Sunday, January 16, 2011

It is Dustification!

This is so bizarre I almost wonder if it is a parody. Some middle-aged guy in a suit buys two concrete blocks at Home Depot, drops it off his 5th floor balcony, and then proclaims (surprise!) that 9/11 must be a conspiracy because it wasn't pound into dust. Of course possibly if he had dropped an acre-sized 4 inch thick concrete slab out the window, and then 100,000 tons of structural steel on top of it, he might have had different results? Anyway, this is one of those theories that is so silly, because even if they are correct, it is meaningless, as supermagiconanothermite would not cause a different effect, unless somehow we are to believe that the conspirators, for no particular reason not only rigged the supporting structure of two 110 story buildings and WTC 7 with explosives, but also went to the point of rigging the floors, just to pound the concrete into finer pieces. And the reason they would do this exactly is....

225 Comments:

At 16 January, 2011 17:56, Blogger Greg said...

While I think this IS a parody, it's funny that you can't tell the difference between videos making fun of truthers and truthers making serious videos.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:27, Blogger Triterope said...

9-11 Truth is a living embodiment of Poe's Law.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

The guy didn't claim there was a conspiracy. He claimed the official story didn't make sense--and he was right. I have broken a lot of concrete in my career. It does not pulverize easily. It does shatter easily. When shattering releases the structural stresses on it, the notion that it should pulverize naturally is senseless.

 
At 16 January, 2011 18:40, Blogger Triterope said...

As I was saying...

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's egg guy isn't it?

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Keep in mind, when you ridicule egg guy, you're ridiculing Newton.

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:20, Blogger sabba said...

Willie's bitch Brian Good-snug.bug said...

"I have broken a lot of concrete in my career. It does not pulverize easily. "
Yeah, we know, Bruce Lee, you tried with your head. That explains your acumen. Bitch

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:22, Blogger Triterope said...

Keep in mind, when you ridicule egg guy, you're ridiculing Newton.

As I was saying...

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:55, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Newton would have shit his pantaloons if he had seen the WTC in all of its glory. Then let's face it after he'd seen a 767 he would have just stopped wearing pants all together.

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:59, Blogger paul w said...

"I have broken a lot of concrete in my career."

Is there nothing this man has not done?

Every single time something is mentioned, this guy has done done it for years, or was taught it before he was walking.

Now, it's breaking concrete.

In his CAREER, no less.

Whatta man...lol!!!!

 
At 16 January, 2011 19:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Keep in mind, when you ridicule egg guy, you're ridiculing Newton.

No, that was an apple. God you're strange.

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

M Greg, I don't see why a guy who had no problem theorizing about the moon would be excessively impressed with a 1365 foot tower or a 90-ton aircraft.

Or are you trying to claim that the WTC was so magical that Newton's laws don't apply?

Paulie, I have broken a lot of concrete in my career. It's not difficult when you know how.

RGT, this may come a surprise to you, but Newton's laws are equally applicable to apples, eggs, and the WTC.

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:26, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, this may come a surprise to you, but Newton's laws are equally applicable to apples, eggs, and the WTC.

How come egg break when you drop them but ping-pong balls don't?

 
At 16 January, 2011 20:50, Blogger James B. said...

I think the far more likely conclusion is that Newton was absolutely correct, but you on the other hand, are an idiot.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:00, Blogger paul w said...

So, in your career of breaking concrete, did you use a breaking chisel in a rotary hammer, or a electrical breaking hammer?

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:05, Blogger paul w said...

"James B. said...
I think the far more likely conclusion is that Newton was absolutely correct, but you on the other hand, are an idiot."

lol!!!!!!!!!!!!

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

paul w I used electric roto-hammers, electric impact jack hammers, and full-scale pneumatic jackhammers--also sledges, pickaxes, and big chisels. For concrete sawing or backhoes we would hire a subcontractor.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, that's a good question.

The answer is that ping pong balls concentrate their mass in the shells, and the minimal mass thus generates small reaction forces. This may be counter-intuitive since the balls bounce so, but the minimal mass means they need little force to do so.

In eggs, by contrast, there's much mass in the yolk and the white inside the shell. The reaction forces against a relatively lightly-built shell are thus very large.

If there's anything more I can do to bring your ideas about the WTC towers into the realm of reality, be sure to let me know.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:30, Blogger paul w said...

My, you had ALL the tools!
Including impact jack hammers AND full-scale pneumatic jackhammers?
Hmm.
So, tell me, how many were on the job?

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

On what job? I've worked a lot of jobs. We used the Bosch electric jackhammers one place, the pneumatic hammers in another place. It varied.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

The guy didn't claim there was a conspiracy. He claimed the official story didn't make sense--and he was right. I have broken a lot of concrete in my career. It does not pulverize easily. It does shatter easily. When shattering releases the structural stresses on it, the notion that it should pulverize naturally is senseless.

Can someone translate this into Sane please?

Keep in mind, when you ridicule egg guy, you're ridiculing Newton.

Uh, no. When we ridicule egg guy, we ridicule egg guy, as well as ignorant lunatics who think egg guy makes sense. No wonder you're a failed janitor.

paul w I used electric roto-hammers, electric impact jack hammers, and full-scale pneumatic jackhammers--also sledges, pickaxes, and big chisels. For concrete sawing or backhoes we would hire a subcontractor.

So Brian actually has held multiple manual labor jobs, but still not one in which an understanding of physics or engineering is required.

Too bad Brian is too much of a delusional liar to realize how stupid he sounds when he talks about Newton's laws.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

RGT, that's a good question.

The answer is that ping pong balls concentrate their mass in the shells, and the minimal mass thus generates small reaction forces. This may be counter-intuitive since the balls bounce so, but the minimal mass means they need little force to do so.

In eggs, by contrast, there's much mass in the yolk and the white inside the shell. The reaction forces against a relatively lightly-built shell are thus very large.

If there's anything more I can do to bring your ideas about the WTC towers into the realm of reality, be sure to let me know.


See what I mean?

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:38, Blogger Jay said...

Yeh its egg Guy.

And this guy...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwPbz1eH2DA

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:40, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The answer is that ping pong balls concentrate their mass in the shells, ...

But Newton's laws apply equally to ping-pong balls and eggs. Therefore, dropped eggs should produce equal effects to dropped ping-pong balls. Right?

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

No RGT, ping pong balls and eggs don't produce the same effects for the reasons I cited. Though the shells of eggs and ping pong balls are roughly analogous, the egg is full of heavy material and the ping pong ball is full of air.

 
At 16 January, 2011 21:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

Though the shells of eggs and ping pong balls are roughly analogous, the egg is full of heavy material and the ping pong ball is full of air.

So a ping pong ball and an egg are not analogous, but an egg and massive steel and concrete structure are.

It's hard to believe that this isn't an act. Nobody could possibly be as stupid/insane as Brian, could they?

 
At 16 January, 2011 22:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say eggs and concrete were analogous. I said the egg experiment was a demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law. And it is.

Eggs, concrete, feathers, and Ian are all equally subject to Newton's 3rd Law.

 
At 16 January, 2011 22:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

I didn't say eggs and concrete were analogous. I said the egg experiment was a demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law. And it is.

So it's completely irrelevant, in other words. Thanks for clearing that up, petgoat.

Let's talk about something else. How about those Jets? What did you think of Bart Scott's comments about how New England's D couldn't stop a nose bleed?

 
At 16 January, 2011 22:25, Blogger sabba said...

@IAN G.
IAN, could you come for a quick check on the other thread titled "Truther Body Count" ?

 
At 16 January, 2011 22:39, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, assuming for the moment that nanothermite was used, how exactly does this account for the dustification?

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, neither nanothermite nor NIST accounts for the pulverization of the concrete. I must object to your use of the term "dustification" as that is a term of art from thr Judy Wood school.

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:06, Blogger Jay said...

So you agree that this `experiment` in the topic is a hoax brian

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Jay, I don't know if it's intended as a hoax or not. I think it's a demonstration of of the fact that concrete slabs tend to shatter rather than pulverize--which anyone with any sense already knows.

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:10, Blogger Jay said...

So what did cause the Pulververisation of the concrete in the collapses of the towers then==

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:11, Blogger Jay said...

So what did cause the Pulververisation of the concrete in the collapses of the towers then??

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:14, Blogger Jay said...

And why did the concrete need to be pul verised? For dramatic effect? Cause the collapses themselves weren't dramatic enough??

