idiot who didnt check the information in the NIST report. You know, the report he is telling bullshit about in tha tvideo about the tests done on the floors. But its obvious you are a fan of Kevin Ryan, since you are defending his crappy work.

 
At 19 January, 2011 14:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jay, if you want to prove Ryan lies, you'll have to do better than cutting and pasting a bunch of fine print on a Youtube.

Nobody's going to read that crap--because it looks like bullshit. And if you don't know how to put on a case that doesn't look like bullshit, why should anybody take the time to struggle through it?

 
At 19 January, 2011 18:54, Blogger paul w said...

"why should anybody take the time to struggle through it?"

The perfect truther answer.

If it's not quick and easy like a video, or a quote, they just don't bother.

Anything that has some depth, or those awful things called details, forget it.

That's why they are still bitching about 'anomilies' that were cleared up years ago.

 
At 19 January, 2011 18:59, Blogger paul w said...

It's also why the NIST engineers were asked to do the report, and not the truthers.

And, as well all know, doesn't that just really bug them...

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul if something is so badly put together that it looks like it's bullshit, it's not worth putting the time in to find that it's bullshit.

Kind of like if a guy giving a speech mumbles, you kind of suspect he doesn't want you to hear him.

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:56, Blogger paul w said...

So, the NIST reports are bullshit?

I mean, you're the one who said he couldn't be bothered reading them.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody's going to read that crap--because it looks like bullshit. And if you don't know how to put on a case that doesn't look like bullshit, why should anybody take the time to struggle through it?

And now Brian is going into desperate babbling mode. He'll call us "girls" soon enough...

Paul if something is so badly put together that it looks like it's bullshit, it's not worth putting the time in to find that it's bullshit.

Hey, if a failed janitor, deranged liar, and ignorant lunatic says something isn't worth the time to investigate, why should we question him.

I love, love, LOVE that Brian is basically reduced to sticking his fingers in his ears, jumping up and down, and screaming "I can't hear you!" in order to pretend his "truther" ideas have any validity.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:10, Blogger paul w said...

"All I see is a whole lot of fine print. You'll have to do better than that."

Just watched the video Bwian.

That 'fine print' is called detail.
It's why truthers like Ryan, Gage and such are fuckwits; they always get the detail wrong.

That's why, as I said, the people chosen for the NIST reports are people who have studied, and understand, the 'fine print'.

People who have studied hard, passed their tests, and worked for years as professionals in their industry.

Unlike you.
Unlike the other idiot truthers.

It really, really boils you lot that it's they who get the job, eh?

Deal with it; they're much, much better than all of you, they know much, much more than all of you, and they get the job done, unlike all of you.

 
At 19 January, 2011 21:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

That fine pwint, pauwie, is called obfuscation. The substitution of roughage for substance.

NIST got the job done by fudging their computer models, ignoring the physical evidence, throwing out empirical tests, and skipping all the difficult questions:

speed, symmetry, totality, pulverization, and molten metal.

 
At 20 January, 2011 05:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

That fine pwint, pauwie, is called obfuscation. The substitution of roughage for substance.

My, such squealing!

NIST got the job done by fudging their computer models, ignoring the physical evidence, throwing out empirical tests, and skipping all the difficult questions:

speed, symmetry, totality, pulverization, and molten metal.


Brian, your insane babbling about "speed, symmetry, totality, pulverization, and molten metal" is filling this board with illogical, squealing spam.

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not babbling. That's actually quite a cogent list of the things NIST forgot to cover.

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm not babbling. That's actually quite a cogent list of the things NIST forgot to cover.

Yes you are! NIST didn't forget anything. Whatever you think wasn't covered by NIST was covered in the Commission Report. Therefore your cause is at an end & a loss!

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST forgot to explain speed symmetry and totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, and the molten steel in the wreckage.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm not babbling. That's actually quite a cogent list of the things NIST forgot to cover.

Brian, your belief that you're not babbling is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

NIST forgot to explain speed symmetry and totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, and the molten steel in the wreckage.

They didn't explain it because it's just a bunch of irrelevant nonsense believed by ignorant liars like you.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

NIST forgot to explain speed symmetry and totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, and the molten steel in the wreckage.

NIST didn't forget those, you just ignore them.

They found molten aluminum, not steel retard.

 
At 20 January, 2011 11:08, Blogger Triterope said...

