Saturday, February 26, 2011

Goodbye Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal

Well, well, it looks like they do have some standards after all. Bentham Publishers has dropped the journal which published the Active Thermitic Materials paper by Harrit and Jones:

There is an Open Physical Chemistry Journal, but the Thermite paper is not located there. If you do a search for Harrit, the paper is shown on their site, but it's a ghost; clicking on the link gives you a 404 error.



But I'll let the Von Trapps have the final word:


Hat Tip: moorea34 at JREF.

Labels: , , ,

105 Comments:

At 26 February, 2011 09:47, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

If you do a search on Bentham it shows up, but the PDF does not open. a HTML version does show up but that is something generated by Google not Bentham.

WTF, Jones paid good money for that 'Review"

 
At 26 February, 2011 10:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's a vesion of it that survived:

http://www.bollyn.com/public/Active_Thermite_at_WTC.pdf

 
At 26 February, 2011 10:22, Blogger Pat said...

Heheh, Jones can be like Griffin, citing Christopher Bollyn.

 
At 26 February, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I just goolged it up & found it, took me 2 minutes to find.

LOL, yup Pat!

 
At 26 February, 2011 10:55, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Something I noted on JREF is that Griscom stated on his blog he had correspondence with what he describes as "editors" during his peer review. Yet, Pileni, the editor of the OCPJ, had no idea the paper was published. Who exactly was the editor he was communicating with?

My guess is that the Bentham people were just going through the motions to make it look legit just to cash the checks.

 
At 26 February, 2011 12:02, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"After the first flush of enthusiasm, however, researchers began to question Bentham's activities, not least because many of the invitations they were receiving seemed decidedly badly targeted. For instance, psychologists were being invited to contribute papers on ornithology, health policy researchers were being invited to submit papers on analytical chemistry and economists were being invited to submit papers on sleep research..."

http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2008/04/some-background-on-bentham-open-but.html

-

 
At 26 February, 2011 12:33, Blogger texasjack said...

I don't know which paper had less credibility, this one or the deliberately phony one that was submitted and approved, as soon as he forked over the dough.

I'd say it's a toss-up.

 
At 26 February, 2011 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Texasjack, do you have any specific criticisms of the thermite paper's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

If they'd asked me, I would have asked for more solvent tests and more electroresistivity tests on a wide variety of paint samples, and a whole set of electronmicrographs on paint samples. This would have helped to clearly distinguish the red/gray chips from paint. I'd also like to see the possibility of the geological origin of the iron rhomboids addressed.

But can you, TexasJack, explain the tiny aluminum platelets of stereotyped size? Are those a common component of paint? What is the process for making them?

 
At 26 February, 2011 15:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I could imagine that an abrasive process (grinding on an artificial abrasive wheel) followed by a centrifugal sorting process for size might yield such plates of such stereotypical morphology but I'm just speculating. Do you have any information on how the aluminum nano-plates were created?

I sometimes like to think about stuff like this while I'm mopping the floors (with GutterBall's head).

 
At 26 February, 2011 15:45, Blogger Ian said...

I'm just speculating.

Not only that, you're using big words in an attempt to appear intelligent.

It's things like that which make you so entertaining, Brian.

 
At 26 February, 2011 15:54, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Actually kaolin has aluminum and is that shape & size. A common product of paint.

http://www.smianalytical.com/img/sem.jpg

 
At 26 February, 2011 16:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 February, 2011 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you think "speculating" is a big word you're just showing your ignorance. Yes, I'm speculating. I'm employing a speculum to expose your cacapussy.

Big words can be useful because they obviate the use of a whole bunch of little words. "Uncomprehending", for instance.

GMS, thanks for the pic but your particles are not uniform. Jones's particles are uniform in size and shape.

 
At 26 February, 2011 17:01, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if you think "speculating" is a big word you're just showing your ignorance. Yes, I'm speculating. I'm employing a speculum to expose your cacapussy.

Stuff like this is why I'm glad I have no information out there for Brian to figure out who I am. I don't need him stalking me like he stalks Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 26 February, 2011 17:03, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, thanks for the pic but your particles are not uniform. Jones's particles are uniform in size and shape.

You are confusing "uniform" with "identical". Page 15 of the paper shows variation of their sample.