 
At 16 January, 2011 23:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know what caused the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors. That's why I want new investigations. The FEMA report doesn't explain it, the NIST report doesn't explain it, the controlled demolition hypothesis doesn't explain it.

It may be that the lightweight concrete was just very friable. NIST didn't show that.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:03, Blogger Jay said...

So thats the reason you want a new investigation, because you dont understand why the concrete was pulverized???

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's one reason. I could probably list 20 more.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:19, Blogger Jay said...

Well feel free to list them here.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm tired of seeing my thoughtful posts buried under Ian-spam.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:25, Blogger Jay said...

I understand if you got questions about the official story, but are you also crytical about truthmovement like Jones and Gages 'research '?

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Jones got a bad rap about the coloration of that hole--BBC showed a picture with the same colors.

I have always recognized that Jones's
results had not been replicated--and until they were, I was not going to stick my neck out for them.

I don't agree with everything Gage says, but mostly it's OK enough that I can support it.

People like Willie Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett and Craig Ranke I have vowed to stomp into dust. They are liars.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:32, Blogger Jay said...

So are you asking the simple question "ok now that you showed nanothermite was used please explain where it was used to bring the buildings down"

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:33, Blogger paul w said...

Re: how many on the job, Brian.

I mean, what size was the 'job'?

By that, I mean was is two people, or 50?

If it were just two, what breaking concrete were you doing - a driveway, for example?

If more, what was the job?

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:38, Blogger Jay said...

Sorry if i dont know what part of the truthmovement you support. So its hard for me to discuss this with you.

 
At 17 January, 2011 00:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I support the fact-based anti-violence wing of the truth movement. That should give you a clue.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:01, Blogger Jay said...

Have you ever seen the next website which shows pancaked floors?

http://www.stevespak.com/fires/manhattan/wtc6.html

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:04, Blogger Jay said...

And tbh all parts of the truthmovement say they are factbased.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

No. Do you have a point? Those floors are pulverized.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:08, Blogger paul w said...

"I support the fact-based anti-violence wing of the truth movement. That should give you a clue."

Fact-based? That means you haven't a clue.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Fact-based.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:22, Blogger Jay said...

Well what do you think happens when many floors collapse on one another?

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

I think you need to quantify how many, and I think you need to explain how it is that exactly as many hit on one side of the core as hit on the other side of the core.

 
At 17 January, 2011 01:39, Blogger Jay said...

Well there were 110 floors that collapsed on one another. But can you explain why a big part of the central core was standing longer than the rest of the building.

 
At 17 January, 2011 04:38, Blogger Triterope said...

Fact-based.

Yeah, but you think a fact is "the WTC towers could have been destroyed by spray-on mega-thermite applied by an infinite number of dupes hired to paint the elevator shaft."

 
At 17 January, 2011 07:02, Blogger Bill said...

Even Steven Jones knows Griffin is a liar.

"As we examined the WTC-debris sample, we found large chunks of concrete...as well as medium-sized pieces of wall-board...the pulverization was in fact NOT to fine dust, and it is a false premise to start with near-complete pulverization to fine powder...Indeed, much of the mass of the MacKinlay sample was clearly in substantial pieces of concrete and wall-board rather than in fine-dust form...

It seems that the 9/11 truth community likewise 'has been slow to understand' that the WTC dust particles in greatest abundance are the 'supercoarse' variety rather than “fine” particles, and that significant chunks of concrete were also found in the WTC rubble."

 
At 17 January, 2011 07:09, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

On what job? I've worked a lot of jobs. We used the Bosch electric jackhammers one place, the pneumatic hammers in another place. It varied.

This is why you should stick to manual labor and leave the art of thinking to people who can. The idea you understand complex physics because you at one time used a jackhammer is like saying a caveman understands Newton because he banged two rocks together. The fact you even thought mentioning you used this stuff as proof is pure idiot thinking at it's best.

Fact is Brian with every word you prove yourself to be a mental inferior to the rest of us.

 
At 17 January, 2011 07:18, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

These idiots can't think themselves out of a wet paper bag.

They say the towers were reduced to dust, yet it took months of cutting, jack hammering and heavy lifting equipment to clear the site. If you listen to truthers you would think all they needed was shovels or a large shop vac.

We are dealing with the true idiot class here.

 
At 17 January, 2011 07:24, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

In typical idiot class tactics Brian uses the "I Don't Know"

But because he is devoid of reasoning ability he won't even attempt to come up with a logical answer for those abundant things he doesn’t know. A process that thinking people employ to understand the world but something the un-thinking avoid because they lack the brains to do so.

 
At 17 January, 2011 07:40, Blogger Ian G. said...

I don't know what caused the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors. That's why I want new investigations.

You don't understand much because you're a deranged ignorant lunatic. It's not the job of the government to cater to you because you're too stupid to understand what makes perfect sense to normal people.

I'm tired of seeing my thoughtful posts buried under Ian-spam.

Brian doesn't like the fact that he's been pwn3d more times than he can count, so he whines about it.

 
At 17 January, 2011 07:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I'm tired of seeing my thoughtful posts buried under Ian-spam.

Brian, you won't list them or try and come up with a logical scenario for that day because you know you will be wrong and you know us smart guys will rub your nose in your own idiocy.

 
At 17 January, 2011 08:42, Blogger chattery said...

This is for snug bug.


Autoclaved aerated concrete.

 
At 17 January, 2011 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, my knowledge of physics is not derived from the use of a jackhammer. As I said, I was instructed in Newton's 3rd before I could tie my shoes. My knowledge of basic practical physics was improved by my construction and demolition experience, not derived from it.

Governor Pataki says the concrete was reduced to dust. There was also 200,000 tons of structural steel that had to be removed--and you're suggesting that could be shoveled away?

You criticize me when I decline to venture an opinion on an unproductive issue, but if I had ventured an opinion you'd slam me for speculating.

It's not my job to come up with a logical scenario. Give me $20 million and I'll give it a shot. It was the job of NIST to vcome up with a logical scenario and they have failed.

Chattery: autoclaved concrete? Riiiiiight. And how about microwaved concrete? Brominated concrete? Platinum-plated concrete?

 
At 17 January, 2011 12:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

As I said, I was instructed in Newton's 3rd before I could tie my shoes.

So in other words, you don't know how to tie your shoes? I figured it was too complicated a task for someone of your intellect.

Governor Pataki says the concrete was reduced to dust.

I've lost count of how many throw-away lines from non-experts or people speculating Brian cites as concrete (forgive the pun) evidence. You could hold up a large chunk of concrete and show it to Brian and he'd just stare blankly before babbling about what Pataki said again.

It's not my job to come up with a logical scenario.

No, your job is apparently to babble mindlessly about stuff you don't understand in the least.

It was the job of NIST to vcome up with a logical scenario and they have failed.

False.

 
At 17 January, 2011 12:28, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"DK, my knowledge of physics is not derived from the use of a jackhammer. As I said, I was instructed in Newton's 3rd before I could tie my shoes."

So we can take it you still wear slip-ons. because you sure know nothing of physics beyond a 3rd grade level.

"You criticize me when I decline to venture an opinion on an unproductive issue, but if I had ventured an opinion you'd slam me for speculating."

We slam you because when you do attempt to think it comes out the ravings of an imbecile, and imbeciles are the type of people we laugh. So don't deprive us of your brand of entertainment, speculate away.

"It's not my job to come up with a logical scenario."

We know, given your level of intelligence and skills your job is befitting your janitorial pay grade. But you are a funny loon and you will always have that.

As I said in the past the proof of the low quality of truthers as people is you compared to me.

 
At 17 January, 2011 13:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Keep huffing that lacquer thinner, DK. It's making you smarter every minute.

 
At 17 January, 2011 14:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"Keep huffing that lacquer thinner, DK. It's making you smarter every minute."

Gee Brian, is that the best you can come up with. At least you could try and show some intelligence by making a better retort than that.

Hell it's not even pertinent to todays world of professional artist, most now work with digital tools. Guess your knowledge on that subject is as weak as your wisdom on physics.

 
At 17 January, 2011 14:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, it's not the best I can do. You're not worth anything more.

 
At 17 January, 2011 15:07, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"No, it's not the best I can do. You're not worth anything more."

You see what I mean, you are such a dullard in everything you do.

It's got to suck being you, people hear you speak and best reaction you can hope for is pity. Poor guy must have hit his head or was deprived of oxygen at birth.