Kind of like if a guy giving a speech mumbles, you kind of suspect he doesn't want you to hear him.

What an ignorant statement. Lots of great speakers had speech impediments of some sort. James Earl Jones comes to mind.

 
At 20 January, 2011 18:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I can teach and teach but you won't learn. Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melting of girders. That's melted steel.

 
At 20 January, 2011 18:45, Blogger paul w said...

BTW - how does one post comments in bold?

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, I can teach and teach but you won't learn. Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melting of girders. That's melted steel.

False.

BTW - how does one post comments in bold?

"<" "B" ">" at the beginning of the text you want to bold (only without the quotes and spaces) and then "<" "/" "B" ">" at the end, which is pretty much how it's done on any website or blog with HTML enabled comments.

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBD that he saw "melting of girders".

Are you calling him a liar?

 
At 20 January, 2011 20:01, Blogger paul w said...

Like this?

 
At 20 January, 2011 20:03, Blogger paul w said...

T H A N K S!

 
At 21 January, 2011 06:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBD that he saw "melting of girders".

Are you calling him a liar?


No, I'm calling you a liar. A babbling, squealing, deranged, sex-stalking liar.

 
At 21 January, 2011 09:02, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melting of girders.

Wow Brian, just wow!

Exactly how could he tell the steel was "melting" in the vidoes with those uncontrollable fires & heavy smoke surroundingthe inner columns? Is he "Superman" with x-ray vision?

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Dr. Astaneh-Asl wasn't talking about the videos. He was talking about the girders. He saw melted girders.

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

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

He saw melted girders.

Brian,

And this proves what exactly for 9/11?

"Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction"

Nice of you to compare a bridge with that of a building. You're 1 fucked up guy Brian.

Also,

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley:

"In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures."

He said nothing about melted steel. Nice try at lying Brian!

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=abolhassan_astaneh_asl_1

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH says that, in some places, the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue.”

Thomas Eagar - an engineering professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology - later comments that the “temperature of the fire at the WTC [on 9/11] was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel.”

Brian, so much for your "melted steel" @ GZ.

 
At 21 January, 2011 14:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you are lying. Dr. Astaneh Asl told PBS: "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

The reason this is significant is because NIST and you girls have been denying that there was melted steel at the WTC.

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

Why are you trying to obscure the facts by playing dumb and by lying?

 
At 21 January, 2011 16:25, Blogger paul w said...

As you will read in this article, Brian, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl did say he saw 'melted beams' at the WTC.

No other engineer has said this, and furthermore, another engineer disagreed with it.

Astaneh-Asl also said this:

“The collapse of the [Twin Towers] was most likely due to the intense fire initiated by the jet fuel of the planes and continued due to burning of the building contents.”

Care to comment on that?

As you'll cherry-pick from this article, he also said this:

"Astaneh-Asl previously told the New York Times that the scrap steel from the WTC was “worth only a few million dollars, a tiny fraction of the billions of dollars the cleanup will cost.” Yet the knowledge that could be gained from it “could save lives in a future disaster.”

He was complaining that a more thorough examination would help them build safer buildings, not that he thought there was something fishy.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=abolhassan_astaneh_asl_1

 
At 21 January, 2011 16:32, Blogger paul w said...

In another pbs article, from the day of the attacks, Astenah and another engineer talk about the collapse;

"...they lost the ability to support that, all of that mass, like another building, came down on top of the rest of the structure like a pile hammer and just essentially drove the rest of the building into the ground."

"the weight of those upper floors completely collapsed on the lower part and hammered it down and collapsed it."

"All I can tell you is if there's any positive thing here today is that actually the fact that these buildings were steel structures.

When we had the Oklahoma City tragedy, that structure was concrete. When it happened the concrete could not tolerate the impact and the columns were pretty much collapsed and the whole building collapsed and there was no time for people to get out of the building.

In this case, because the structures were steel structures, the columns were able to tolerate easily the impact.

Even they could tolerate the fire if we were able to reach the fire and extinguish the fire. But since it wasn't possible, the fire was too intense, and then the steel lost its strength and collapsed after one hour.

But that one hour apparently was enough for many people, as I heard, in fact, from Ron when we were sitting outside, that his firm had people in that building and they were able to evacuate from the 91st floor after the fire started.

So they were out before the collapse. So one positive thing I see is that at least we were lucky in a sense that the collapse actually happened in a progressive way, not in a very sudden, immediate after attack.