Here's another example of kaolin from an ESM. Something being uniform on the nano scale is in no way impressive.

 
At 26 February, 2011 17:20, Blogger Triterope said...

Texasjack, do you have any specific criticisms of the thermite paper's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

If they'd asked me, I would have asked for


PEER. REVIEW. Google it.

 
At 26 February, 2011 17:28, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

PEER. REVIEW.

I just love how truthers were so giddy when Griscom revealed himself, yet every time he opens his mouth it becomes more and more apparent how BS the entire process was.

 
At 26 February, 2011 17:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, who was giddy when Griscom revealed himself? I thought the general consensus was that he was of poor credibility and it was bad news to hear he was a peer reviewer of Jones's paper.

Also, you have not linked the kaolin paper you're talking about, or the supplemental pics.

Ian, I don't have to stalk you to expose your cacapussy. Here you are, talking out of it almost every day of the week.

 
At 26 February, 2011 20:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I have a question, what would have happened to the alleged thermite if the hijackers hadn't made their flights?

Has any troofer stopped to think about all of the variables that could have scrubbed the attacks - even if they were an inside job?

What would happen to that nanothermite paint job? How would they explain an accidental detonation? That would lead a trail straight to the conspirators. Plus United 93 didn't make it to it's target so by following the troofer logic there should be a building with nanothermite painted on the beams of its elevator shafts.

So there you go Brian, all you have to do is go to the White House or the Capital building and have the maintanence guys look for detonators and funny paint.

The nanothermite theory needs to go back up the ass it was pulled out of...with a candle on it.

 
At 26 February, 2011 21:02, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't have to stalk you to expose your cacapussy. Here you are, talking out of it almost every day of the week.

My, such squealing! I'm sorry, Brian, but I'm going to have to say no to your sexual advances, just as Willie Rodriguez did.

 
At 27 February, 2011 07:26, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, who was giddy when Griscom revealed himself? I thought the general consensus was that he was of poor credibility and it was bad news to hear he was a peer reviewer of Jones's paper.

See Jones's blog on him revealing himself. Yes, it was bad news. Sadly most truthers have a hard time with reality.

Also, you have not linked the kaolin paper you're talking about, or the supplemental pics.

I never mentioned a kaolin paper.

 
At 27 February, 2011 07:37, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Not sure which of these I already posted, but here is kaolin.

http://www.semp.us/_images/biots/Biot226PhotoE.jpg

 
At 27 February, 2011 07:38, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

WTF?! It keep editing my posts.

http://www.smianalytical.com/img/sem.jpg

http://www.semp.us/_images/biots/Biot226PhotoE.jpg

 
At 27 February, 2011 09:35, Blogger Triterope said...

This was originally in another thread, but since this thread is actually about the paper, I'll post it here:

Do you have any specific criticisms of the thermite paper's methodology, logic, or conclusions?

I have one.

The authors of the thermite paper did not submit it to proper peer review.

In fact, they didn't even submit it to improper peer review. The paper was so fucking terrible that the vanity journal they hired to give it phony credibility was destroyed by it.

That is FAIL with a capital FAIL, FAIL-roasted in FAIL sauce and served on a bed of FAIL.

And here you are defending it.

 
At 27 February, 2011 10:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, obviously nothing happens to the thermite. If it's hidden inside the hollow core columns nobody even knows it's there. Thermite is very difficult to ignite.

Flight 93 didn't make it to its target and low and behold, there's building 7 and nobody's allowed to go inside to fight the fires until it comes straight down like a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 in the afternoon. There is evidence that other intended hijackings never took off. I'm not aware that any investigation was ever done into the possibility that some planes took off but were so late the hijackers decided to bail out of the mission.

There was no need for thermite at the WH or the Capitol or the Pentagon. On those structures a simple symbolic attack would be more effective psychologically--the capitol dome smashed, the WH blackened by fire.

Ian, look at yourself sitting around on Saturday night imagining that some guy you're never ever going to meet is making sexual advances when he calls you a pussy. I guess you don't get out to the taverns much, do you guy? You don't have what it takes for NYC.

GMS, yes I noticed Jones trying to act enthusiastic about Griscom's review. I sure didn't see anyone else.