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

Why do you people spend so much time validating Brian Good's sophistry?

The pulverization of the concrete is explained by the gravitational collapse model.

Remember, the top floors struck the lower floors with a force 30X the static weight of the top floors. The gravitation force increased cumulatively with the addition of each each floor as the building collapsed.

End of story.

Do you guys realize this blog has descended into nothing more than a vehicle for validating Brian Good's sophistry?

What's the point?

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Here's what a new investigation will reveal:

2 767s crashed into each tower of the WTC.

Al Qaeda did it.

The structural damage from the impact combined with the fires from the jet fuel and the office furnishings weakened the framework and the towers collapsed.

Damage from one collapsing tower damaged WTC7 starting a fire that burned out of control. The damage + fire caused that building to collapse too.

The Pentagon was hit by AA77, also hijacked by Al Qaeda.

United 93 was hijacked but before it could reach its target the passengers revolted and the Al Qaeda pilots flew the plane into the ground in PA.

The US government failed to follow through on warnings of an attack inside the US. This was due to bureaucratic nincompoopery, operational limitations put into place restricting certain agencies from investigating inside the US, FBI & CIA not cooperating with eachother, and the Bush Administration failed to act because: A - The had no specific AQ target, and B - Terror was a law enforcement problem not a national security problem before 9/11/2001.

So while we might get a few more detial here and there the over-all story stays the same. So I have saved the country time and about $200 million dollars. Because I am patriotic I will only bill the troofers $50 million.

You can pay me by money order, $50 & $20s, and up to $1 million on a Best Buy gift card.

 
At 17 January, 2011 16:59, Blogger paul w said...

"What's the point?"

I know, I know.

I've kept away from Brian's insanity for a while, then thought 'fuck it, give it back'.

But, there is no point. The guy obviously has a problem(s), and it's just wasting my time.

The amazing thing is, I re-read some posts I made back in 2008 at 911oz.

I was arguing about the pilot skills, and you know what - they're ALL like Brian.

I sometimes spent hours and hours getting the info, only for them to ignore it, refuse to accept it, or change the subject.

Exactly like Brian.

The problem is, they aren't interested, and why should they be?

After all, they have this little community where they can bitch amongst each other, telling each other how smarter they are from everyone else, how they KNOW THE REAL TRUTH, and always thrilled that at some point in the future, all will be revealed.

Not only is it a persuasive fantasy for those inclined, it also gives them a direction, and something to do.

We have no chance.

 
At 17 January, 2011 17:05, Blogger paul w said...

I had a recent 'debate' with the 9110z guy, Hereward, and I said he should come here and debate.

His reply; "I would love to debate there.."

So, obviously, I said what's stopping you...come on over!

Backtracking as quick as possible, he stammered about me going to his radio show.

I declined, saying I wasn't interested in his stupid show...and reminded him of his comment.

Never heard from him again.

BTW, he's now in the US, meeting other truthers.

 
At 17 January, 2011 17:53, Blogger Triterope said...

Do you guys realize this blog has descended into nothing more than a vehicle for validating Brian Good's sophistry?

What was it before?

I mean, if you want to be that way about it, talking about stupid failed 9-11 conspiracy theories at all is "validating sophistry" to some extent.

At least we can openly mock it here. At JREF, they bends over backwards to be civil to some turd who's brought up some tired shtick for the 2000th time.

 
At 17 January, 2011 18:00, Blogger paul w said...

Well, that is true...

Brian, you are a fucking moron, as well as being a liar, stalker and goat fucker.

That felt good!

 
At 17 January, 2011 19:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

paul w wrote, "...We have no chance."

That's correct. And we're not meant to have a chance.

"Debating" a 9/11 "truther" makes about as much sense as an evolutionist engaging in debate with the religiously insane nut bags who promote the fallacious and thoroughly discredited idea of creationism.

As one gains experience with "creationists", it becomes apparent that "creationists" don't wish to "debate," because "creationism" doesn't concern itself with a quest to understand the human condition. On the contrary, "creationism" was designed solely for the purpose of controlling the vast majority of men and women, and, above all, to prevent the "commoners" from killing the wealthy.

The same is true for 9/11 "truth."

9/11 "truth" is not the product of man's search for the "truth." On the contrary, 9/11 "truth" is designed solely to end debate.

A real investigation of 9/11 would require holding Bush and his associates accountable for what they actually did. There are a myriad of reasons to investigate the Bush maladministration: Torture; misleading the nation into war; his deliberately botched economic policies; his reckless and dangerous tax cuts for the wealthy (his "base"); and, of course, his failure to take measures to thwart the 9/11 attacks.

9/11 "truth", on the other hand, exists only to make scurrilous, unfounded accusations against Bush and Cheney, and, in the end, mortally wound all efforts to bring accountability to the Bush maladministration. Indeed, by howling about "controlled demolitions," "bombs in the basement," "meatballs on a fork," pyroclastic flows," "squibbs," "free-fall speed," "molten metal," and the like, the "truthers" actually make it impossible to mount a real investigation into real areas of contention about 9/11, for example, the financiers and the role of Saudi royalty.

As a result, nothing could be more counterproductive than validation of Brian Good's never-ending stream of sophistry.

 
At 17 January, 2011 22:08, Blogger chattery said...

snug.bug said
"No. Do you have a point? Those floors are pulverized."

Sorry snugbug i assumed you were talking about the concrete so i posted what those floors were made of. If you take the time to look up 'Autoclaved aerated concrete'. You may find some interesting facts about its makeup.

 
At 17 January, 2011 22:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your 30X the force of gravity theory is a figment of your imagination. That could only happen if the top block tore completely free from the building and fell at free fall speed. It's a fantasy.

Wow M Greg, you know what a new investigation will show! You're psychic, like Philip Zelikow, who wrote an outline much like that one before the 9/11 Commission even started investigating.

Chattery, I don't understand your point about the autoclaved concrete. It's used for making block. You can't pour it on the site.

 
At 18 January, 2011 00:11, Blogger chattery said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 January, 2011 04:30, Blogger chattery said...

snugbug :"Chattery, I don't understand your point about the autoclaved concrete. It's used for making block. You can't pour it on the site."

The significance of me introducing AAC to you snugbug, has one major significant attribute for debate. Flooring can be cast in 20 foot sections (20'x4"x4'). Can be easily cut and fitted to specs on the job site. Now you can go thru the plethera of information on the actual pouring and not pouring of the WTC 1 and 2 floors. That website is:

http://letsrollforums.com/take-wtc-wheres-concrete-t23859.html

You can further read up on the fema report linked below. Where it mention light weight concrete slabs for flooring and they were cut to but up against core collumns. I pain stackingly read the whole pdf file and never seen the mention of poured concrete on the floors outside the core, just in the core and mentioning of lightweight concrete, but not AAC specifically. What kind of light weight conrete is used in a pouring process? I have found one CIP 36 and i have found plenty of info about reinforced AAC concrete pre-slabs including AAC deck slabs.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

Deck slabs you begin linked below. BTW no mention of the walls being composed of AAC in WTC 1,2 but AAC slabs can be erected for walls.

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/hebel/reinforced-aerated-concrete-deck-slabs-56808-126466.html

Regardless of LWC being poured or AAC slabs being used. They both are very porous and full of air. Pulverization would be eniment in a collapse.

 
At 18 January, 2011 04:38, Blogger chattery said...

snugbug :"Chattery, I don't understand your point about the autoclaved concrete. It's used for making block. You can't pour it on the site."

The significance of me introducing AAC to you snugbug, has one major significant attribute for debate. Flooring can be cast in 20 foot sections (20'x4"x4'). Can be easily cut and fitted to specs on the job site. Now you can go thru the plethera of information on the actual pouring and not pouring of the WTC 1 and 2 floors. That website is:

http://letsrollforums.com/take-wtc-wheres-concrete-t23859.html

You can further read up on the fema report linked below. Where it mention light weight concrete slabs for flooring and they were cut to but up against core collumns. I pain stackingly read the whole pdf file and never seen the mention of poured concrete on the floors outside the core, just in the core and mentioning of lightweight concrete, but not AAC specifically. What kind of light weight conrete is used in a pouring process? I have found one CIP 36 and i have found plenty of info about reinforced AAC concrete pre-slabs including AAC deck slabs.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

Deck slabs you begin linked below. BTW no mention of the walls being composed of AAC in WTC 1,2 but AAC slabs can be erected for walls.