So I see a very, very positive point in the design of these buildings that they were really strong, as Ron mentioned, and they were really designed well. But unfortunately they could not tolerate that intense fire due to the jet fuel perhaps"

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec01/structure_9-11.html

 
At 22 January, 2011 08:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you are lying. Dr. Astaneh Asl told PBS: "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

Brian,

Until he changed his statement to this:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH says that, in some places, the fireproofing used to protect the WTC steel has “melted into a glassy residue.”

Sorry, but I'm not "lying". You're the 1 lying by making shit up in your delusional head.

Also he never mentioned "melted steel in his statement which reads:

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley:

"In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures."


Why are you trying to obscure the facts by playing dumb and by lying?

Why are you doing the same thing day in & day out? You know you'll never win @ SLC because you're too fucked in the head.

Perhaps if your mother didn't use too many drugs when she was pregnant with you, you'd be acting like a different person than you're acting now.

 
At 22 January, 2011 09:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

The reason this is significant is because NIST and you girls have been denying that there was melted steel at the WTC.

Nobody cares about your alleged melted steel, petgoat.

It's only significant because you called us "girls" again, giving more evidence to the idea that in addition to being a racist lunatic, you're a sexist lunatic too.

 
At 22 January, 2011 09:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The reason this is significant is because NIST and you girls have been denying that there was melted steel at the WTC.

Brian,

How can there be "melted steel" @ Ground Zero when steel's melting point is: 2,800* F?

Also:

NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,800 degrees Fahrenheit in the WTC towers.

1,800* F is way less of a temperature to melt steel.

2,800*F - 1,800*F = 1,000*F difference.

No possible way for steel to melt at such a low temperature.

You're "molten steel" theory is as dead as your brain on drugs.

 
At 22 January, 2011 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that photographic evidence suggested melting of steel.

Leslie Robertson said molten steel was "running".

Richard Garlock, Structural Engineer for LERA, said "The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."

WAQo, your technique of citing a quote that says "B" as if that proves that the source never said "A" is dishonest. It's like saying "The Bill of Rights protects free speech, and therefore your claim that it demands equal protection of the law is a lie."

How can there be molten steel at the WTC? That's why we need a new investigation--to find out. We don't need some liar from PA to tell us it didn't happen.

 
At 22 January, 2011 10:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

How can there be molten steel at the WTC? That's why we need a new investigation--to find out. We don't need some liar from PA to tell us it didn't happen.

There wasn't "molten steel" @ Ground Zero. We don't need a "new investigation" because you feel we should. Hey Brian, I live in a town where steel mills thrive, I think I would know what molten steel looks like. Given that I've visited the local steel mills around town.

Oh, & it didn't happen the way you imagined it.

2,800*F is melting point of steel. 1,800*F is too low to melt steel effectively.

FYI: I live 20 miles North of Shanksville. Flight 93 wasn't "shot down".

 
At 22 January, 2011 10:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So continue to lie Brian, the more you lie & pretend that there was "molten steel" or that the buildings came down at "free fall speed" the more I'll put up facts & evidence to prove you wrong.

Everyone else here has proven you wrong Brian. We've given facts & evidence, you've given us nothing in return except insults.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

No molten steel?

WAQo, are you calling Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, a liar?

Are you calling Dr. Astaneh-Asl a liar?

Was you there, Charley?

You give me lies, repeated lies. Starting from when you first arrived and tried to pass yourself off as FDNY.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Paul, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that photographic evidence suggested melting of steel. "

Lets see the photos. Just saying there are photos does not cut it.

And there is no evidence of this molten steel, no big chunk of cooled steel, no photos of same. All you have is antidotal accounts that when you look into them turn out to be untrue, just like idiot Brian's 10 second collapse times.

So the question become why are conspiracy theories pimped by the lower forms of life in the US, people like Brian who is so devoid of intelligence and even simple everyday life skills he has to resort to mom and dad taking care of him at an age when most of us can take care of ourselves.

Obvious in Brian we have a useless member of society who sponges off others. He is lucky he lives in a country that doesn't kill off the simple and foolish.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:14, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:15, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

WAQo, are you calling Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, a liar?

Are you calling Dr. Astaneh-Asl a liar?

Was you there, Charley?

No... YOU are the liar Brian, you quote mine what other say and offer NO real proof.

Or you parrot crap you get from conspiracy theorist sites, Lord knows you can't think fore yourself.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No molten steel?

