Saturday, February 19, 2011

12 Angry Morons

Ed Asner has sent out a casting call:


It's apparent that this is going to be a full-blown "TRUTH" film; Asner says that Al Qaeda didn't do it, which means that we're probably going to be treated to voice-morphed phone calls and the like.

121 Comments:

At 19 February, 2011 18:17, Blogger James B. said...

I am trying out for the part of the CIA agent who descends from the top of the elevator shaft Tom Cruise like emplacing the nanothermite in the elevator shafts.

Cue the cool theme music.

 
At 19 February, 2011 18:26, Blogger James B. said...

So who wants to e-mail this guy and get a copy of the script?

 
At 19 February, 2011 20:02, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Oh for crying out loud.

For real?

"It has been proven beyond a doubt that the reports"...are all lies? Proven by who? Using what standards?

That said I want the part of Brian Good. I can bring my own mop.

 
At 19 February, 2011 21:12, Blogger Pat said...

I'm going to be Dick Cheney. I can whip my neck around and say "Of course the standdown order still stands! Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

 
At 20 February, 2011 02:36, Blogger Chris said...

The film maker has been pimping this project for over 2 and a half years.

http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=70953.0

 
At 20 February, 2011 05:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ooh! Can I be a dancing Israeli?

 
At 20 February, 2011 09:01, Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 February, 2011 09:02, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 February, 2011 09:03, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

" which means that we're probably going to be treated to voice-morphed phone calls"

Cool...maybe they will actually demonstrate how this works in reality.

I expect it to be about the same level of quality as the Left Behind series.

 
At 20 February, 2011 09:22, Blogger James B. said...

Am I the only one who is really hoping Charlie Sheen gets a role? Perhaps as the coke addicted conspirator who decides to blow the plot open?

 
At 20 February, 2011 10:06, Blogger Billman said...

Ooh! Can I be Dylan Avery?

 
At 20 February, 2011 10:20, Blogger James B. said...

Heh, the guy actually sent me a copy of the script. The fight to see who gets to play Richard Gage is on!

The Following Witnesses are Real People Portrayed by Actors.
• Mr. George W. Bush
• Mr. Richard Clarke
• Governor Thomas Kean
• Congressman Lee Hamilton
• Dr. Philip Zelikow
• Dr. Shyam Sunder
• Dr. John Gross
• Mrs. Oreo Palmer
• Mr. Kevin Ryan
• Dr. David Ray Griffin
• Mr. Richard Gage
• Dr. Steven Jones
• Dr. Niels Harrit
• Lt. Colonel Robert Bowman
• Lt. Colonel David Gapp
• Navy Commander Ted Muga
• Navy Petty Officer Steve Fahrney
• Ms. April Gallop
• Mr. Robert Andrews

 
At 20 February, 2011 10:41, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 February, 2011 10:54, Blogger James B. said...

My favorite line of the script, so far.

DR. SLOAN
But the Pentagon is the most heavily guarded building in the world. It’s surrounded by missiles and things. It’s impenetrable.

I feel so much better knowing that the Pentagon is guarded by all those things.

 
At 20 February, 2011 11:07, Blogger James B. said...

My second favorite line:

MR. GAGE
As an architect, I’m trained to watch things in an analytical fashion. I’m always thinking how does this happen and what makes
that happen and I just couldn’t understand why it came straight down in seconds - just like the one with the controlled demolition.

 
At 20 February, 2011 13:43, Blogger Triterope said...

Mrs. Oreo Palmer

I'm afraid to ask.

 
At 20 February, 2011 15:29, Blogger Ian said...

Brian Good doesn't have a role? But he's such an important truther! Just ask him.

 
At 20 February, 2011 15:39, Blogger James B. said...

That part is pretty insulting.

MRS. PALMER
Radio transmissions and responses that showed my husband and his friend Ron Bucca reached the crash zone about 14 minutes before the building collapsed. They said the
fires were controllable - they only needed two hose lines to put them out. I didn't hear fear. I didn't hear panic. The tape
shows they weren’t turned back by the heat or the smoke or the flames. They were able to work at the point of the crash and they
thought the fires were manageable. He said they had a plan. Then the building fell on him.

 
At 20 February, 2011 15:50, Blogger Triterope said...

That's disgusting.

 
At 20 February, 2011 15:54, Blogger James B. said...

And here is Bruce Wayne, I mean Kevin Ryan, complaining that NIST can't say exactly how much fireproofing fell off during the plane crash.

DR. SLOAN
Mr. Ryan, please tell us what you find wrong with Dr. Sunder’s testimony.
MR. RYAN
CAPTION: Mr. Kevin Ryan
Chemist
The first thing is the fireproofing. NIST doesn’t provide enough evidence to indicate how much actually fell off after the crashes. The fact of the matter is no one really has any idea how much fireproofing fell off.

So I guess if you can't provide an exact number you pretty much have to assume the stuff is bulletproof.

 
At 20 February, 2011 16:51, Blogger Bob said...

The hijackers are conveniently still alive, so they can play themselves!

 
At 20 February, 2011 17:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

James -- any chance you can upload the script? Or did Script Guy ask you not to pass it around?

 
At 20 February, 2011 17:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

James wrote, "...So I guess if you can't provide an exact number you pretty much have to assume the stuff is bulletproof."

Troofers, by definition, are idiots. It's not necessary to determine "how much [fireproofing] actually fell off after the crashes." Deductive reasoning will suffice to determine the extent of the damage to the twin towers.

In fact, 60% of the columns of the impacted face were completely severed and the remainder were deviated as a result of stress caused by gravitational load redistribution.

A significant amount of spray-on FPRF was stripped as a result of the aircraft impacts. Annealing studies confirm that many (over 70%) structural members reached a temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade (1112 degrees Fahrenheit). Structural steel loses 85% of its yield strength at 600 degrees C, and, as a result, exhibits significant "creep" (aka, viscoplacticity). The columns were especially vulnerable to "creep" due to massive load redistribution.

Thermal expansion and "creep" caused the floor truss assemblies to sag; thus, the perimeter columns were pulled inward by about 1 meter, as was witnessed by NYPD personnel, who witnessed the damage from helicopters dispatched to the scene of the terrorist attack.