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/hebel/reinforced-aerated-concrete-deck-slabs-56808-126466.html

Regardless of LWC being poured or AAC slabs being used. They both are very porous and full of air. Pulverization would be eniment in a collapse.

 
At 18 January, 2011 04:41, Blogger chattery said...

snugbug :"Chattery, I don't understand your point about the autoclaved concrete. It's used for making block. You can't pour it on the site."

The significance of me introducing AAC to you snugbug, has one major significant attribute for debate. Flooring can be cast in 20 foot sections (20'x4"x4'). Can be easily cut and fitted to specs on the job site. Now you can go thru the plethera of information on the actual pouring and not pouring of the WTC 1 and 2 floors. That website is:

http://letsrollforums.com/take-wtc-wheres-concrete-t23859.html

You can further read up on the fema report linked below. Where it mention light weight concrete slabs for flooring and they were cut to but up against core collumns. I pain stackingly read the whole pdf file and never seen the mention of poured concrete on the floors outside the core, just in the core and mentioning of lightweight concrete, but not AAC specifically. What kind of light weight conrete is used in a pouring process? I have found one CIP 36 and i have found plenty of info about reinforced AAC concrete pre-slabs including AAC deck slabs.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

Deck slabs you begin linked below. BTW no mention of the walls being composed of AAC in WTC 1,2 but AAC slabs can be erected for walls.

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/hebel/reinforced-aerated-concrete-deck-slabs-56808-126466.html

Regardless of LWC being poured or AAC slabs being used. They both are very porous and full of air. Pulverization would be eniment in a collapse of such magnitude.

 
At 18 January, 2011 04:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, your 30X the force of gravity theory is a figment of your imagination. That could only happen if the top block tore completely free from the building and fell at free fall speed. It's a fantasy.

Hey Brian? There's another "snug.bug" posting in the other thread about how the towers fell at free-fall speed. Did they or didn't they?

Wow M Greg, you know what a new investigation will show! You're psychic, like Philip Zelikow, who wrote an outline much like that one before the 9/11 Commission even started investigating.

There won't be a new investigation, Brian. I hate to shatter your hopes and dreams, but you won't get your investigation, you won't have "meatball on a fork" published, and you'll never marry Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 18 January, 2011 07:41, Blogger chattery said...

snugbug :"Chattery, I don't understand your point about the autoclaved concrete. It's used for making block. You can't pour it on the site."

The significance of me introducing AAC to you snugbug, has one major significant attribute for debate. Flooring can be cast in 20 foot sections (20'x4"x4'). Can be easily cut and fitted to specs on the job site. Now you can go thru the plethera of information on the actual pouring and not pouring of the WTC 1 and 2 floors. That website is:

http://letsrollforums.com/take-wtc-wheres-concrete-t23859.html

You can further read up on the fema report linked below. Where it mention light weight concrete slabs for flooring and they were cut to but up against core collumns. I pain stackingly read the whole pdf file and never seen the mention of poured concrete on the floors outside the core, just in the core and mentioning of lightweight concrete, but not AAC specifically. What kind of light weight conrete is used in a pouring process? I have found one CIP 36 and i have found plenty of info about reinforced AAC concrete pre-slabs including AAC deck slabs.

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch2.pdf

Deck slabs you begin linked below. BTW no mention of the walls being composed of AAC in WTC 1,2 but AAC slabs can be erected for walls.

http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/hebel/reinforced-aerated-concrete-deck-slabs-56808-126466.html

Regardless of LWC being poured or AAC slabs being used. They both are very porous and full of air. Pulverization would be eniment in a collapse of such magnitude.

 
At 18 January, 2011 10:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST says that essentially they did. I wouldn't take their word for anything, but I don't have time to check everything. Shyam Sunder says the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's free fall.

Ian, there will be new investigations, I assure you. It's just a matter of time. Within 5 years computer modeling the collapse will be a subject for PhD theses, and within 10 years high school physics classes will be doing it.

 
At 18 January, 2011 11:19, Blogger Ian G. said...

NIST says that essentially they did.

No. You just don't know how to read.

I wouldn't take their word for anything, but I don't have time to check everything. Shyam Sunder says the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's free fall.

I have the time to check. Just look at a video of the towers collapsing. You'll see that in no way did they come down in free-fall. It's a good thing neither Sunder nor the NIST said they did.

Anyway, what NIST did say is exactly what you were looking for from GuitarBill ("That could only happen if the top block tore completely free from the building and fell at free fall speed"). So GuitarBill gets you to admit that NIST was right in the first place.

Poor Brian, you're too dumb to keep your lies straight and you accidentally admitted the truth about the towers' collapse.

Ian, there will be new investigations, I assure you.

Of course there will. And you'll have "meatball on a fork" published in an engineering journal. JUST YOU WAIT GENTLEMEN!

What makes you think we'll have new investigations, petgoat?

Within 5 years computer modeling the collapse will be a subject for PhD theses, and within 10 years high school physics classes will be doing it.

That would be cool. Unfortunately, the type of people gullible enough to join 9/11 truth are the type who flunked high school physics and thus won't understand what happened anyway.

 
At 18 January, 2011 11:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

That's what he said. Now maybe he's just trying to make truthers look stupid, like Larry Silverstein did, but that's what he said.

We'll have new investigations because the WTC was the worst engineering disaster in history and the official reports are blatantly dishonest, they're incomplete, and they're not believable.

As to physics, since so many here seem to think that large structures are immune to the Newtonian laws, we'll just have to see.

Speaking of High School physics, have you seen David Chandler's new video? Also Jonathan Cole shows how he can pack thermite into a steel box to make cuts on vertical columns.

You guys are on the wrong side of history. It's not surprising that independent architects and engineers won't go on record in support of the NIST report.

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:06, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"He claimed the official story didn't make sense--and he was right"

Brian,

You both can't make any sense becasue both of you don't understand anything!

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"I don't know what caused the pulverization of 180,000 tons of concrete floors."

Brian,

Perhaps those 110 story buildings' that weighed alteast 1 million tons caused it?

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

No petgoat, that's not what he said. There's a difference between when the first chunks of debris hit the ground and when the actually mass of the tower hit the ground.

It's amazing that the one thing that actually can be verified by watching a youtube video is the one thing Brian won't verify. That's how badly he needs his delusional beliefs about 9/11 to be true.

We'll have new investigations because the WTC was the worst engineering disaster in history and the official reports are blatantly dishonest, they're incomplete, and they're not believable.

So in other words, we'll never have a new investigation, because the only justification for one is that a deranged liar and ignoramus doesn't understand what happened.

That's like demanding a new investigation into what causes Halley's Comet to return because, hey, the people of 1066 England didn't understand what caused it.

As to physics, since so many here seem to think that large structures are immune to the Newtonian laws, we'll just have to see.

See what? Just because you don't understand physics doesn't mean the rest of us are so ignorant.

Speaking of High School physics, have you seen David Chandler's new video? Also Jonathan Cole shows how he can pack thermite into a steel box to make cuts on vertical columns.

Nobody cares.

You guys are on the wrong side of history.

Whatever you say, petgoat. When can we expect these new investigations? Will they come before or after the return of Christ?

It's not surprising that independent architects and engineers won't go on record in support of the NIST report.

They also won't go on record in support of the law of gravity.

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Goat Molester bald-faced lies, "...GutterBall, your 30X the force of gravity theory is a figment of your imagination. That could only happen if the top block tore completely free from the building and fell at free fall speed. It's a fantasy."

What's the matter, Goat Molester, are you having trouble keeping your lies straight--you idiotic, sloppy, second-rate sophist?

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

Thanks for giving me another opportunity to prove you're a liar, goat molester.

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Brian,

Umm he was talking about the outter columns & not the inner columns you moron! Nice try though!

Here's what NIST said without it being quote mined:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

How does it feel to be wrong Brian?

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Let me break it down for you to understand Brian:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels"

Did you read that? Exterior panels (meaning columns)!

"11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Sunder was talking about the Exterior Panels (columns) only! Not the entire building!

Brian, you're fucked!

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:34, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, will we have the new investigations before the cataclysmic arrival of Planet Nibiru?

 
At 18 January, 2011 12:45, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I laugh at Brian's intellect, or lack of.

Brian: "But they said it fell in 9 and 11 seconds."

Rational person: "Sunder said the exterior panels, not the whole building."