WAQo, are you calling Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY, a liar?

Are you calling Dr. Astaneh-Asl a liar?

Was you there, Charley?

You give me lies, repeated lies. Starting from when you first arrived and tried to pass yourself off as FDNY.


Temperatures inside the Towers were about 1,800*F. Not 2,800*F to melt steel. So no!

Are you?

Are you?

You weren't there either!

I haven't lied, those here can back me up on that. No, I told you that I have a friend that's in the FDNY. You never learned to listen to what people are telling you Brian.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:21, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Brian... Why are all truthers people like you, the useless, the mentally stunted. the talent less. The kind of people who when they die leave the world a better place?

Clearly you as a person have no real place or value in comparison to the rest of us. Hell even other truthers as low as they are shun you as an idiots.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, are you calling Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem a liar?

So let's see, according to all you guys, Leslie Robertson, Dr. Astaneh Asl, Philip Ruvolo of FDNY, and Richard Garlock of LERA are all liars?

There is a big chunk of cooled steel, 40 pounds. Steven Jones did a chemical analysis of a sample from it.

You wouldn't accept proof if I offered it. You guys are like the worst among the truthers--you think you know what happened, you think you're justified in lying about it, you call witnesses liars and you ignore the evidence.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

#11:

Pure liquid aluminum would be expected to appear silvery. However, the molten metal was very likely mixed with large amounts of hot, partially burned, solid organic materials (e.g., furniture, carpets, partitions and computers) which can display an orange glow, much like logs burning in a fireplace. The apparent color also would have been affected by slag formation on the surface.

According to the NIST Report, no molten steel was confirmed.

Oh & Brian, you can continue to have a mental meltdown.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

There is a big chunk of cooled steel, 40 pounds. Steven Jones did a chemical analysis of a sample from it.

WOW! Well that prove it!!!!!!! 40 Lbs!

Of course because I am much smarter than you will ever be know that amount can be created from the use of thermic lance cutting tools used during the clean up.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

There is a big chunk of cooled steel, 40 pounds. Steven Jones did a chemical analysis of a sample from it.

We highly doubt that "WATERBOY" did anything of the sort. Since he was canned by BYU for forging a peer review paper from the BYU board.

You wouldn't accept proof if I offered it. You guys are like the worst among the truthers--you think you know what happened, you think you're justified in lying about it, you call witnesses liars and you ignore the evidence.

You've offered no proof at all since I started coming here. We know what happened by looking @ the evidence, which you deny looking @ in the first place. The evidence doesn't lie, sorry, but it doesn't. We call no witnesses "liars", we just point out that what you said they claim is wrong & that you're the one lying. Again, what evidence have you given us? You gave us nothing but insults!

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:30, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You wouldn't accept proof if I offered it.

Or because you have no proof, By your own admission you argue from ignorance. For an idiots like you questions are enough.

So all that thermite must have left on hell of a chunk of cooled steel, Where is it?

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If Brian believes that Thermite can cause steel to melt, then he has to explain why in hell Hindenberg's metal skeleton didn't melt as a result of it's skin being painted in a thermite coating (iron oxide & aluminum powder).

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

You wouldn't accept proof if I offered it. You guys are like the worst among the truthers--you think you know what happened, you think you're justified in lying about it, you call witnesses liars and you ignore the evidence.

You forgot to call us girls, Brian.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Let me school you again Brian

Under the right conditions fires deep in the rubble pile could created enough heat to melt steel. A combination of a well insulated fire with enough fuel and air to crate a blast furnace effect could happen.

That would be a reasonable and logical explanation for any melted steel. if it exist. The idea thermite could be used for a controlled demolition is pure fantasy, exactly the sort of stuff a simpleton like you would buy.

So when people are given the choice of a reasonable explanation from a smart guy or the ravings of a simple janitor level guy, people believe the bright people. That is why 9/11 truth isa dead issue, and resigned to joke status.

 
At 22 January, 2011 12:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melting of girders. That's molten steel. That's not aluminum, that's not from torches. Look at yourselves, denying reality. There was molten steel.

NIST got $20 million and they offer no proof. That's why we need a new investigatin--for proof.

DK, NIST did not investigate how steel could melt in a hypothetical natural blast furnace. Instead they lied and claimed there was no evidence of molten steel--even though Appendix C of the FEMA report showed that there was. Your theory is very imaginative, but it's never been known to happen anywhere. That's why we need a new investigation--to find the answers.