Oh, your page 15 reference to "the paper" was to the Jones paper. I misunderstood. I was wrong, my bad.

TR, I don't think the paper's authors are responsible for the peer review process. The Journal is. In retrospect it seems that choosing Bentham as a publisher was a mistake, but that's not a valid criticism of the methodology, logic, or conclusions. I think you're just desperately looking for a reason to reject the paper and any excuse will do.

The vanity jouirnal was not destroyed by Jones's paper. It was destroyed by its own dishonest editorial practices.

 
At 27 February, 2011 12:45, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, it's now almost two years since Bentham got punk'd by Davis and Anderson's fake paper. Why haven't Jones and Harritt submitted their paper to a real journal, with real peer review?

As for your ridiculous claim that nobody investigated the possibility that more hijackings were planned on 9-11, I suggest that you google PENTTBOM, the largest single investigation in the FBI's history. I suspect they didn't miss that possibility.

 
At 27 February, 2011 12:51, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I don't think the paper's authors are responsible for the peer review process. The Journal is.

And who's responsible for deciding which journal the paper is submitted to?

In retrospect it seems that choosing Bentham as a publisher was a mistake

"In retrospect"? JREF posters started finding problems with Bentham the day Twoofyland started beating their chests about this stupid paper.

At any point in the last two years, Harrit and Jones could have acknowledged that this journal was not a good vehicle for their results, or simply submitted it to a more reputable journal. Did they do that?

that's not a valid criticism of the methodology, logic, or conclusions.

It most certainly is. Lying about peer review is a fatal blow to not only this paper, but to anything these men do. And Jones has two prior academic frauds on his resume.

I think you're just desperately looking for a reason to reject the paper

Well, I'm not having to look very hard.

The vanity journal was not destroyed by Jones's paper. It was destroyed by its own dishonest editorial practices.

The paper is what inspired people to discover the dishonest editorial practices.

 
At 27 February, 2011 14:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, I suspect that once a paper has been published by a phony journal, legitimate journals are unwilling to publish it so submitting it would be pointless.

Pretty much all I know about the FBI investigation after 9/11 is that there were several incidents suggesting that more planes had been intended hijackings, but I've seen no indication that there had been any followup on these incidents. I also recall complaints from FBI investigators about the fact that they were pressured to drop what they considered hot investigations of al Qaeda. The excuse was given that they needed to drop investigations of 9/11 so they could concentrate on preventing the next attack. If you have specific information contrary to these beliefs, I'd like to see it.

TR, I don't know who decided to use Bentham and how the decision was made, and I would like to know.

Jones and Harrit's unwillingness to defend the decision has cost them a lot of points with me. Myself, I never even read the paper. Until its results were replicated or reputably challenged, I figured it wasn't worth my time.

They didn't lie about peer review. Peer reviewing was the responsibility of the publisher. And if you're claiming Jones's cold fusion work was fraudulent, you're misinformed. Jones's careful research can not be associated with Pons's and Fleischmann's embarrassment.

The thermite paper didn't cause Bentham's frauds. It simply brought attention to Bentham. Without the papere, the frauds would have still existed. And actually those guys from CRAP said they were inspired to expose the outfit because they were annoyed by Bentham's junk mail. I don't think they said anything about Jones's paper.

 
At 27 February, 2011 14:47, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I don't know who decided to use Bentham and how the decision was made, and I would like to know.

Then why don't you fucking ask them?

 
At 27 February, 2011 15:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because, as I've said, I've never even read the paper. I never cite it. I figured that until its results were replicated or credibly challenged, it was too speculative for me to bother with.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:11, Blogger Triterope said...

Yeah, that why you're dragging it into every fucking thread.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

I was hoping for some intelligent criticism of it. That was pretty stupid of me, wasn't it?

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Trying to hijack another thread with off-topic nonsense, mangina?

Go play in the freeway--you freak.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I sometimes like to think about stuff like this while I'm mopping the floors (with GutterBall's head)."

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back without justification, Palo Alto Manpussy.

Since when does babbling nonsense and bald-faced lying qualify as "mopping the floors," mangina?

On the other hand, I can understand why the mangina uses the term "mopping the floors." After all, he made a (failed) career out of mopping floors.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Trying to hijack another thread with off-topic nonsense, mangina?