Brian: "You're a liar!"

Rational person: "If I'm a "liar", then how can you account for your quote mining of Sunder's statement?"

(Brian's speechless)

Rational person: "Thought so!"

 
At 18 January, 2011 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

WAQ wrote, "...(Brian's speechless)"

Trust me, that will never happen.

He'll just squirm like the weasel he's always been, and cough up another fur-ball of bald-faced lies, misdirection, obfuscation and insanity.

You may as well beat your head against the wall as try to debate the goat molester. It's pointless.

 
At 18 January, 2011 15:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Bill,

I intend to beat Brian's head against a wall. That son of a bitch needs some common sense knocked into him.

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you obviously have not listened to Dr. Sunder's interview with NOVA. About 1 minute in he says that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your claim otherwise is a lie.

As I said, we can expect computer models of the collapses in universities within 5 years. And yes, independent engineers do go on record in support of the law of gravity. Ronald Brookman, S.E., has
stated: "As a structural engineer I believe in the laws of physics and rely on them every day. "

GutterBall, NIST's claim that the top section fell one story in freefall is a fantasy, onr that the videos show is not true.

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, not the outer columns. I didn't say it. Sunder did. And NIST said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:22, Blogger Triterope said...

I intend to beat Brian's head against a wall. That son of a bitch needs some common sense knocked into him.

Good luck with that.

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:30, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I didn't say it. Sunder did. And NIST said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

But when Sunder says WTC7 collapsed from fire and gravity, you selectively call that "not believable" and "dishonest". Can you resolve the discrepancy, or at least explain why you hold a double standard?

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Would the Goat Molester cherry-pick the NIST Report?

You bet your ass he would!

 
At 18 January, 2011 17:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Goat Molester prevaricates, "...GutterBall, NIST's claim that the top section fell one story in freefall [SIC] is a fantasy, onr [SIC] that the videos show is not true."

This is beyond comedy (spelled c-o-m-e-d-y but pronounced sophistry).

 
At 18 January, 2011 18:00, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you obviously have not listened to Dr. Sunder's interview with NOVA. About 1 minute in he says that the measurements showed that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your claim otherwise is a lie.

Well, he's wrong then. Of course, you being a babbling liar, I'm sure you quote mined him here as you do elsewhere.

Ronald Brookman, S.E., has
stated: "As a structural engineer I believe in the laws of physics and rely on them every day. "


He's not an independent engineer, and he implicitly denies the law of gravity, since he joined Gage's group. Try again, Brian.

GutterBall, NIST's claim that the top section fell one story in freefall is a fantasy, onr that the videos show is not true.

False.

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, not the outer columns. I didn't say it. Sunder did. And NIST said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Stop lying, Brian. Seriously, do you expect to convince anyone that you're right when all you do is lie?

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

RGT, it's not a double standard. I reported what Sunder said. It shows that what you guys claim about what the official story says is wrong.

GutterBall, the videos show that the WTC1 top block came apart before the lower structure began to fail. There was no piledriver.

 
At 18 January, 2011 19:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More Adventures in Sophistry with your host, Brian "Goat Molester" Good.

Right, goat molester. The videos mean only what the goat molester wants them to mean, nothing more, nothing less.

 
At 18 January, 2011 19:47, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, it's not a double standard. I reported what Sunder said. It shows that what you guys claim about what the official story says is wrong.

Can you name an independent engineer who supports Sunder's assertion?

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

RGT, it's not a double standard. I reported what Sunder said. It shows that what you guys claim about what the official story says is wrong.

False.

GutterBall, the videos show that the WTC1 top block came apart before the lower structure began to fail. There was no piledriver.

The videos show that the towers did not collapse at anything close to free-fall speed. Oops!

 
At 18 January, 2011 21:54, Blogger paul w said...

"GutterBall, the videos show that the WTC1 top block came apart before the lower structure began to fail. There was no piledriver"

Not true; it came apart as it fell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvmecjFmVyY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmBL2oYdXWQ&feature=related

It is also irrelevant - the effect was unchanged, whether the top section was intact, or debris.

If it was thousands of tons when intact, it was still thousands of tons when in bits.

Therefore, the 'pile driver' existed, and did its job.

Dear god, now Bwian is back to talking about pildrivers. Didn't we cover this topic with him about...ohhh...a couple of years ago?

 
At 18 January, 2011 21:59, Blogger paul w said...

And, Bwian, while I'm at it - where the fuck are the sounds of the detonation explosions in this video?

We can not only hear the tower fall, but even the call of "run!" from someone and yet...no sound of explosions!

Explain this, please, mister 'explosions were heard'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&NR=1

 
At 18 January, 2011 23:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, Sure, William Rice agrees with Dr. Sunder.

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

Paul, the top of WTC1 clearly came apart before the section below the impact zone failed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/videos/north_tower.html

If the effect of disorganized debris was the same as a monolithic piledriver, there would be no need for Dr. Bazant's elaborate theory, or the fiction that the top block leaped free of the buildings to free-fall 3 meters and pound the rest into submission.

Your own source said that the floors could resist dynamic loading from six floors. So how do you get six floors in motion?

The effect of disorganized debris is not the same as the effect of a piledriver. It's like the difference between being whalloped on the head with a gallon jug of water and having a gallon of water poured on your head. Disorganized debris will jiggle itself around and will not very effectively attack the building. Also, it's only by marrying the heavy concrete floors to the light core that the top block can batter down the lower core. If it were disorganized debris, the core would resist, as petgoat's much-maligned meatball model shows.

According to the oral histories from the first responders, explisions were heard.

 
At 19 January, 2011 01:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, even the spamsters are truthers. Or is that a contrary indicator, like when the elevator operators start giving you stock tips?

 
At 19 January, 2011 06:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

The effect of disorganized debris is not the same as the effect of a piledriver. It's like the difference between being whalloped on the head with a gallon jug of water and having a gallon of water poured on your head. Disorganized debris will jiggle itself around and will not very effectively attack the building. Also, it's only by marrying the heavy concrete floors to the light core that the top block can batter down the lower core. If it were disorganized debris, the core would resist, as petgoat's much-maligned meatball model shows.

It's amazing that someone who writes gibberish like this expects sane people to take him seriously.

According to the oral histories from the first responders, explisions were heard.

Wow, they heard explosions in a massive, out-of-control fire? Wow, next you're going to tell me people caught in a lightning storm heard thunder!

Seek professional help, petgoat.

 
At 19 January, 2011 08:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Have you got any pictures of a massive out of control fire after the first ten minutes, Ian?

If my paragraph about the difference between disorganized debris and monoliths (poured sand vs. a sandbag) confuses you, perhaps you should read it a little slower. Otherwise it just makes it look like you a playing dumb as a rhetorical device.

 
At 19 January, 2011 08:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's OK that you're not college material, Ian. Lots of people can make significant contributions to society and have meaningful lives and maintain rich relationships despite their intellectual deficits.

But you might consider that internet debate is not the best fit for your aptitudes.

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:10, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder told NOVA the BUILDINGS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, not the outer columns. I didn't say it. Sunder did. And NIST said the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Brian, not only are you not a great reader, but you really suck at thinking outside the box.

Sunder said, & I quote:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

He clearly said "first exterior panels", no where in that statement did he consider that the inner columns fell @ 9 seconds & 11 seconds.

The OUTTER COLUMNS fell @ free fall, not the entire building.

Brian, either way you throw your retarded arguements, WTC1 & 2 didn't fall @ free fall.

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Have you got any pictures of a massive out of control fire after the first ten minutes, Ian?

Yes.

It's OK that you're not college material, Ian. Lots of people can make significant contributions to society and have meaningful lives and maintain rich relationships despite their intellectual deficits.

But you might consider that internet debate is not the best fit for your aptitudes.


Stuff like this is why I continue to read this blog and bait Brian. Nothing is as hilarious as a failed janitor with no job, friends, or family babbling about "college material".

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Perhaps Brain worked as a janitor at a college & is assuming that he's "college material".

Maybe that's why he's not tellin us the true story!

 
At 19 January, 2011 09:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm going to shorten Sunder's statement about the exterior panels:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Now that makes more sense than saying: "Sunder was talking about the whole building." Which he clearly wasn't!

So Brian, was Sunder talking about the exterior panels or the whole building?

(Que "Jeopardy" theme)

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, where did Dr. Sunder say that?

In the NOVA interview he said "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds". The BUILDINGS. Not the exterior panels.