Seven effects combined to cause the failure, or buckling, if you prefer, of the critical columns: [1] Overstress due to gravitational load redistribution; [2] Overheating as the result of loss of FPRP insulation; [3] dramatic loss of yield strength of structural steel accompanied by "creep"; [4] lateral deviation of columns due to thermal strain and sagging truss assemblies; [5] severely weakened lateral support as the result of reduced in-plane stiffness caused by sagging floor assemblies; [6] bowing of perimeter columns; and [7] "creep" of internal column webs.

Once the critical column failed, the upper stories of the tower crashed through at least one story, which impacted the lower portion of the tower. The result is progressive collapse because the kinetic energy (KE) of the descending upper portion of the tower exceeded--by an order of magnitude--the energy that could be absorbed in the lower part of the tower owing to "creep" deformations and fracturing of structural steel elements.

Annealing studies performed on structural steel recovered from the debris pile confirmed the extent of the loss of spray-on FPRF due to aircraft impact.

So much for Kevin Ryan's unscientific, and frankly, idiotic malarkey.

 
At 20 February, 2011 18:22, Blogger James B. said...

No, he just asked me to help him get artistic and financial backing. Don't have anyplace convenient to post it though, but if you send me an e-mail I can send it to you.

 
At 20 February, 2011 18:43, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

This sounds so embarrassing I can't believe this isn't a joke. Then again it's Ed Asner, and he checked out of the sanity pool a long time ago.

So the plan is to make a movie about a kangaroo court?

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

"...That said I want the part of Brian Good. I can bring my own mop."

You may want to reconsider. After all, there's the love scene with Willie Rod.

Yuk!

 
At 20 February, 2011 21:26, Blogger den parser said...

That's cruelty. Why do people do that.


Escalante Bloggers

 
At 20 February, 2011 22:15, Blogger bip.bibop said...

Just curious - does anyone reading this blog think that 911, conspiracy or no, justified Bush going into Iraq?

And while you jeer and snicker at these 'troofers', are you comfortable with the dismantling of your constitutional rights (Patriot Act, TSA grabbing your 'junk') in the name of security?

How about Napolitano telling you to snitch on your neighbor on the Walmart telescreens? What's that all about?

Perhaps you'll all giggle when the US dollar loses its world reserve currency status, plunging the US into historic economic chaos, thanks to Bernanke inflating the dollar out of existence.

Me, I'll just stay in Canada and watch it all play out. You're country is on the brink of collapse, thanks largely to you types keeping your head in the sand when you should be on the streets protesting the end of your freedom Egypt-style.

Well, go ahead and have a good snicker, suckers. The TSA has your junk firmly in their grip.

 
At 21 February, 2011 01:18, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Just curious - does anyone reading this blog think that 911, conspiracy or no, justified Bush going into Iraq?

Not really, no. Now quit dicking around here and go finish your movie.

 
At 21 February, 2011 01:33, Blogger Pat said...

bip, there are valid arguments against Iraq and the Patriot Act, and Janet Napolitano's policies. 9-11 Truth is a diversion from those arguments.

 
At 21 February, 2011 04:31, Blogger Triterope said...

I think 9-11 Truth is worse than a diversion from legitimate issues. It's an attempt to conflate legitimate issues (the Patriot Act gives the government excessive power to violate civil liberties in the name of vaguely-defined terrorism) with illegitimate ones (they planted the thermite so they could go to war, man).

Me, I'll just stay in Canada and watch it all play out. You're country is on the brink of collapse

That you think a "collapsed" US and/or devalued US dollar won't affect Canada in any way proves you're even dumber than the average conspiracy nut.

 
At 21 February, 2011 07:41, Blogger Patrick said...

test

 
At 21 February, 2011 08:10, Blogger James B. said...

Hey, no smarting off up there or we will invade you for your oil too. You Canucks will put up less of a fight than the Iraqis did.

 
At 21 February, 2011 08:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Amazing how little truthers know of critical thinking. They always resort to the most childish of logical fallacies, for bip.bibop it's "Appeal to Consequences of a Belief"

X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

It's the same shit you get from the religious right. You have to believe in god. the bible or Jesus because if you don't there will be more evil in the country.

 
At 21 February, 2011 08:29, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

What?! No Dylan Avery, Korey Rowe, or Jason Bermas?

They would have gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling kids!

 
At 21 February, 2011 08:37, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I hear CMatrix will be trying out for the part of Mark Roberts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYj-s-0x-tU

 
At 21 February, 2011 08:47, Blogger Patrick said...

Typical silly goose truther - the writer seems convinced that financing sources are just waiting to throw money at a 3-hour long movie. Why it adds up to 3 hours - in screenwriting, each page should represent one minute of screen time. The script is 129 pages, but the fatal flaw is that the words per page are almost double for that of a typical script. (Just imagine Gage and Griffin speechifying). More importantly, the direction adds many, many more minutes of time - he throws in typical truther stuff like "VIDEO EXPLAINING MICRO-SPHERE CREATION."

The writer might be a bit aware of the fact that he's gone overboard because he's eliminated all the slug lines (e.g., # INT. SOMEWHERE - DAY). But this results in the fact that any reader, professional or amateur, must wonder what the hell is going on.

Conclusion: it's a rambling mess, something you might expect from Jared Loughner if he had been properly medicated.

 
At 21 February, 2011 08:48, Blogger Patrick said...

OT - this is how you handle a truther

www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Vy8fFnz18

 
At 21 February, 2011 11:05, Blogger Patrick said...

My comments seem to be disappearing from here.

 
At 21 February, 2011 16:28, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey James, was that the complete list of characters or are there more? And is there an actual fictional story beyond the "trial", or is it like 12 Angry Men in that it's all courtroom scenes?

 
At 21 February, 2011 16:52, Blogger James B. said...

That is all the real people. It is all court room, with video interludes from documentaries and conspiracy films.

 
At 21 February, 2011 17:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Just curious - does anyone reading this blog think that 911, conspiracy or no, justified Bush going into Iraq?"

Okay, Skippy, here's a brief history lesson. Down here in the United States between the years of 1992 and 2001 it was common to here someone say "We should have finished the job in Iraq." This comment usually followed an incident involving the "No-Fly Zone" where Iraq took a shot at one of the multi-national planes patroling there.

Technically every time they shot at out planes they were in violation of the cease-fire, so technically we would be justified in resuming the conflict.

So Bush gets elected by 230 votes in 2000. Most of the folks who voted for him probably suspected (and probably hoped) that he'd take a shot at Saddam. In the early part of 2001 he made noise about Iraq, and Bush Sr, along with the first Bush NSC dragged W off to Camp David for a no-shitter. The advice was to stay out of Iraq.