 
At 22 January, 2011 13:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, you do understand that there will never be a new investigation, right? Babbling on this blog isn't going to change things.

 
At 22 January, 2011 15:26, Blogger paul w said...

Paul, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that photographic evidence suggested melting of steel.

Leslie Robertson said molten steel was "running".

Richard Garlock, Structural Engineer for LERA, said "The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."



Brian, please provide links to these quotes.

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry Paul, until you ask Ian and WAQ to provide links to support their lies, it would be a waste of time for me to support the facts.

Ghoniem, Garlock, and Robertson can be easily googled.

 
At 23 January, 2011 16:47, Blogger paul w said...

Sorry Paul, until you ask Ian and WAQ to provide links to support their lies, it would be a waste of time for me to support the facts.

Ghoniem, Garlock, and Robertson can be easily googled.


Ian and WAQ?
Not my problem, Brian.
Google?
It's not up to me to Google your accusations. It's up to you to provide proof.

So, I am asking you, once again, to please provide the links for this comment to sent to me:

Paul, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that photographic evidence suggested melting of steel.

Leslie Robertson said molten steel was "running".

Richard Garlock, Structural Engineer for LERA, said "The debris past the columns was red-hot, molten, running."

 
At 23 January, 2011 18:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian and WAQ are my problem.

Until you are willing to hold these spamming liars to the same standards you want to impose on me, there's no reason for me to link anything.

 
At 23 January, 2011 19:28, Blogger paul w said...

Until you are willing to hold these spamming liars to the same standards you want to impose on me, there's no reason for me to link anything.

Stop back-stepping, you gutless wonder, and back up your beliefs.

When, and if, I argue with Ian or WAQ, I'll apply the same standards I do with you.

At the moment, however, I'm arguing with YOU.

So, where are the links, and where are the comments?

 
At 23 January, 2011 21:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Sorry Paul, until you ask Ian and WAQ to provide links to support their lies, it would be a waste of time for me to support the facts.

Brian, you do realize that nobody cares if you back up any of your claims with facts. You're the one who is desperately squealing about the need for a new investigation, remember? Wouldn't it make sense to have some facts to back up your claims?

 
At 23 January, 2011 21:05, Blogger Ian G. said...

Until you are willing to hold these spamming liars to the same standards you want to impose on me, there's no reason for me to link anything.

The world's smallest violin is playing for Brian and the lying, cheating floozys he calls "widows".

 
At 23 January, 2011 21:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at the Big Man Ian, trashing the victims of 9/11.

Why Pat and James don't ban you, I don't know. You discredit your own cause.

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Look at the Big Man Ian, trashing the victims of 9/11.

Brian, I have evidence that the "widows" were in on 9/11 and thus are complicit in the murder of their husbands. I'll present it when you do the following:

a) present evidence that the fires were going out in the towers

b) admit you were banned from AE911 Truth for stalking Carol Brouillet

c) admit you are petgoat.

Deal?

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:08, Blogger Ian G. said...

Why Pat and James don't ban you, I don't know. You discredit your own cause.

Brian, there is no "cause". There's me poking you, you babbling and squealing and calling people "girls", and me laughing at you.

That's all.

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

DK, NIST did not investigate how steel could melt in a hypothetical natural blast furnace.

The temperature inside the WTCs' never reached melting point of 2,800*F. They only reached 1,800*F!

A blast furnace? You must be taking drugs to think that crazy shit.

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

And I'll repeat this until Brian does explain it:

If Brian believes that Thermite can cause steel to melt, then he has to explain why in hell Hindenberg's metal skeleton didn't melt as a result of it's skin being painted in a thermite coating (iron oxide & aluminum powder).

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian and WAQ are my problem.

Until you are willing to hold these spamming liars to the same standards you want to impose on me, there's no reason for me to link anything.


No, you're our problem. You come here acting like you know everything, then when 1 of use or all of us ask you to provide evidence for your claims you go all goofy & paranoid on us.

There's no reason for you to link to anything because you have nothing to link to. All you can do is link to Truther websites & say the same shit every day of the week.

 
At 24 January, 2011 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at Ian, taking lessons in rhetoric from Sappo--setting up phony deals.

There's no cause for you--babbling lies and iananity. Obviously Pat and James have a cause in mind in maintaining this blog, and you are hurting that cause.