No, it's actually on-topic nonsense this time.

 
At 27 February, 2011 16:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Flight 93 didn't make it to its target and low and behold, there's building 7 and nobody's allowed to go inside to fight the fires until it comes straight down like a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 in the afternoon. There is evidence that other intended hijackings never took off. I'm not aware that any investigation was ever done into the possibility that some planes took off but were so late the hijackers decided to bail out of the mission."

A number of problems arise here.

1. WTC7 would have been a hard building to hit with a 767. If another plane (United 93) was headed to NYC there many better targets to hit than WTC7.

2. I will quote you here:

"Thermite is very difficult to ignite."

No shit, especially in the way that you suggest that it was used. This is why nobody uses thermite in demolition, because even in a controlled environment it can be unreliable.

This is where your reasoning fails. If I am going to commit a capital offense that I play to get away with I am not trusting my life- or the mission to the use of thermite. I would study the plans to the buildings and then use shaped charges to simulate structural failure.

United 93's target was in Washington D.C., not in NYC. The use of demo (if you follow troofer logic)is needed to guarantee the desired effect. So there's got to be explosives wired into the Capitol building or the White House...if the troofers are right.

WTC7 was allowed to burn because a huge chunk of the NYFD had just been lost inside the twin towers. The building was probably coming down anyway because NYFD was keeping people away from that area. That means that the building was making noises that the firefighters understood meant collapse.

So what you have implied here is that you would be happy with more dead firefighters. That means more widows, which we all know would make you happy. Then you'd get to ask the question: Why did they send all of those firefighters into a building that they knew was lost? Then you get to call honest men murderers and so on and so on.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I'm making something of a career out of mopping the floor with you. Now you see where I get my nickname "the janitor". Unlike Willie Rodriguez, who simply went around checking the light bulbs and picking up the used condoms in the stairwells, I actually clean the place up and take the trash out.

You make bald assertion that I lied. Kindly provide specifics and show where I lied.

MGF, Flight 93 was a 757, not a 767. Why would it be hard to hit a 47-story building with a 757? Flight 77 hit a 4-story building.

Thermite is difficult to ignite accidentally. If you use a magnesium fuse (or a sparkler), it ignites quite nicely.

How can shaped charges simulate structural failure? Don't shaped charges make a cut? What about painted-on thermite that doesn't cut the columns, it just heats them up to 1200 degrees so they lose half their strength. Why not use that to simulate structural failire?

How do you know UA93's target was DC? Because the hijackers said so? Why would they announce their real target to FAA? Some think they were really headed for 3 Mile Island.

Use if demo is necessary for the desired effect only on the WTC. A fire-blackened White House, a holed Capitol Dome would make far stronger symbols than a pile of rubble. Also, they would reinforce the notion of the strength of the government, in which we must place our total trust as our protectors, as opposed to the vulnerability of us mere citizens, the suckers on the cubicles on the 85th floor.

I don't understand why you're bringing up Building 7. I don't understand its relevance to any of the issues being discussed here.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I'm making something of a career out of mopping the floor with you."

Like I said, mangina, don't break your limp-wrist patting yourself on the back without justification.

"...Now you see where I get my nickname 'the janitor'. Unlike Willie Rodriguez, who simply went around checking the light bulbs and picking up the used condoms in the stairwells, I actually clean the place up and take the trash out."

Yeah, you were so thorough that you not only picked up the used condoms, you drank the contents found therein.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:27, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Jones can't resubmit the active nanothermite paper. It would be a copyright violation. He would need to conduct a new study, preferably done in a correct manner (e.g.-ignite it in an ambient devoid of oxygen).

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:33, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

until it comes straight down like a classic controlled demolition at 5:20

By classic do you mean it produced no explosions at the onset of collapse, damaged surrounding buildings, showed signs of structural failure all afternoon, and had a premature internal failure?

I would love to see a classic CD like that.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, why an atmosphere devoid of Oxygen? Are you talking about the calorimetric analysis?

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

No by classic I mean straight down, very nearly in free fall acceleration, with minimal damage to adjacent structures, and with sounds of explosions reported by witnesses.

Asymmetric fires can not cause a symmetric collapse. NIST's own computer models show the building crumpling up like a wet paper bag--and they truncate the visualizations in space and/or time making you wonder what happens after they pull the curtain.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:41, Blogger Triterope said...