In the first week of September 2001 the Bush White House released it's position paper on terrorism. If you read it the obvious target was FARC in Colombia.

After 9/11 Bush found his excuse, but you have to remember that Sadam Hussein was a key player in the run up to the war as well. He was getting bad advice from the French and the Russians; just as Bush was getting bad advice from Tenent, Rumsfeld, and his NSC.

All you need to know is that in March, 2003, 75% of American supported the invasion. In 2004 we re-elected Bush with a larger number of votes. You can blame Bush for many things but in the end it was because of 9/11 that the average American was looking for pay-back.

 
At 21 February, 2011 17:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"And while you jeer and snicker at these 'troofers', are you comfortable with the dismantling of your constitutional rights (Patriot Act, TSA grabbing your 'junk') in the name of security?

How about Napolitano telling you to snitch on your neighbor on the Walmart telescreens? What's that all about?"

Since September 12, 2001 I have been waiting for the day I get roughed up by big burly men dressed in black kevlar and Nomex.

It hasn't happened.

The so-called erosion of our civil rights at worst makes us even with CANADA. That means that our government can do a few things that your government does to you. So are you asking for liberation by US forces?

I'm an Oakland Raiders fan. I get my junk grabbed at every home game. I also get my junk grabbed at rock concerts.

Napolitano isn't asking us to snitch on our neighbors, she's just asking us to report anything unusual. A good citizen does that anyway, even in Canada.

I would point out that in many urban communities law abiding citizens live behind bars that they have installed themselves because criminals run wild there. Why doesn't anyone complain about that?

"Perhaps you'll all giggle when the US dollar loses its world reserve currency status, plunging the US into historic economic chaos, thanks to Bernanke inflating the dollar out of existence."

Hey guess what? This has nothing to do with 9/11, pencil dick. That failure to focus is why it is so easy to make fun of the troof-tards.

 
At 21 February, 2011 18:38, Blogger Triterope said...

It is all court room, with video interludes from documentaries and conspiracy films.

So... they're making a movie of the 2007 San Diego Citizens' Grand Jury?

 
At 21 February, 2011 20:08, Blogger bip.bibop said...

Ok, so I assume everyone here agrees with the official version of events for 911. Osama Bin Laden + planes = terrorist attack by Islamic bogey men.

But I'm also getting the sense that a number of you are aware that your civil liberties are being eroded via Patriot Act, TSA and Homeland Security measures.

My point is - the connection between 911 and Hank Paulson stealing trillions via the 2008 bailouts is that America has been subjected to a leveraged buy-out by corporate interests that don't give a crap about the American people, their rights or Constitution. The US reaction to 911 and the 'bailouts' of 2008 are just symptoms of this.

I think it's harder now, 10 years after 911, to deny this reality when it's so obviously in your face everyday. Trillions of your tax dollars have just disappeared. Obama is continuing Bush's fiscal policies - both are just puppets to these banking elites.

Thus - regardless of the 'trooth' about 911 - troothers and skeptics are both being screwed. Right now.

I think instead of snickering and jeering at each other, people have to wake up and realize the game is up for the US economy, thanks to a decade long program of dismantling freedoms and a corrupt Wall Street oriented White House.

Please check out this dire view of what's to come for the US economy if things don't change fast:
www.endofamerica3.com

Peace out, skeptics! And good luck!

 
At 21 February, 2011 21:34, Blogger James B. said...

Zzzzz, banking conspiracy theories, almost as silly as 9/11 conspiracy theories, although at least not as logistically complicated. Both usually blamed on the Jews though.

 
At 22 February, 2011 01:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

LOL, GutterBall--what you call "deductive reasoning" an engineer calls "reverse engineering" and a scientist calls "drylabbing".

 
At 22 February, 2011 01:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

""...LOL, GutterBall--what you call 'deductive reasoning' [blah][blah][blah]."

It's too bad you're incapable of thinking like a scientist or an engineer--let alone read at the third-grade level, goat molester.

My comment was limited to the Annealing studies and the conclusions one can draw from the data found therein.

Once again, goat molester, you prove that you're so dense that light bends around you.

 
At 22 February, 2011 02:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

What annealing studies are these that yielded such astounding results?
(You claim that many (over 70%) structural members reached a temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade (1112 degrees Fahrenheit).)

NIST's steel samples show that 98% of them never were heated beyond 480 F.

 
At 22 February, 2011 03:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What annealing studies are these that yielded such astounding results?"

I answered your question in a previous thread--you jerkoff!

What's this, jackass?

More proof that the goat molester is a liar and a troll.

This represents another example of the lengths you'll go to in order to hijack a thread. Even if it means dredging up information from an old thread in order to pollute a new thread with your typically off-topic crap--you fucking troll.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the so-called 9/11 "truth" movement.

 
At 22 February, 2011 04:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...NIST's steel samples show that 98% of them never were heated beyond 480 F."

Another bald-faced lie.

NIST NEVER tested "98%" of the structural steel, and their tests could never tell us about "98%" of anything.

The annealing tests--you fucking idiot--were performed on structural steel that was LOCAL to the aircrafts impact. Get it through your thick skull--you lying jackass.

This is another example of the lengths you'll go to in order to lie and distort.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the lying 9/11 "truth" movement.

 
At 22 February, 2011 07:17, Blogger Ian said...

Perhaps you'll all giggle when the US dollar loses its world reserve currency status, plunging the US into historic economic chaos, thanks to Bernanke inflating the dollar out of existence.

Yes, just look at the surging yields on 10-year treasuries! We're only a month or so away from becoming Zimbabwe!!!

Me, I'll just stay in Canada and watch it all play out. You're country is on the brink of collapse, thanks largely to you types keeping your head in the sand when you should be on the streets protesting the end of your freedom Egypt-style.

Yes, because we all know Canada will not be affected in the least by the social/economic implosion of the US.

Next time, try listening in your econ 101 class instead of eating paste.

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

GutterBall you have not sourced your claim about the annealing studies. The link you cited, Dr. Kausel's "Inferno at the World Trade Center, NY" does not say what you claim.

I never said NIST tested 98% of the steel. I said that 98% of the steel samples they collected did not show heating above 480 F. That is not hot enough to weaken it.

 
At 22 February, 2011 11:17, Blogger Ian said...

I never said NIST tested 98% of the steel. I said that 98% of the steel samples they collected did not show heating above 480 F. That is not hot enough to weaken it.