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, where did Dr. Sunder say that?

Brian, read what Sunder said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

If you can read the whole thing, you'd understand that he was talking about the exterior panels not the entire building.

You're building strawmen & lighting them on fire.

The BUILDINGS. Not the exterior panels.

Where in his statement, does he mention "Buildings"?

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:33, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Sunder said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

I don't see any where he would suggest that it was the buildings.

Not only are you incompetent Brian, but you really suck at reading comprehention. And you claim that you have a "college degree"? LOL!

 
At 19 January, 2011 10:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian,

Keep on saying that Sunder was talking about the buidings.

His own statement makes you look like an ass!

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Read this Brian:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Oops, did he say exterior panels? Lets read the first part:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels...."

Holy shit Brian, he said exterior panels! He didn't say anything about the entire building.

Brian, you're fucked!

 
At 19 January, 2011 12:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

In the NOVA interview he said "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds". The BUILDINGS. Not the exterior panels.

Brian, your claim that Dr. Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 and 11 seconds is irrational. You make up your facts.

 
At 19 January, 2011 14:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, WHERE DID SUNDER SAY THAT?

Ian, in the NOVA interview Dr. Sunder said "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds". The BUILDINGS. Not the exterior panels.


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

 
At 19 January, 2011 14:49, Blogger paul w said...

"Disorganized debris will jiggle itself around and will not very effectively attack the building"

I'm going to frame that comment and make sure every building engineer in the world has it on their wall.

 
At 19 January, 2011 15:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why not? It's true. If it wasn't true, Dr. Bazant would not have had to go to the trouble to invent his ridiculous piledriver theory--complete with different crush-down and crush-up modes in violation of Newton's third law.

Your own source says the floors could resist the dynamic attack of six floors.

 
At 19 January, 2011 16:33, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 January, 2011 16:40, Blogger paul w said...

Read it again, dickhead:


"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"

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, can't you see that it's circular reasoning? If some particular floor was hit with 15 floors simultaneously, how did you get the 15 falling floors? It takes six floors to take down the seventh. How do you get the six floors?

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:38, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Sure, William Rice agrees with Dr. Sunder.

Where has William Rice stated that he agrees with Dr. Sunder?

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, in the NOVA interview Dr. Sunder said "the measurements show that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds". The BUILDINGS. Not the exterior panels.

Brian, your claim that Dr. Sunder said the buildings came down in 9 and 11 seconds is irrational. You make up your facts.

Paul, can't you see that it's circular reasoning? If some particular floor was hit with 15 floors simultaneously, how did you get the 15 falling floors? It takes six floors to take down the seventh. How do you get the six floors?

Hey petgoat, did you notice the airplanes that crashed into the towers and the subsequent fires? That might have had something to do with the six floors collapsing onto the seventh...

 
At 19 January, 2011 19:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

http://www.vermontguardian.com/commentary/032007/TwinTowers.shtml

He says the towers fell at free fall. So did Sunder (9 seconds and 11 seconds).

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

Ian, there's nothing irrational about reporting what Dr. Sunder said. I'm sorry that you had to spend your childhood slopping hogs are working in a textile mill or putting ketchup into bottles or whatever you did instead of going to school but it's not my fault.

NIST does not say the airplanes caused the floors to collapse. They claim that all the columns on one floor failed within a fraction of a second and the entire block came down at once as a piledriver. There are no pancakes in the NIST report.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:00, Blogger paul w said...

"how did you get the 15 falling floors?"

Sigh....

When the top section fell onto the bottom section, Bwian, that's how you go it.

You can see it on the video.

The damaged floors could not hold the top section, so the top section, which was undamaged, then fell down onto the bottom section, which started the collapse.

Dear god, Bwian, this is so simple even you should understand it.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:04, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, there's nothing irrational about reporting what Dr. Sunder said.

Brian, your claim that you reported what Dr. Sunder said is irrational. You make up your facts.

NIST does not say the airplanes caused the floors to collapse. They claim that all the columns on one floor failed within a fraction of a second and the entire block came down at once as a piledriver.

Brian, if you learned to Google, you'd know that 2 planes hit the towers, causing damage and setting off fires. The towers didn't just collapse for no reason.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

He says the towers fell at free fall. So did Sunder (9 seconds and 11 seconds).

You've consistently held everybody else to a standard of express endorsement. Rice has not expressly endorsed Sunder's assertions, so we don't know what he thinks about them. Can you name an independent engineer who has endorsed Sunder?

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

A section is not floors. So you're talking piledriver theory. I was talking about the pancake theory--it takes six floors to take down the seventh. So, given that the top block came apart before the lower section began to destruct, where do you get the six floors?

The top section was not undamaged. The videos show that it came apart before the lower section started to destruct.

It is VERY simple and I DO understand it. I understand it so well that I can see that it's not true. It's not true by piledriver, and it's not true by pancakes.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:21, Blogger Ian G. said...

It is VERY simple and I DO understand it.

False. You're just squealing incoherently.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:36, Blogger paul w said...

"A section is not floors."

You complete, fucking moron.
The top section comprised of 12 floors and 26 floors.

It IS floors, you loon.

"So you're talking piledriver theory. I was talking about the pancake theory"

No, we've both been talking about the piledriver effect (not theory);

Your comments:

"If it wasn't true, Dr. Bazant
could not have had to go to the trouble to invent his ridiculous piledriver theory--complete with different crush-down and crush-up modes in violation of Newton's third law."

and...

"If the effect of disorganized debris was the same as a monolithic piledriver, there would be no need for Dr. Bazant's elaborate theory..."

and...

"The effect of disorganized debris is not the same as the effect of a piledriver."

and...

"GutterBall, the videos show that the WTC1 top block came apart before the lower structure began to fail. There was no piledriver."

So, we're talking about PILEDRIVER!

Stop trying to wriggle out of it, Bwian.

 
At 19 January, 2011 20:40, Blogger paul w said...

While I'm kicking you ass...remember this post to you?

"And, Bwian, while I'm at it - where the fuck are the sounds of the detonation explosions in this video?

We can not only hear the tower fall, but even the call of "run!" from someone and yet...no sound of explosions!

Explain this, please, mister 'explosions were heard'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOGI33HsiCc&NR=


Your reply was that firefighetrs heard explosions.

Didn't ask you that, so I'll make it simple;

CAN YOU HEAR EXPLOSIONS?

IF NOT, WHY NOT?

WHY CAN WE HEAR SOMEONE SAY 'RUN', BUT NOT THE EXPLOSIONS OF CONTROLLED DEMOLITION?

 
At 19 January, 2011 21:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

When NIST says 6 floors taking down a seventh, they're talking pancaking floors. A section that contains 12 floors is not pancaking floors.

Don't tell me what I was was talking about. I was talking about pancaking.

I was also talking about the fact that there is no evidence for a piledriver--because the top block came apart before the piledriving even began.

The firefighters said they heard explosions. Are you saying they're liars?

Why don't we hear explosions? I don't know. That's why we need a new investigation--to find out.

You do know, don't you, that the provenance issue for a youtube video makes its evidentiary value very low?

 
At 20 January, 2011 05:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

When NIST says 6 floors taking down a seventh, they're talking pancaking floors. A section that contains 12 floors is not pancaking floors.

Nobody cares, Brian.

Don't tell me what I was was talking about. I was talking about pancaking.

Nobody cares what you talk about, Brian, because you're a deranged, glue-sniffing liar.

I was also talking about the fact that there is no evidence for a piledriver--because the top block came apart before the piledriving even began.

Nobody cares, Brian.

The firefighters said they heard explosions. Are you saying they're liars?

Nobody cares if anyone heard explosions, Brian.

Why don't we hear explosions? I don't know. That's why we need a new investigation--to find out.

So we need new investigations to see if there were explosions at the WTC because....there was no evidence of explosions.

Brian, I think the new investigation should focus on whether a tsunami destroyed the WTC. You don't see a tsunami in the videos of the collapse? Well, that's why we need a new investigation.

Every moment that you refuse to investigated whether HAARP caused a tsunami to destroy the WTC is another stab in the back of the widows. Don't you think they've suffered enough?

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you think you're funny it only shows your feeble intelligence.
If you don't think you're funny, why do you bother?

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, WHERE DID SUNDER SAY THAT?

Brian,

Now where the fuck did he say that? Can you think of 1 place where he could've said that, can you?