And here we go round and round in circles again.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, and we will continue to do so until some authoritative people take a close look with subpoena power and improved computer models and provide a report that can be believed.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Asymmetric fires can not cause a symmetric collapse."

According to whom? A cretin who tosses around idiotic terms like "free fall acceleration" and tries to pass off logical fallacies as substantive debate?

Fortunately, real fire scientists, like Glen Corbett, say you're full-of-shit, mangina.

FAIL.

 
At 27 February, 2011 17:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, what exactly is idiotic about the term "free fall acceleration"?

Your bald and lying assertions are becoming quite tiresome.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:03, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, and we will continue to do so until some authoritative people take a close look with subpoena power and improved computer models and provide a report that can be believed.

Which will never happen, so I guess we're going around in circles until Brian's parents pass away and he gets tossed out into the streets. Then it will be the other poor schmucks at the homeless shelter who will have to hear endlessly about Willie Rodriguez, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Why would it be hard to hit a 47-story building with a 757? Flight 77 hit a 4-story building."

Really, dumbass? Do I really need to post a picture of that end of Manhattan, and then a picture of the area that surrounds the Pentagon? Sure you could hit WTC7 with a taxi, but not a plane.



"I don't understand why you're bringing up Building 7. I don't understand its relevance to any of the issues being discussed here."

Um...because you brought it up, moron:


"Flight 93 didn't make it to its target and low and behold, there's building 7 and nobody's allowed to go inside to fight the fires until it comes straight down like a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 in the afternoon."

In fact I quoted it in my last response.

Brian, this indicates brain damage. Your inability to follow a simple train of thought is the sign of serious brain misfunction

Get help.

 
At 27 February, 2011 18:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, what exactly is idiotic about the term 'free fall acceleration'?"

The correct term is gravitational acceleration--you physics illiterate cretin.

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where did you get your crystal ball that tells you that there will never be a new 9/11 investigation? It's inevitable that there will be new investigations. Computer technology enabling collapse simulations will be available to dozens of engineering schools within five years.

MGF, have you ever seen a view of WTC7 from the north? What makes you think someone couldn't hit that with a plane? It's 50% wider than the twin towers.

Have you seen the view from the south? There's a gap between the Banker's Trust Bld and WFC1 250 feet wide. Or if you just flew over the 41-story BT building and right over Ground Zero you hit the south side of WTC7.

I didn't bring up WTC7, you did. You said since 93 crashed in a field, there should be a building
painted with nano thermite. 20:49 last night.

So I answered your question, saying WTC7 fit the bill. Then I asked you why you were bringing this up in a thread that's about thermite.

Oh, thanks for clearing that up, AllButtGirl, that there's nothing idiotic about free fall acceleration.

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Oh, thanks for clearing that up, AllButtGirl, that there's nothing idiotic about free fall acceleration."

It's just as idiotic as your claim that "[a]symmetric fires can not cause a symmetric collapse."

Never mind that real experts in fire science say you're full-of-shit.

You can say "free fall drop," which is fine. But when you talk about ACCELERATION, the term is "gravitational acceleration."

Words have meanings, Pinocchio. And you're abusing the language.

 
At 27 February, 2011 20:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

United 93 was headed to Washington DC. That's where the radar put the direction once they'd found it.

Plus KSM said that they'd planned to hit two targets in DC. That's the key source of information because he'd planned the strike, picked the pilots and the rest of the hijackers.

Al Qaeda did it. There were no explosives on any kind in any of the WTC buildings - period. All of the investigations, allegations, and speculation in the last ten years haven't changed that fact.

 
At 27 February, 2011 21:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, please identify the fire scientists who say asymmetric fires can cause symmetrical collapse.

Your prissiness is unimpressive, princess. Lots of people say "free fall acceleration"

MGF, I guess the notion of a head fake never occurred to you? KSM was waterboarded 183 times. He confessed to having plotted an attack on a bank that didn't even exist at the time he was accused of plotting. His statements are meaningless.

How do you know there were no explosives? How come Ray Downey thought there were? How come Ron Hamburger and Van Romero thought there were? How come there was testimony from 118 first responders about sounds of explosions and flashes of light?