Wow, so you're telling me steel columns from the 10th floor weren't damaged by fire? Wow, I'm convinced, INSIDE JOB!

Anyway, Brian, how come you don't babble about widows anymore? Do you finally realize how nonsensical that is?

 
At 22 February, 2011 11:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall you have not sourced your claim about the annealing studies. The link you cited, Dr. Kausel's "Inferno at the World Trade Center, NY" does not say what you claim."

That's a bald-faced lie. In addition, the goat molester completely IGNORED THREE REMAINING THREE SOURCES I PROVIDED.

This brand of dishonesty is absolute BULLSHIT.

"...I never said NIST tested 98% of the steel. I said that 98% of the steel samples they collected did not show heating above 480 F. That is not hot enough to weaken it."

And that idiotic statement proves that you completely ignored EVERYTHING I WROTE.

Read it again, asshole:

"...The annealing tests--you fucking idiot--were performed on structural steel that was LOCAL to the aircrafts impact. Get it through your thick skull--you lying jackass."

So we can see once again, that the goat molester refuses to debate in good faith.

Ban him!

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if NIST collected samples from the 10th floor that did not show heating by fire and did not bother to collect samples from the 80th floor that were subjected to fire, then their investigation was just incompetent. Which is what "Fire Engineering" Magazine said. The investigation was "a half-baked farce".

GutterBall, where you went to school I guess they rewarded you for compiling extensive bilbliographies of books you never consulted. If you're not prepared to tell me where I can find your annealing studies, and instead you only cite references to them, then I'm not going to waste my time checking cites you obviously haven't even checked yourself.

You keep babbling about this annealing study but you won't say who did it or when.

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The illiterate goat molester prevaricates, "...GutterBall, where you went to school I guess they rewarded you for compiling extensive bilbliographies [SIC] of books you never consulted. If you're not prepared to tell me where I can find your annealing studies, and instead you only cite references to them, then I'm not going to waste my time checking cites you obviously haven't even checked yourself."

Again, fuck you, goat molester the illiterate!

I gave you the link, asshole. The link gave you four (4) distinct references, which you ignored. If you're too lazy to read the four references I gave you, that's not my problem. The fact is that you didn't read the references I provided, and then you turned around and tried to blame me for your incompetence and sloth. Well, Fuck You! It's not my responsibility to spoon feed information to your sorry, illiterate ass--you cretin.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 February, 2011 14:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, us high school graduates or equivalents generally learn that when you cite a reference, you're supposed to cite one source, not four.

You seem as unable to cite the source of your alleged annealing study as you are to cite the source of your independent supporters of the NIST report.

When you lied about the contents of the first link, which did not contain any reference to any annealing study, I see no reason to waste my time on the others.

You're a bullshitter, GrifterBull.

 
At 22 February, 2011 14:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, us high school graduates or equivalents generally learn that when you cite a reference, you're supposed to cite one source, not four."

Really? No kidding? Another pack of 100% fact-free nonsense from the stupidest GED endowed motherfucker who ever put his hands on a qwerty keyboard. And you never graduated from high school, because you're a failed janitor, sex stalker and all-purpose habitual liar.

Ever heard of a bibliography--you lying scumbag? Probably not, because, as demonstrated above, you can't spell bibliography. In fact, a bibliography consists of multiple references. Any more lies for us--you fucking retard?

"...You seem as unable to cite the source of your alleged annealing study as you are to cite the source of your independent supporters of the NIST report."

Wrong again, Pinocchio.

I gave you four references, which you refuse to read because you know I'm telling the truth. Thus, the failure is yours and yours alone.

"...When you lied about the contents of the first link, which did not contain any reference to any annealing study, I see no reason to waste my time on the others."

I didn't lie about the contents of the first link. The first link was used as background information about the remainder of the post at 17:37--you illiterate moron.

Now, get your head out of your ass and read the remaining references.

 
At 22 February, 2011 16:04, Blogger Triterope said...

So we can see once again, that the goat molester refuses to debate in good faith.

Ban him!


Bill, the only person talking to him right now is you.

 
At 22 February, 2011 16:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "...NIST's steel samples show that 98% of them never were heated beyond 480 F."

More bullshit.

I'm talking about the columns and truss assemblies, NOT THE EXTERIOR PANELS and perimeter columns.

NIST 1-3C Sec. E-5 states--and I quote: "...It is difficult or impossible to determine if high temperature exposure occurred prior to or after the collapse. Of more than 170 acres examined on 21 exterior panels, only three locations had mud-cracking of the paint, indicating that the steel may have reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees Centigrade. The 21 panels represent only 3 percent of all panels on the fire floors, however, and cannot be considered representative of other columns on these floors."

So now we can see where the goat molester got his bogus 98% figure. We can also see that he lied and deliberately substituted the general term "NIST's steel samples" for the specific term "exterior panels", thereby deliberately conflating the terms in order to misrepresent the content of the NIST Report.

BUSTED MISREPRESENTING THE NIST REPORT AGAIN--YOU LYING SCUMBAG!!!

Grade: F-

Continued...

 
At 22 February, 2011 16:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

In addition, the 480 degrees C figure appears nowhere in the NIST report. You pulled the figure out of your ass.

Here's what the NIST Report really says--sans your lies, distortions and deliberate misrepresentation of the contents found therein--and I quote:

"Annealing studies on recored steel established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. Based on the pre-collapse photographic evidence, the microstructures of steels known to have been exposed to fire were characterized, These microstructures show no evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees Centigrade for any significant time."

See that little word "above"? That means many columns and trusses reached approximately 600 degrees Centigrade. That means many critical columns and truss assemblies lost 85% of their yield strength.

Source: NIST 1-3C Sec. E-5.

BUSTED MISREPRESENTING THE NIST REPORT AGAIN--YOU LYING SCUMBAG!!!

Grade: F-

 
At 22 February, 2011 16:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

A cursory Google search yielded the following document that proves I'm telling the truth.

"By annealing studies of column pieces collected after the collapse, NIST (2005, NIST 1-3C Sec. E-5 page xlvi) documents that steel temperatures reached at least 600 degrees centigrade." -- Source: Bazant, Le, Greening, and Benson, 2007.

Again, we can see that the goat molester is lying and misrepresenting the contents of the NIST Report.

It's also very clear that the goat molester couldn't perform a simple Google search to save his ass.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 February, 2011 16:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Now, prepare for an avalanche of the goat molester's bald-faced lies, hair splitting, distortion and spin.