Oh that's right, you forgot he said it at NIST, jackass!

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Sunder said this @ NIST, this is way before his interview with NOVA:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Here's the shortened version:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

So anything you believe Brian, from the NOVA interview is totally trashed by Sunders statement in the NIST report.

Nothing in your fucked up mind can change his statement & facts.

Sunder was talking about the exterior panels only! He wasn't talking about the entire building. His statement makes your claim about the buildings look like trash.

And Brian, you're a janitor, you'd better clean up your mess!

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, your belief that the NIST report is Dr. Sunder talking is truly wacko. But then you're belief that people would believe your claims that you were FDNY is also wacko.

Dr, Sunder told NOVA that THE BUILDINGS, not the panels, fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, your belief that the NIST report is Dr. Sunder talking is truly wacko.

Brian,

My belief? I have facts you asshole & Sunder statement proves you wrong time & again. And you're a fucking idiot, & a blind one at that.

Guess all those yrs. of "college" has failed you. Your reading comprention sucks!

Can you read what Sunder said in the NIST Report given by him of the collapse times of the exterior panels? No you can't because you're too brainwashed by what you persieve as a threat to your claim.

Sunder clearly says: EXTERIOR PANELS.

Now where are the EXTERIOR panels located on WTC 1 & 2? On the outside, right? They were clad in aluminum!

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr, Sunder told NOVA that THE BUILDINGS, not the panels, fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Brian,

I don't give a fuck what you say anymore because anything coming from you is a God damn lie & you're quote mining the fuck out of Sunders statement from NIST.

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

EXTERIOR PANELS YOU FUCKING DOUCHEBAG!

 
At 20 January, 2011 09:49, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But then you're belief that people would believe your claims that you were FDNY is also wacko.

Brian,

Atleast I talk with my friends who are with the FDNY. You're too much of a chickenshit to talk with them about your beliefs that they helped "perp" 9/11.

You are nothing but a coward Brian. A boldfaced lying sack of human shit!

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ has it not occurred to you that NIST contradicts itself?

Yes, 6.14.4 says the panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, but Sunder tells NOVA the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

NIST's long explanation about the lack of resistance in the lower is clearly referring to the "essentially free fall" collapse of the building. There is no need for a long explanation of why the panels fell at free fall.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

When NIST says A twice and NIST says B once, I am entitled to say "NIST says A."

You are not entitled to say "NIST says B and therefore NIST does not say A". Saying that is a lie.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQ has it not occurred to you that NIST contradicts itself?

Brian,

I see that you contradict yourself when shown the facts.

For example:

"Yes, 6.14.4 says the panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, but Sunder tells NOVA the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds."

Read it again jackass:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Oh dear God:

"There is no need for a long explanation of why the panels fell at free fall."

There's no reason why you quote mined Sunder's statement.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Saying that is a lie."

So according to you, Sunder is lying? Even though he makes you look like a complete ass out of you with this statement:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, WAQo. You are lying when you say "NIST says B and therefore they don't say A." They say both B and A.
It's a document written by committee.

Sunder all by himself says that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

I'm tired of wasting time on someone who plays dumb only to waste my time.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No matter how many times you slice it Brian. You'll always be wrong!

"You are not entitled to say "NIST says B and therefore NIST does not say A"."

I'm entiltled because I'm a firefighter & you're not.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"No, WAQo. You are lying when you say "NIST says B and therefore they don't say A." They say both B and A.

How can I be "lying" when I quoted from Sunder himself? Answer that you brainwashed retard!

"Sunder all by himself says that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds."

Wrong again jackass:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

"I'm tired of wasting time on someone who plays dumb only to waste my time."

Does that mean you give up because I'm right about Sunder saying that it was the EXTERIOR panels?

Yes Brian, you're a brainwashed retard!

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:27, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if you think you're funny it only shows your feeble intelligence.
If you don't think you're funny, why do you bother?


Because I think you're funny, and I know I can bait you into babbling like a lunatic. That's why I do it.

Anyway, do you have any evidence that the "widows" weren't in on the 9/11 conspiracy?

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

Yes, 6.14.4 says the panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, but Sunder tells NOVA the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

It's amazing how Brian just repeats the same irrelevant talking point again and again after everyone has dismissed it. He's like a computer program that is in endless loop.

Nobody cares what Sunder told NOVA, petgoat.

Also, NIST does not say the towers came down in free fall. Learn to read.

Sunder all by himself says that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False.

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian lost the debate with me!

He claims the "Buildings" fell @ 9 & 11. Sunder's statement makes him out to be a lying sack of shit:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

No where in that statement does Sunder say "buildings. Therefore Brian is lying!

 
At 20 January, 2011 10:45, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Gulling Brian into an arguement is worth my time coming here.

I just love how he squeals from the evidence given, that he's lying out of his ass to save his own skin.

Brian is like the Comedy Central of Idiocy.

 
At 20 January, 2011 18:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's what he said.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

For you to claim that he didn't is a lie.

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

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's what he said.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

For you to claim that he didn't is a lie.


Nobody cares.

 
At 20 January, 2011 19:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I know, Ian. Nobody here cares about truth.

 
At 20 January, 2011 21:33, Blogger paul w said...

I know, Ian. Nobody here cares about truth


But, this lot does:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://911blogger.com/

http://www.911oz.com/

Bwahahahaha!!!!!!

 
At 20 January, 2011 23:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong because we laugh at you because you're wrong

 
At 21 January, 2011 06:16, Blogger Ian G. said...

I know, Ian. Nobody here cares about truth.

Well YOU sure don't, since you lie about what Dr. Sunder says.

Anyway, Brian, it's been almost 2 years since you've started posting here. Can you tell us of all the accomplishments you've had in that time? When are we going to see a new investigation?

 
At 21 January, 2011 08:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

For you to claim that he didn't is a lie.

Brian,

How can it be a "lie" when it came directly from Shyam Sunder's own mouth? Answer that question you retard!

Shyam Sunder said this, not me or anyone else:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Honestly, how can you be that dense not to understand that Siunder was talking about the exterior panels & not the entire building? As dense as Brian Good it would seem.

 
At 21 January, 2011 08:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's what he said.

Brian,

Fuck what he told NOVA, I'm more interested what he said in the NIST report which he said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Funny how the word "building" is in reality the words EXTERIOR PANELS.

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Sunder told NOVA that THE BUILDINGS FELL in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. That's what he said.

For you to claim that he didn't is a lie.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/cons-flash.html

Listen to the recording. He doesn't say anything about exterior panels. Sorry to trouble you with facts.

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Listen to the recording. He doesn't say anything about exterior panels. Sorry to trouble you with facts.

Brian,

Who really gives a shit what he told NOVA? Noone, not even I do!

Everyone here cares about what Sunder said in the NIST report when he said:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

And according to Truther claims, any Media outlet, including NOVA, is "Government Controlled". So you're saying that Sunder is being controlled through NOVA by the Government?

Also you're whining about what Sudner said on NOVA is a lie anyways. Bitching about it can't change Sunder's admission to NIST that it was the exterior panels.

You can bitch all you like, it doesn't prove a fucking thing you retard!

 
At 21 January, 2011 10:47, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian is lacking mental & thinking skills.

Brians claim: "Sunder said it was the buildings."

Sunder's statement from the NIST Report:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"


With Sunder saying that it was the exterior panels, Sunder proves that Brian's "NOVA evidence" is wrong & is completely hearsay coming from Brian himself.

Even if it was the buildings, there's no way to tell how fast the buildings fell with all the dust being kicked up.

Brian is lying out of his ass like he always does.

Brian, on a final note, go fuck yourself. Noone cares about you, not even women. So do yourself a favor, get lost!

 
At 21 January, 2011 11:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I want you to read what Sunder said in the NIST Report Brian:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Read it again:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Can you find the word "building" in that statement?

Read it again:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Still not convinced that it was the exterior panels?

Read it again:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Who gives a fuck about the NOVA interview? Noone! NOVA isn't NIST, Sunder doesn't work for NOVA, he works for NIST.

 
At 21 January, 2011 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh so now after you've been lying and lying and lying about the NOVA interview, suddenly it doesn't count.

And what about section 6.14.4 where it says the building came down "essentially in free fall"? That doesn't count either?

 
At 22 January, 2011 08:06, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Oh so now after you've been lying and lying and lying about the NOVA interview, suddenly it doesn't count.