How do assymmetrical fires bring down a building symmetrically? What caused the molten metal in the basements? What did the sulfidation attack on the Appendix C steel?

 
At 27 February, 2011 21:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, please identify the fire scientists who say asymmetric fires can cause symmetrical collapse."

There's no evidence that the building collapse was symmetrical.

In fact, the only people who talk about "symmetrical collapse" are troofers.

So, back to square one.

First, you need to prove the collapse was symmetrical. And your opinion isn't proof.

 
At 27 February, 2011 22:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

The videos and the debris fields show the collapse was symmetrical. The collapse goes floor by floor by floor. That can only happen if it's symmetrical. Any asymmetry would have led to toppling forces.

 
At 27 February, 2011 22:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The videos and the debris fields show the collapse was symmetrical. The collapse goes floor by floor by floor. That can only happen if it's symmetrical. Any asymmetry would have led to toppling forces."

I didn't ask you for your worthless opinion. I want proof from a credible source. And a link to a 9/11 "truth" website isn't evidence--it's a circle jerk.

 
At 27 February, 2011 23:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're the one claiming the collapse was not symmetrical. Look at the photos. Show me one that's not symmetrical--and don't show me the tippy top in the South Tower--according to Bazant that rotated on a centroid so that symmetry was maintained. Because as everyone knows, if it didn't do that, it would have continued to tip until it fell off the building.

You're the one who claims it is not symmetrical despite all the photographic evidence. Show me where NIST says it's not symmetrical.

 
At 28 February, 2011 01:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You're the one claiming the collapse was not symmetrical. Look at the photos. Show me one that's not symmetrical--and don't show me the tippy top in the South Tower--according to Bazant that rotated on a centroid so that symmetry was maintained. Because as everyone knows, if it didn't do that, it would have continued to tip until it fell off the building."

Thick as a brick, aren't you, mangina?

Read it again, until you get it through your thick skull: I didn't ask you for your worthless opinion. I want proof from a credible source. And a link to a 9/11 "truth" website isn't evidence--it's a circle jerk.

Got it, knucklehead?

"...You're the one who claims it is not symmetrical despite all the photographic evidence. Show me where NIST says it's not symmetrical."

Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

You're incapable of learning, aren't you mangina?

Thus, we see, once again, that the mangina can't substantiate his argument with credible source information.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 February, 2011 05:43, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, why an atmosphere devoid of Oxygen? Are you talking about the calorimetric analysis?
Some of the key characteristics of a thermite reaction is its ability to self heat and provide its own oxygen.

No by classic I mean straight down,

Yet it leaned.

very nearly in free fall acceleration,

For 2.5 secs. Total collapse was over 15 secs. Nothing near FFA.

with minimal damage to adjacent structures,

Minimal huh?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/Verizon_building_damage2.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/docs/gz_aerial_wtc7.jpg

and with sounds of explosions reported by witnesses.
Also detectable by audio & seismograph at collapse. Something 7 and the towers are totally devoid of. Fires account for explosions.


Asymmetric fires can not cause a symmetric collapse. NIST's own computer models show the building crumpling up like a wet paper bag

Thats the model without damage, and just fire

--and they truncate the visualizations in space and/or time making you wonder what happens after they pull the curtain.

Clarify

 
At 28 February, 2011 05:46, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The videos and the debris fields show the collapse was symmetrical.

Symmetrical?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aJeegFsC3nY/ScY5RdeL42I/AAAAAAAABHo/eAy4n7dk7b8/s400/superimp.spire.wtc1.jpg

 
At 28 February, 2011 09:05, Blogger Billman said...

What is it with this magical "subpeona power!!!!" the troofers always are seeking? If these alleged conspirator people are lying now, they'll lie under oath in a courtroom, and like now, you'll still have no way to prove it except with your own deluded speculation. And you won't be able to send people to prison with that.

 
At 28 February, 2011 10:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What is it with this magical "subpeona power!!!!" the troofers always are seeking?

It's because they don't understand what subpoena power means. Any civil lawsuit gives each party subpoena power over the other at the discovery phase. Anybody with a valid claim, e.g. an aggrieved family member, can bring a civil suit. There's nothing magical about getting subpoena power.