 
At 22 February, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

you never graduated from high school, because you're a failed janitor, sex stalker and all-purpose habitual liar

Babbling non-sequiturs, GutterBall melts down. Hey dude, there's no connection between your premises and your conclusion!

How come you keep giving me grades? Were grades a sore point with you, Bill? Does this all bring up traumatic memories? Have you considered volunteering at a hospital or helping the homeless or the elderly? You can still be useful, you know.

 
At 22 February, 2011 17:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat molester, babble like a 'tard--you idiot. The fact remains that you are BUSTED--caught red-handed--misrepresenting the NIST Report. And, once again, I've proven that you couldn't use Google to find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass. Have another heaping bowl of FAIL--you cretin.

Grade: F-

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the 9/11 "truth" movement.

 
At 22 February, 2011 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also note you can't tell 480 F from 480 C. I got 480 F from the NIST report, which said 250 C. I didn't think you knew how to do the conversion.

So NIST examined 170 acres of perimeter panels huh, and only got 3 samples that showed heating above 250 C huh? So where did you get the claim that 70% of the steel in the impact zone was heated to over 600 C?

 
At 22 February, 2011 17:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, where I got my 98% figure was that NIST has 236 steel samples and only 3 of them show heating above 480 F.

 
At 22 February, 2011 17:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Also note you can't tell 480 F from 480 C. I got 480 F from the NIST report, which said 250 C. I didn't think you knew how to do the conversion."

Really? No kidding?

How did I convert 600 degrees C to 1112 degrees F?

Celsius to Fahrenheit is: F = (1.8 x C) + 32.

Conversely C = (F - 32) x 5/9

"...So where did you get the claim that 70% of the steel in the impact zone was heated to over 600 C?"

What's the matter, fucktard, you can't read?

I gave you the answer here and here.

What's the matter, 'tard, is your Alzheimer's acting up today?

Grade: F-

 
At 22 February, 2011 17:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, where I got my 98% figure was that NIST has 236 steel samples and only 3 of them show heating above 480 F."

Still having trouble reading, 'tard?

Read it again until you get it through your thick skull:

"...So now we can see where the goat molester got his bogus 98% figure. We can also see that he lied and deliberately substituted the general term "NIST's steel samples" for the specific term "exterior panels", thereby deliberately conflating the terms in order to misrepresent the content of the NIST Report."

Who do you think you're fooling, 'tard?

You deliberately substituted "NIST's steel samples" for "exterior panels."

Columns and truss assemblies are NOT "exterior panels"--you lying cretin.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 February, 2011 18:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Also note you can't tell 480 F from 480 C. I got 480 F from the NIST report, which said 250 C."

Maybe the problem stems from the inaccuracy of your "calculation"?

In fact, 480 degrees Fahrenheit equals 248.8888889 degrees Celsius. Conversely, 250 degrees Celsius equals 482 degrees Fahrenheit.

Get your lies straight, 'tard.

And remember, 'tard, close only counts in hand grenades and nuclear weapons.

 
At 22 February, 2011 20:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you're really making yourself look dumb, typing out the conversion formula and quibbling about the difference between 248.9 F and 250 F.

Us sciencey types tend to think in orders of magnitude and not sweat about the small change.

 
At 22 February, 2011 20:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's why we notice stuff like less than 2% of NIST's steel samples show heating above 480 F. And we notice that your claims that 70% of the impact-area steel was heated to 600 C are completely without backup.

 
At 22 February, 2011 21:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Us sciencey [SIC] types tend to think in orders of magnitude and not sweat about the small change."

"sciencey"? Don't you mean illiterate types?

And "sciencey [SIC] types" don't use English units (e.g., "Fahrenheit"), we use Celcuis scale as unit of measurement for temperature.

"...That's why we notice stuff like less than 2% of NIST's steel samples show heating above 480 F."

And "sciencey [SIC] types" don't deliberately and deceptively substitute "NIST's steel samples" for "exterior panels" as you did above.

"...And we notice that your claims that 70% of the impact-area steel was heated to 600 C are completely without backup."

On the contrary, the claim is substantiated. Your refusal to read the reference material doesn't constitute a failure on my part.

You're not a "sciencey [SIC] type." You're a fraud, liar, charlatan, and all-purpose cretin.

 
At 22 February, 2011 21:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, us sciency types use Fahrenheit when trying to communicate with science illiterates like you.

I didn't deceptively substitute steel samples for exterior panels. I said steel samples. That's what I meant, and that's what I said.

Your claim is not substantiated in the Kausel link, and that being the case I see no reason to look any further. If you want to make extraordinary claims, at least provide a hyperlink that is not a fringey website to support them.

 
At 22 February, 2011 21:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, us sciency types use Fahrenheit when trying to communicate with science illiterates like you."

LOL! Yeah goat molester, that's why I have the advanced degrees and you live with your parents.

"...I didn't deceptively substitute steel samples for exterior panels. I said steel samples. That's what I meant, and that's what I said."

Another pack of lies. I've already proven that you deliberately and deceptively substituted "NIST's steel samples" for "exterior panels."

Grade: F-

"...Your claim is not substantiated in the Kausel link, and that being the case I see no reason to look any further. If you want to make extraordinary claims, at least provide a hyperlink that is not a fringey website to support them."

I never claimed that the Kausel link substantiates anything other than the information found in the post at 17:37. You'll have to read the remaining papers. Again, your failure to read the papers does not constitute a failure on my part.

And since when is the Journal of Engineering Mechanics a "fringey [SCI} website"?

You'll say anything, won't you, douchebag.

 
At 22 February, 2011 22:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your reading comprehension is so bad that you don't even know you're making a fool of yourself. Unfortunately, the game is not worth the candle.

The JEM is not a fringey website. SLC is a fringey website because it allows liars like you and Ian to post freely.

 
At 22 February, 2011 23:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, your reading comprehension is so bad that you don't even know you're making a fool of yourself. Unfortunately, the game is not worth the candle."

In other words, you cannot prove I'm lying, so you're resorting to another attempt to elevate your worthless, lying opinion to the realm of "fact."

When in doubt, cop out. LOL!

Pathetic.

"...The JEM is not a fringey [SIC] website. SLC is a fringey [SIC] website because it allows liars like you and Ian to post freely."

According to whom? A proven habitual liar with zero credibility?

Pardon me while I laugh.