WAQ, how do you know what temperatures were reached in the WTC? NIST's core steel samples were only heated to 250 C. FEMA's samples got hot enough to evaporate the steel. The hypothetical blast furnace in the pile is DK's laquer-thinner fantasy, not mine.

Thermite is not easy to ignite. Usually it takes a magnesium fuse.

It's not true that I link only to truther websites. In fact GutterBall criticizes me severely for linking to official websites.

Dr. Ghoniem's quote comes from an MIT paper.

Leslie Robertson's quote comes from a report at an engineering website.

Richard Garlock's quote can be found at 911myths.

 
At 24 January, 2011 11:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

There's no cause for you--babbling lies and iananity. Obviously Pat and James have a cause in mind in maintaining this blog, and you are hurting that cause.

There's no "cause", Brian. There's just people laughing at you. I mean, you have a cause, but somehow I doubt that any of your goals will ever be accomplished.

 
At 24 January, 2011 11:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQ, how do you know what temperatures were reached in the WTC? NIST's core steel samples were only heated to 250 C. FEMA's samples got hot enough to evaporate the steel.

Because I actually read the NIST report word for word without picking out certain words, like you do.

Where's the link that says NIST tested samples @ 250*C?

Where's the link that says FEMA had samples that got hot enough to "evaporate"?

Admit it Brian, you have no links or sources for those claims. All you're doing is producing strawmen!

 
At 24 January, 2011 11:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thermite is not easy to ignite. Usually it takes a magnesium fuse.

Was there a fuse onboard the Hindeneberg to ignite it's thermite coated skin?

 
At 24 January, 2011 12:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, section 6.4.3 of the NCSTAR1 tells us that they have no evidence that any of their core steel samples were heated above 250 C.

For evaporated steel see New York Times, November 29. 2001

 
At 24 January, 2011 12:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, section 6.4.3 of the NCSTAR1 tells us that they have no evidence that any of their core steel samples were heated above 250 C.

Nobody cares.

 
At 24 January, 2011 14:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, section 6.4.3 of the NCSTAR1 tells us that they have no evidence that any of their core steel samples were heated above 250 C.

For evaporated steel see New York Times, November 29. 2001


Then why are you telling us that they did, then say that NIST didn't? Can you make up your fucking mind?!

You're changing from "Molten Steel" to "evaporated steel", Brian?

There's no evidence that steel can "evaporate" at a temperature of 1,800*F.

Shifting the goalposts again!

 
At 24 January, 2011 17:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, sometimes reality is contradictory--like first it's dark, then light, first hot, then cold. Nor my fault. At least I don't find it necessary to deny reality in order to make life easy for me.

If you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you will see that steel can under some circumstances melt at 1800 C. I expect now you will accuse me twenty times of lying before you will read the report and see that it's true.

 
At 24 January, 2011 17:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, since you have nothing else to talk about, let's change the subject: Packers or Steelers? I say go Green Bay.

 
At 24 January, 2011 17:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody cares, Ian.

 
At 24 January, 2011 18:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

Nobody cares, Ian.

Millions of people watch the Superbowl every year. Most truther events can't even get 50 people to show up.

If "nobody cares" about the Superbowl, where does that leave 9/11 truth?

 
At 24 January, 2011 18:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

Also, Brian, maybe you should try going to an NFL game? I mean, you've got 2 teams in the Bay Area. Go get some fresh air and enjoy an Niners or Raiders game next year instead of spending every Sunday babbling about magic thermite elves and attack baboons on some obscure blog.

Plus, you might even meet the man of your dreams to make you forget about Willie R. I'm sure there are plenty of chunky gay Latino men (your type) who have Niners season tickets.

 
At 24 January, 2011 19:28, Blogger paul w said...

Dr. Ghoniem's quote comes from an MIT paper.

Leslie Robertson's quote comes from a report at an engineering website.

Richard Garlock's quote can be found at 911myths.


Brian, what is it about 'Please provide the links' you do not understand?

Please provide the links, Brian.

If you do not provide the links, I can only assume it's because you made the claim up.

Provide the links and prove me wrong.

 
At 24 January, 2011 20:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Paul,

Brian "goat molester" Good is up to his old tricks again.

The reason he won't provide the links to substantiate his claims is obvious to anyone with cursory knowledge of Brian "goat molester" Good's modus operandi.

He refuses to provide the links because to do so will prove that he's quote mining the original source.