Brian,

Let me tell you something which you seem to don't understand.

You're calling me a "liar", ok I get that, but you have to think, who said this:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

Was it me or Mr. Sunder from NIST?

Choose! If you say I said it, you're still going to be wrong.

No, the NOVA interview doesn't count because NOVA isn't listed in the NIST Report which Sunder made.

And what about section 6.14.4 where it says the building came down "essentially in free fall"? That doesn't count either?

No it doesn't count!

Essentially:

Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.


It was the essence of free fall, meaning:

Essence:

The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.


That it had to charactorize or identify itself with that of free fall.

So no, there was no "free fall". Even the 2.25 seconds is only a fraction of free fall & still doesn't constitute it being "essentially in free fall".

So either way you put it Brian, you fucked yourself for not understanding.

 
At 22 January, 2011 09:07, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh so now after you've been lying and lying and lying about the NOVA interview, suddenly it doesn't count.

Brian, it has never counted. People capable of critical thinking know this.

And what about section 6.14.4 where it says the building came down "essentially in free fall"? That doesn't count either?

Section 6.14.4 doesn't say that. You're just an ignorant liar.

 
At 22 January, 2011 10:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST NCSTAR1 section 6.14.4 says

“the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos” and “the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone”.

That's talking about the building. It's not talking about panels.

You guys are quote mining and lying.

 
At 22 January, 2011 10:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Wrong again Brian:

the building section above came down essentially in free fall...

They're talking about the BUILDING SECTION. They meant the exterior panels which are building sections themselves.

You guys are quote mining and lying.

No, we're just showing you that you're wrong & you can't read because you're an idiot.

 
At 22 January, 2011 10:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

“the BUILDING SECTION above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos

EXTERIOR PANELS = BUILDING SECTION

Brian, you're still fucked either way you try to put it.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, NIST says: "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

If they were talking about falling building panels, the discussion of resistance would be non sequitur because resistance is irrelevant. The falling panels fell off the building, and there is no reason to comment on their freefall drop.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, NIST says: "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

They're talking about the massive section ontop of where the plane impacts were. They're talking about 15 or more stories falling down ontop of the remaining floors where the planes gouged out a huge sections of supporting columns. There's no way in hell anyone can stop that kind of collapse once it gets going. The structure below the plane impacts offered resistence through the collapse.

If they were talking about falling building panels, the discussion of resistance would be non sequitur because resistance is irrelevant. The falling panels fell off the building, and there is no reason to comment on their freefall drop.

Then why are you suggesting that the buildings, themselves, fell @ 9 & 11 seconds? When NIST states that it was the exterior panels that fell at those times.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Sunder says the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. The NIST report section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Those are facts that you have denied a dozen times.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

“the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos” and “the structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone”.

Brian, the fact that you can't tell the difference between the top section of the building and the building as a whole tells us a lot about why you're a failed janitor. Apparently, you're so dumb you couldn't even mop floors correctly.

That's talking about the building. It's not talking about panels.

Yes. What point are you trying to make?

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:32, Blogger Ian G. said...

Dr. Sunder says the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

This is a lie.

The NIST report section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

This is also a lie.

Those are facts that you have denied a dozen times.

They are not facts, they are the lies of a squealing, babbling failed janitor and sex stalker.

Brian, it's been over 2 years since you've started babbling here. When are we going to get that new investigation you promised? I'm tired of waiting.

 
At 22 January, 2011 11:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder says the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. The NIST report section 6.14.4 says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

Those are facts that you have denied a dozen times.


Sunder said no such thing:

"NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first EXTERIOR PANELS.......to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2"

“the BUILDING SECTION above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos"


Exterior panels = Building section

No, those are the facts which you deny because you know for a fact that they prove you wrong.

Have a good time trying to say that Sunder said it was the buildings, when his report said that it was the exterior panels.

Keep on contradicting yourself Brian, it's funny to watch you go down the rabbit hole.

 
At 22 January, 2011 13:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, NIST says: "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

They're talking about the top section of the building falling through the bottom section of the building. If they were talking about falling building panels, the discussion of resistance would be non sequitur because resistance is irrelevant. The falling panels fell off the building, and there is no reason to comment on their freefall drop.

Ian, your persistent lies are cynical and disgusting. I pity you.

WAQo, I know it can be difficult for you to understand that there are contradictions between different texts, or between different sections of the same text, but grownup people understand that real life is that way sometimes.

By playing dumb and lying you two are trying to obscure the truth.

 
At 22 January, 2011 13:15, Blogger Ian G. said...

They're talking about the top section of the building falling through the bottom section of the building.

No, they're talking about the top section of the building falling into the rest of the building. Again, Brian, you're not smart enough to get the difference on your own, so I'm explaining it to you.

Ian, your persistent lies are cynical and disgusting. I pity you.

Poor Brian. He's been pwn3d so many times he can't take it anymore.

WAQo, I know it can be difficult for you to understand that there are contradictions between different texts, or between different sections of the same text, but grownup people understand that real life is that way sometimes.

I love it when a failed janitor who lives with his parents and uses elementary school taunts ("girls") talks about "grownup people".

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

Ian, in the FAQs, NIST is talking about the top section of the building falling THROUGH the rest of the structure. They say the structure "was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

They say the building section above came down essentially in free fall, and the lower structure was unable to slow it.

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

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where did you get the idea that I failed as a janitor? If I wanted to, I could be quite a successful janitor. It's a good racket and can be quite lucrative. You just have to be reliable. You get the place nice and clean in the first month or so and then all you have to do is come around 3 times a week and check the towels and the TP, polish the mirrors and the sinks, water the plants, check for burned out light bulbs, pick up any messes and pocket four hours pay for a half hour's work. Every few months some deep cleaning project will come up that will take a few hours.

When you have several accounts you can really do quite well. It's good honest work, and then you don't wind up a bitter life-hating braggart like GutterBall.

 
At 23 January, 2011 11:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course if you go the next step and hire a bunch of illegal aliens to do the work for you, then you just drive around and check the work, pick up the checks, and then that's where the real money is.

 
At 23 January, 2011 20:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Where did you get the idea that I failed as a janitor?

From statements like this:

If I wanted to, I could be quite a successful janitor. It's a good racket and can be quite lucrative. You just have to be reliable. You get the place nice and clean in the first month or so and then all you have to do is come around 3 times a week and check the towels and the TP, polish the mirrors and the sinks, water the plants, check for burned out light bulbs, pick up any messes and pocket four hours pay for a half hour's work. Every few months some deep cleaning project will come up that will take a few hours.

In other words, you couldn't even do this, which is why you're an unemployed loser who lives with your parents even though you're pushing 60.

 
At 23 January, 2011 21:01, Blogger Ian G. said...

Of course if you go the next step and hire a bunch of illegal aliens to do the work for you, then you just drive around and check the work, pick up the checks, and then that's where the real money is.

Poor Brian, he's bitter that he got canned as a janitor in favor of someone who can actually do the work.

Ian, in the FAQs, NIST is talking about the top section of the building falling THROUGH the rest of the structure.

False. Brian, please let the adults here discuss what NIST says. I think there's a Sesame Street message board you can babble at. It's more your level of sophistication.

 
At 23 January, 2011 22:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, in the FAQs, NIST is talking about the top section of the building falling THROUGH the rest of the structure. They say the structure "was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass."

They say the building section above came down essentially in free fall, and the lower structure was unable to slow it.

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


As I say, if I wanted to be a janitor, I could be quite successful at it.

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

Brian, repeating the same babbling spam isn't going to change the facts, you know.

As I say, if I wanted to be a janitor, I could be quite successful at it.

Yes, and you also say you're not petgoat, you didn't stalk Carol Brouillet, the truth movement isn't dead, and that the WTC towers came down "essentially in free fall".

Nothing you say has any basis in reality.

 
At 24 January, 2011 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, NIST says: "Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos."

As I stated before to cover any possible roots:

They're talking about the massive section ontop of where the plane impacts were. They're talking about 15 or more stories falling down ontop of the remaining floors where the planes gouged out a huge sections of supporting columns. There's no way in hell anyone can stop that kind of collapse once it gets going. The structure below the plane impacts offered resistence through the collapse.

Brian says: By playing dumb and lying you two are trying to obscure the truth.

The only 1 that's playing dumb & obscuring the truth is a fucked up janitor who thinks that Willie Rodriguez, another janitor, is stealing his spotlight in public.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home