You truly are a pathetic liar, goat molester.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 22 February, 2011 23:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I need not exert myself to prove you lie, you do it so promiscuously. There's no point in doing so in this instance because even if I cited the page numbers and quoted the statements, you would just lie about it and nobody on this blog would bother to check your statements.

I bet you're secretly ashamed of your lack of integrity. You have dark and pathetic reasons for lying like you do. I pity you. You'd better hope that your children grow up to be ashamed of you, because it they don't you'll be ashamed of them.

 
At 23 February, 2011 00:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't proven anything.

The only thing you've proven is that you're intellectually dishonest. After all, you won't read all the reference material, because you know I'm sitting here waiting for you to quote mine the content found therein, which will result in me crushing you once again.

Go for it, coward, read the remaining reference material. I double dare you, scumbag.

And remember, your refusal to read the relevant material isn't a failure on my part. It's another demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty.

Go for it, Pinocchio, read the reference material. I double-dare you.

 
At 23 February, 2011 00:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you're engaging in the same obfuscatory techniques that are used by the supporters of the Citizen Investigation Team and Willie Rodriguez--you link long articles that don't say what you claim they say.

 
At 23 February, 2011 01:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm not using any technique.

I gave you the names of the articles, the authors, and the dates of publication. You can read them if you wish. After all, you're an alleged "Google expert," so you should have no problem finding the relevant material.

The fact is that you're not intellectually honest enough to read the articles because you know I'm telling the truth. You also know that I'll crush you if you quote mine the articles.

This is no different than your refusal to read the US Constitution as regards the consequences of impeachment. You were proven wrong on that occasion as well, and now you're playing the same intellectually dishonest games.

No one is hiding anything from you. As usual, you're playing games.

Put up or shut up goat molester.

I have the relevant passages here in front of me. I'm merely waiting for your next pack of lies.

Go for it, Pinocchio. I double-dare you.

 
At 23 February, 2011 09:14, Blogger Triterope said...

As I was saying...

 
At 23 February, 2011 09:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your technique is to put up a big list of references or a big list of names and to lie about them. And then when I point out that you lied, you simply abuse me and spin and whirl and change the subject. Bullshitters like you are a waste of time.

You have the references right in front of you but you won't share them or quote them. Riiiiiiiight.

 
At 23 February, 2011 11:21, Blogger Ian said...

Bullshitters like you are a waste of time.

And yet you respond to his every post.

You've called me a waste of time too, and yet you've never stopped responding to me.

I guess your mental illness feeds off of the negative attention. I guess it's better than nobody paying you any attention at all.

 
At 23 February, 2011 12:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat molester, your technique is to read one source out of four, and refer to the list as "big." When challenged to read the material, you balk because you know I'm telling the truth.

Your next step, as always, is to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact, without providing a shred of evidence. When evidence is presented, you quote mine the evidence and claim the evidence supports ideas that are the opposite of the intention of the author (witness your behavior and pattern of lies when confronted with the truth about "The City in the Sky" and the US Constitution as concerns the consequences of impeachment).

Thus, it makes no sense to "share" anything with you, because you always follow the aforementioned pattern of distortion, obfuscation and, ultimately, denial.

In fact, you are a waste of time, as are all proven habitual liars.

I gave you the sources. Your refusal to read the sources does not constitute lying on my part. On the contrary, your behavior proves, once again, that you debate in bad faith.

Conclusion: Fuck you, goat molester, and the horse you rode in on. My unwillingness to play your games is not lying, no matter how many times you lie.

 
At 23 February, 2011 14:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 February, 2011 14:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall when I read your first source and it doesn't say what you said it said, I won't waste my time with the other three.

Evidence is evidence and your belief that is has something to do with the "ideas of the author" is pure malarky. Where on earth did you get such a goofy idea?

 
At 23 February, 2011 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

You claimed (18:37) that "Annealing studies confirm that many (over 70%) structural members reached a temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade (1112 degrees Fahrenheit)."

Now where did you get that information, and why won't you tell me where you got it?

 
At 23 February, 2011 14:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall when I read your first source and it doesn't say what you said it said, I won't waste my time with the other three."

How many times must I repeat myself, fucktard?

Again, I gave you all the references for the post at 17:37. If you want to find the source and references for the annealing study YOU MUST READ THE REMAINING THREE ARTICLES. Once again, Your refusal to read the sources does not constitute lying on my part. On the contrary, your behavior proves, once again, that you debate in bad faith.

"...Evidence is evidence and your belief that is has something to do with the "ideas of the author" is pure malarky."

Now you're making shit up out of thin air. I never said anything about the "ideas of the author."

"...Did some pederast teach you that in a tender moment or did you make it up yourself?"

No, but I'm certain that some pederast gave you tertiary syphilis, which renders you so deranged that you make shit up out of thin air while you drool like a retard.

 
At 23 February, 2011 14:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Now where did you get that information, and why won't you tell me where you got it?"

I got the information from the internet and engineering publications I've subscribed to for decades.

Furthermore, I gave you the titles, authors and publication dates for the articles in the reference material. Your refusal to read the reference material does NOT constitute lying or bad faith on my part.

Repeating the same lies, ad nauseum, will never add the force of credibility to your idiotic and thoroughly dishonest argument.

 
At 23 February, 2011 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall at 12:20 you said "you quote mine the evidence and claim the evidence supports ideas that are the opposite of the intention of the author".

At 14:54 you say "I never said anything about the 'ideas of the author'".

Are you blackout drunk? Actually, I hope for your sake that you are. It would show that your incompetence can be cured, and it shows that you are ashamed of yourself as you should be.

 
At 23 February, 2011 15:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More bullshit, asshole?

FACT: You quote mined "The City in the Sky" and argued that the evidence laid out in the book supports ideas that are the opposite of the intention of the author.

That is intellectual dishonesty--pure and simple.

Next, you put quotation marks around the words "ideas of the author," which I never said, and then stuffed the words down my throat. This a classic example of a straw man argument.

And the proof that you're resorting to a straw man is easy to demonstrate. Show me, with a DIRECT QUOTE FROM MY WRITING, where I used the words "ideas of the author."

Put up, or shut up, liar. Produce the direct quote, or STFU.

 
At 23 February, 2011 16:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you've got a lot of nerve thinking you know the intentions of the authors of "City in the Sky".

There were certain facts put forth in the book, I repeated those facts, and I cited the book as authority for those facts. That's called scholarship. Maybe you should go back to junior college and learn something about it. Obviously your DeVry training left you a little bit deficient intellectually.