Again,

Boring. Pointless. Infantile.

 
At 25 January, 2011 00:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul you can google the links quicker than you can type your repeat of the questions.

You'd better learn to google dude.

Just cut and paste the names, add a couple of terms.

For instance: "ghoniem melting mit" pulls up the paper.


Teach a man to fish....

 
At 25 January, 2011 05:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, this desire of yours to have everyone else do your work for you is probably why you can't ever hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 25 January, 2011 08:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't work for you guys. I can't respect anyone here who tolerates your obvious and childish lies, Ian, and that's everyone.

 
At 25 January, 2011 08:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Everyone here.

 
At 25 January, 2011 08:48, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, your babbling spam is a desperate attempt to cover up my serious questions about your so-called widows and whether or not they were in on 9/11. It's not going to work.

 
At 25 January, 2011 10:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you will see that steel can under some circumstances melt at 1800 C.

There is a difference between Celsius & Fahrenheit.

Brian, like so many Truthers, point out that Celsius is a rather low temperature.

Here's what Brian is attempting to say: 1,800 ºC = 3,272 ºF

Now if we look at the NIST report, the report says:

"NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers."

Given that NIST said that the temperature inside the Towers never reached any higher than 1,800*F, Brian's claim of 1,800*C is wrong. Since the temperature inside never reached 3,272*F.

So no matter what Brian says about Celsius, it's automatically converted into Fahrenheit.

So with mathematical thinking, Brian is 100% wrong.

 
At 25 January, 2011 17:18, Blogger paul w said...

I asked you a simple request to back up your comments, which you refuse to do, and now even turn it back onto me.

You lost, Brian.

You are full of shit.

 
At 25 January, 2011 19:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, if you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you would see that under some circumstances steel can melt at 1800 F.

 
At 25 January, 2011 19:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

WAQo, if you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you would see that under some circumstances steel can melt at 1800 F.

Poor Brian, he's so dumb he doesn't understand the difference between Celsius and Fahrenheit.

 
At 25 January, 2011 20:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I understood the difference before your mother knew where babies come from. I posted before coffee and messed up.

 
At 25 January, 2011 21:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I understood the difference before your mother knew where babies come from. I posted before coffee and messed up.

At least our failed janitor admits he's an old man.

So you acknowledge that the fires in the WTC weren't hot enough to melt steel?

 
At 25 January, 2011 22:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody says the fires were hot enough to melt steel.

But only an irrational guy like WAQo would say the fires weren't hot enough and therefore there was no melted steel.

However, in the presence of sulfur, steel can melt at 1800 F, as FEMA Appendix C shows.

 
At 26 January, 2011 06:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

However, in the presence of sulfur, steel can melt at 1800 F, as FEMA Appendix C shows.

OK.....so, wouldn't that make your conspiratorial claims about "melted steel" even more ridiculous, since (as always) there would be a mundane explanation for it with all the drywall in the debris?

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

WAQo, if you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you would see that under some circumstances steel can melt at 1800 F.

Changing the facts again Brian?

Yesterday it was Celsius, now it's Fahrenheit?!

Sorry Brian, the evidence is so overwelming that steel can't melt @ 1,800*F. Your delusions are so fucking stupid that you make me laugh @ you.

 
At 26 January, 2011 06:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But only an irrational guy like WAQo would say the fires weren't hot enough and therefore there was no melted steel.

Carbon steel is further classified into medium carbon steel, high carbon steel and ultra-high carbon steel with melting temperature ranging from 2600-2800*F.

There wasn't melted steel. Ask any steel worker if steel can melt @ 1,800*F you pussy.

 
At 26 January, 2011 09:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, we've already been over this. Drywall sulfur is already oxidized and so it is inert. That's why it is used as fireproofing--for instance, to construct firewalls between garages and houses.

No, WAQo, yesterday it was F and today it is F. The F and the C keys are adjacent, you know.

If you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you will see that under some circumstances steel will melt at 1800 F.

 
At 26 January, 2011 09:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, there was melted steel, testified to by Dr. Astaneh Asl and Dr. Ghoniem, and Leslie Robertson and Captain Philip Ruvolo.

 
At 26 January, 2011 10:45, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, we've already been over this. Drywall sulfur is already oxidized and so it is inert. That's why it is used as fireproofing--for instance, to construct firewalls between garages and houses.

Yes, we've been over your babbling lies about sulfur. It doesn't change the fact that sulfur is not a noble gas.