You said "ideas that are the opposite of the intention of the author".

You're just trying to play "gotcha" because I have once again showed you for a bullying, blustering, bluffing, blowhard liar.

 
At 23 February, 2011 17:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you've got a lot of nerve thinking you know the intentions of the authors of 'City in the Sky'."

On the contrary, Pinocchio. You have a lot of nerve thinking that you can quote mine "The City in the Sky" and get away with it.

The book argues that the designers of the twin towers mislead their clients about the structural integrity of the buildings. You quote mined Skilling's remarks and tried to imply that because Skilling made a few erroneous calculations that the towers could withstand an impact with an airliner. The truth, however, is that the towers couldn't survive the conflagration, as the authors go on to prove. In addition, the authors argue that Skilling's claims were disputed by several sources, including the NY Fire Department, the owner of the Empire state building and John T. O'Hagan, the 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York. The authors go on to demonstrate that Skilling never considered the consequences of the fire that was sure to ensue after the impact with an airliner. This proves Skilling was wrong to claim the towers could survive an impact with an airliner.

Thus, you quote mined "City in the Sky" and made false claims about the content of the book, while misrepresenting the author's story.

"...There were certain facts put forth in the book, I repeated those facts, and I cited the book as authority for those facts. That's called scholarship."

Yeah, it's "scholarship", provided that you define "scholarship" as quote mining and bald-faced lying.

"...Maybe you should go back to junior college and learn something about it. Obviously your DeVry training left you a little bit deficient intellectually."

Pulling more "facts" out of your ass, Mr. Intellectual Honesty? I guess when you're a desperate liar whose credibility can be measured in negative engineering units, that it's necessary to pull "facts" out of your ass. After all, if you can't argue the facts, it's necessary to smear, lie and smear again.

Faux "News" would be proud of you, goat molester--and that's not a compliment either.

"...You're just trying to play "gotcha" because I have once again showed you for a bullying, blustering, bluffing, blowhard liar."

The only thing you've proven is that you're an habitual liar with the morals of an alley cat.

 
At 24 February, 2011 00:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

And pray tell, GutterBall, when did you review Mr. Skilling's calculations and determine that they were erroneous?

And where do the authors of City in the Sky, who are journalists, not engineers, prove that the fires brought the buildings down?

I did not use City in the Sky as a source for Mr. Skilling's claims to the Seattle Times that the buildings were designed for jet crash fires. I used City in the Sky as a source for the White Paper that showed that an early design spec was impact from a 707 at 600 mph.

 
At 24 February, 2011 00:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

You just go yip-yip-yipping all over tha place--like a Yorkie who thinks he's tough.

 
At 24 February, 2011 09:01, Blogger Ian said...

You just go yip-yip-yipping all over tha place--like a Yorkie who thinks he's tough.

This is hilarious coming from someone who has been thrown out of the truth movement.

Brian, what do you consider to be the crowning achievement of your life? Just curious...

 
At 24 February, 2011 10:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I wasn't thrown out of the truth movement.

I had a falling out with one activist with whom I had worked closely. That was because I objected when she allowed Kevin Barrett to convince her to throw away her good credibility for a whole bunch of extremely discrediting projects. She finds it difficult to admit that I was right. I'm not willing to drive 50 miles to the meetings alone. She is.

My debunking of Willie Rodriguez's blatant lies upset some people but it has succeeded. Some people are cool to me because they believe the lies that Barrett and Rodriguez have circulated. People who are dumb enough to believe Barrett and Rodriguez are worthless anyway.

 
At 24 February, 2011 12:37, Blogger bip.bibop said...

Sorry, can't resist one more comment. I apologize but it's a bit off topic:

Ian said
Yes, just look at the surging yields on 10-year treasuries! We're only a month or so away from becoming Zimbabwe!!!

This is from kitco.com.
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Summers/feb232011.html

This is mainstream. Please read it. Here's an interesting quote:
"Make no mistake, Gold and Silver are both signaling that the flight from paper money is now accelerating. It’s only a matter of time before the US Dollar collapses. Prepare NOW!"

You were saying about the treasuries? Those will be worthless toilet paper in a few months.

I'm not posting this to be right. I'm posting it to warn you guys. Get your heads out of your butts and start paying attention to what's going on. The US gov't is destroying your currency.

Get out of the dollar and get some physical silver or gold, or your savings will go bye bye.

James B. said:
Zzzzz, banking conspiracy theories, almost as silly as 9/11 conspiracy theories, although at least not as logistically complicated.

Dude, just read the article. I'm worried and I'm in Canada. Of course it will affect us, the collapse of the dollar is going to affect everyone, but the US is going to be hit hard.

Later, and good luck. Bashing troothers won't seem so important real soon.

 
At 24 February, 2011 13:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"Ian, I wasn't thrown out of the truth movement."

Yeah you were, liar!

"I had a falling out with one activist with whom I had worked closely. That was because I objected when she allowed Kevin Barrett to convince her to throw away her good credibility for a whole bunch of extremely discrediting projects. She finds it difficult to admit that I was right. I'm not willing to drive 50 miles to the meetings alone. She is."

No, you had a sexual urge to satisfy & you went to Carol & harassed her.

"My debunking of Willie Rodriguez's blatant lies upset some people but it has succeeded. Some people are cool to me because they believe the lies that Barrett and Rodriguez have circulated. People who are dumb enough to believe Barrett and Rodriguez are worthless anyway."

Still jealous I see. What a pity!

 
At 24 February, 2011 13:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 24 February, 2011 14:07, Blogger Ian said...

"Make no mistake, Gold and Silver are both signaling that the flight from paper money is now accelerating. It’s only a matter of time before the US Dollar collapses. Prepare NOW!"

Zzzzzz. By all means, put your money in gold. Every market needs a sucker.

Get out of the dollar and get some physical silver or gold, or your savings will go bye bye.

Uh huh. Yeah, Glenn Beck has been telling me that too. He's also talking about the imminent Islamic caliphate.

 
At 24 February, 2011 14:16, OpenID 47b0d2b6-3e09-11e0-bc9e-000bcdcb5194 said...

www.kitco.com is the store front for Kitco Metals, Inc.

They sell precious metals.

For proof, at the bottom of the page, click on About Us.

Yup, good site to check metal futures on. No chance they might be fudging the numbers.

 
At 24 February, 2011 18:05, Blogger Triterope said...

Treasuries will be worthless toilet paper in a few months.

The US gov't is destroying your currency.

Get out of the dollar and get some physical silver or gold, or your savings will go bye bye.


Are you honestly this fucking stupid?

 
At 24 February, 2011 20:50, Blogger paul w said...

rhievi

 
At 25 February, 2011 10:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...And pray tell, GutterBall, when did you review Mr. Skilling's calculations and determine that they were erroneous?"

I never said that I reviewed Skilling's calculations--you idiot.

Can you read? Of course you can't read.

"...And where do the authors of City in the Sky, who are journalists, not engineers, prove that the fires brought the buildings down?"

The only people who question whether fire brought down the towers are idiots like you, goat molester.

So tell us, goat molester, when did you, or any other troofer for that matter, prove that something other than fire brought the buildings down?

Fire Science experts, e.g., Professor Glenn Corbett, agree that fire was the primary cause of the collapse.

"...I did not use City in the Sky as a source for Mr. Skilling's claims to the Seattle Times that the buildings were designed for jet crash fires. I used City in the Sky as a source for the White Paper that showed that an early design spec was impact from a 707 at 600 mph."

And how many times must I explain that Skilling's claim that the building could remain standing after an impact with an airliner was in doubt from day one? The people who questioned Skilling's claims included the NY Fire Department, the owner of the Empire state building and John T. O'Hagan, the 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York.

All of the above can be found in "City in the Sky"--AND YOU IGNORED IT!

You can't read; you quote mine constantly; and you lie like a rug.

Grade: F-

 
At 25 February, 2011 10:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, if you never reviewed Mr. Skilling's calculations, how do you know they were erroneous? Pretty serious charge, accusing a renowned (and dead) engineer of faulty calculations--and you can't prove it?

It would appear that you are admitting that you can't prove that fires brought the building down. That at least is progress. Why can't you prove it? You'd think that with $20 million worth of computer modeling and slide rule jockeying NIST could make a stab at proving their case. They didn't even try. They just made a bald assertion that a local collapse on one side of the building somehow propagated across to the other side to make a global and symmetrical collapse. Twice.

I can't prove that fires didn't bring the buildings down. I don't have $20 million dollars or a PhD in structural engineering. But I can prove that the NIST report is dishonest and incomplete and unbelievable and unacceptable, and that we need new investigations so we know what happened.

Of course Skilling's studies were challenged from Day One. Business rivals didn't want the competition, firefighters were rightly concerned about the safety of the building. Apparently their challenges didn't hold any water. The towers were built, they received engineering awards, they survived fires, hurricanes, bombings, and impacts from airliners.

I didn't ignore anything, GutterBall. You have the mind of a child. An angry, unhappy child.

 
At 25 February, 2011 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Did you get fired, GutterBall? Was yours a long, heroic struggle against your intellectual limitations to reach your level of incompetence, and you couldn't even stay King of the very lowly hill you'd conquered? Is that why you have the grading tic?

I hope you're not inflicting your bullshit on your family, dude, or you're going to lose them. Count your blessings, be happy.

 
At 25 February, 2011 11:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The towers were built, they received engineering awards, they survived fires, hurricanes, bombings, and impacts from airliners."

No they didn't survive "impacts from airliners."

Grade: F-

 
At 25 February, 2011 11:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Did you get fired, GutterBall?"

No, I've never been fired.

You, on the other hand...

 
At 25 February, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

The towers survived impact from airliners. The airplanes hit, and when the jet fuel had burned off ten minutes later, the towers were still standing. 99% of the civilians who were under the impact zone evacuated safely.

NIST claims that the fireproofing was damaged and the steel was weakaned and thus ordinary office fires brought the buildings down.
Of course by your standards, until this is proven in a court of law we can not entertain this notion.

You've never been fired. Oh, they gave you early retirement? How's that reinventing yourself business going? Been bagging groceries at the supermercado? Is that where you learn Spanish?

 
At 25 February, 2011 12:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The towers survived impact from airliners."

No, they did nothing of the sort.

"...NIST claims that the fireproofing was damaged and the steel was weakaned [SIC] and thus ordinary office fires brought the buildings down."

And what started the fires, Mr. Doublethink?

"...You've never been fired."

That's right, asshole.

"...Oh, they gave you early retirement? How's that reinventing yourself business going? Been bagging groceries at the supermercado? Is that where you learn Spanish?"

Are you so desperate that you have to make stuff up, goat molester?

Poor goat molester. He comes unglued when his own dirty, filthy tactics are used against him.

Cry me a river, loser.

 
At 25 February, 2011 13:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Let's see, you call me a goat molester for weeks and then you get huffy when I make a reasonable inference about why you have so much time on your hands, why you're so angry and mean, why you're trying so hard to be an authority on stuff you know nothing about, why you're so desperately afraid of admitting that you're wrong, and why you're so hung up on assigning letter grades?

I have never molested any goats. All of my relations with goats have been by mutual consent, and were in fact initiated by the goat.

 
At 25 February, 2011 13:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Let's see, you call me a goat molester for weeks and then you get huffy when I make a reasonable inference about why you have so much time on your hands..."

As I told you, I'm home recovering from a bout of the flu.

And what's so surprising about a computer scientist who spends his day in front of a computer?

"...I have never molested any goats. All of my relations with goats have been by mutual consent, and were in fact initiated by the goat."

And your objection to being called "goat fucker" is what, goat fucker?

But that's beside the point.

Why do you go ape shit when your own filthy, dirty tactics are used against you, goat fucker?

You can dish it out but you can't take it. Pussy.

 
At 25 February, 2011 14:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Hey it's not my fault that goats find me irresistibly attractive. What does your wife do with her strap on when your ass is on vacation? Or does she go with it?

 
At 25 February, 2011 15:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Hey it's not my fault that goats find me irresistibly attractive."

It's the other way around--you degenerate.

And stop projecting your homosexual fantasies on my wife--you pervert.

 
At 25 February, 2011 15:45, Blogger paul w said...

Re the movie

Oh, man, what a riot it would be.

Imagine if the main truther characters played themselves!

Within days, it would degenerate into a bitching free-for-all as the egos competed for their fantasy world fame.

Please, please, make it so.

 
At 26 February, 2011 13:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

So let's see, here's paulie gossiping about people he doesn't know and the movie being made about them, and claiming that they entertain unrealistic beliefs about their fame.

Something there doesn't compute.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home