Also, there was melted steel, testified to by Dr. Astaneh Asl and Dr. Ghoniem, and Leslie Robertson and Captain Philip Ruvolo.

Stop lying, petgoat.

 
At 26 January, 2011 10:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If you would bother to read FEMA Appendix C you will see that under some circumstances steel will melt at 1800 F.

Would it bother you to give me a source on a Google search where it states that: steel will melt at 1800*F?

If you can't find anything on Google about 1,800*F melting steel then you have a problem.

Also, there was melted steel, testified to by Dr. Astaneh Asl and Dr. Ghoniem, and Leslie Robertson and Captain Philip Ruvolo.

Liar, none of them said such a thing. You're imagining that they did.

 
At 26 January, 2011 10:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said sulfur is a noble gas. I said that drywall sulfur is inert. Calcium Sulfate is already oxidized. It's used as fireproofing.

Melted steel was testified to by Dr. Astaneh Asl and Dr. Ghoniem, and Leslie Robertson and Captain Philip Ruvolo.

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

I have many times provided the link to Dr. Astaneh Asl's statement to PBS that "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Paul W's refusal to slam you for your repeated lies is why I won't provide the link again. Your lies are degrading the quality of discussion here.

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I have many times provided the link to Dr. Astaneh Asl's statement to PBS that "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Wow, only 1 statement Brian?

1 out of 1,000's?!

Man, 1 person said that & the rest of the investigators say there wasn't any molten steel.

Can you do the math Brian?

1 out of 1,000's

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:06, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Paul W's refusal to slam you for your repeated lies is why I won't provide the link again. Your lies are degrading the quality of discussion here.

You don't own the blog, Paul doesn't either. Take it up with Pat & James, ya moron.

Really? I've asked you to provide a link to where it says: 1,800*F melts steel and all you can say is that you can't because I'm "lying"? That's really lame Brian, kind of like your pathetic life.

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I am tired of repetitively providing you the information you continue to lie about and play dumb about. Your constant mischaracterizations of my statements show you to be dishonest, incompetent, or both.

FEMA Appendix C talks about the melting of steel at 1800 F.

 
At 26 January, 2011 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

And if you are truly incompetent, there's no reason for me to feel sorry for you. You have surely had this explained to you by people who know you, and so for you to pretend that you're not incompetent is dishonest.

 
At 26 January, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

So either you're incompetent and dishonest, or just dishonest.

 
At 26 January, 2011 12:49, Blogger Ian G. said...

I have many times provided the link to Dr. Astaneh Asl's statement to PBS that "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Nobody cares, petgoat.

WAQo, I am tired of repetitively providing you the information you continue to lie about and play dumb about.

Nobody cares what you're tired of, petgoat. You could always stop posting here, but you won't do that because we're the only people in the world who pay you any attention.

FEMA Appendix C talks about the melting of steel at 1800 F.

Nobody cares.

So either you're incompetent and dishonest, or just dishonest.

My, such squealing! Brian, you're getting boring. Can you babble about the imminent US invasion of Canada instead?

Also, I noticed that you still haven't provided any proof that your "widows" weren't in on 9/11. You just bury my comments on that in spam.

 
At 26 January, 2011 13:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your jokes are offensive. I hope you get a persistent and itchy rash in an embarrassing place.

 
At 26 January, 2011 13:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, your jokes are offensive. I hope you get a persistent and itchy rash in an embarrassing place.

Well, we're working our way up to Middle School taunts now. Instead of Brian babbling and calling us "girls", he babbles and says he hopes we get scabies, or something.

So when are we going to see that new investigation you keep babbling about?

 
At 27 January, 2011 10:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I am tired of repetitively providing you the information you continue to lie about and play dumb about. Your constant mischaracterizations of my statements show you to be dishonest, incompetent, or both.

Here you go you cry baby! (Hands Brian a tissue)

FEMA Appendix C talks about the melting of steel at 1800 F.

That's not information, it's disinfo. Show me pictures where steel can melt @ 1,800*F.

And if you are truly incompetent, there's no reason for me to feel sorry for you. You have surely had this explained to you by people who know you, and so for you to pretend that you're not incompetent is dishonest.

You should feel sorry for yourself. You're the only 1 that doesn't have evidence

So either you're incompetent and dishonest, or just dishonest

Hmmmm now who does that remind me of? Oh that's right, it reminds me of you.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home