The problem is that a lawsuit has to be grounded in reality to at least proceed to discovery, and 9/11 Truth is now a judicially recognized delusion.

 
At 28 February, 2011 10:53, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

What is it with this magical "subpeona power!!!!"
And its purely 1 way. Truthers readily take the word of anyone who confirms their particular brand of truth, yet demand anyone who contradicts their precious beliefs must be hauled into court to testify under oath.

Those of us who live in reality realize we don't need a whole investigation any time we are "just asking questions". Establishing a person's credibility is a fairly easy thing to ascertain if you bother checking.

 
At 28 February, 2011 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you can't disprove the prima facie case that the collapse was symmetrical. You are simply disputing established facts. Were it not symmetrical, you should be able to prove it with photographic evidence or a statement from a reliable source. You can't. Nobody but you has put forth that case because it's stupid.

GMS, OK, I don't see it as necessary--because ALL the samples were burned aerobically, but if you want to show that the chips burn without it and paint chips don't, that sounds worthwhile.

WTC7 only leaned at the end, and in a demolition it would make sense to do that so it fell toward the ruin of WTC6 instead of falling to the north to damage other buildings.

The 15 second collapse has not been proven. The inference is made because of the behavior of the east penthouse that there was a covert, invisible collapse inside the building. Since NIST's computer animations in no way resemble the actual behavior of the building, this inference should be treated skeptically.

Damage to adjacent structures was minimal considering that WTC7 was 47 stories tall and very close to adjacent structures. I'm not sure a 47 story building had ever been brought down that way before. Note that when they took down the Banker's Trust (41 stories) they took it down piece by piece.

The WTC7 model with damage is truncated in time. Why is that? We need the whole thing. I bet they cut it off because it tipped over to the south, as a damaged building should do.

Yes, symmetrical. In just the same way you could point to a flower or a lizard or a supermodel and claim it's not symmetrical, but you'd look pretty silly doing it.

Billman, the issue with subpoena power is to compel people to tell what they know. There are FBI agents who want to tell their stories about attack warnings, but they can't do it without a subpoena. I'm sure there people in NIST who would love to tell what they know about suppressed evidence, and distorted interpretations of the data.

RGT, you make an excellent observation about confirmation bias and selective skepticism in the truth movement. I sometimes try to talk to people about it.
Of course those are human tendencies, common to everyone, not just truthers. And of course the NIST report is filthy with confirmation bias and selective skepticism.

Even if we don't need a whole investigation, we need some stuff released from the investigation we've already had--the visualizatons for NIST's computer sims, for instance. We also need continued research into the FEMA Appendix C samples, further studies on the dust and the red/gray chips, an analysis of the collapse itself, a rigorous analysis of the propagation of instability horizontally both in the towers and WTC7, an examination of how political appointees in NIST interfered with NOAA and WTC investigations, investigation of the allegations of Behrooz Sarshar and Sibel Edmonds--all kinds of stuff.

You don't need a full scale investigation just to answer a few questions.

 
At 28 February, 2011 14:49, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, where did you get your crystal ball that tells you that there will never be a new 9/11 investigation? It's inevitable that there will be new investigations. Computer technology enabling collapse simulations will be available to dozens of engineering schools within five years.

And Jesus will return to judge the living and the dead soon too. Also, the 12th imam will return as well.

Anyway, Brian, here's another religious nut who denies science when it gets in the way of his fanatical beliefs:

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/38167_The_Lessons_of_Climategate

You and James Inhofe have a lot in common, not the least of which is an axe to grind against investigations that don't agree with your predetermined conclusions.

 
At 28 February, 2011 16:23, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 February, 2011 16:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, OK, I don't see it as necessary--because ALL the samples were burned aerobically, but if you want to show that the chips burn without it and paint chips don't, that sounds worthwhile.

Exactly! 0 samples were shown to be self oxidizing!

WTC7 only leaned at the end, and in a demolition it would make sense to do that so it fell toward the ruin of WTC6 instead of falling to the north to damage other buildings.

So you agree it wasn't entirely straight down. Your moving your goal posts.

The 15 second collapse has not been proven. The inference is made because of the behavior of the east penthouse that there was a covert, invisible collapse inside the building.
The fact that no 2 objects cannot occupy the same space at the same time shows that it wasn't invisible or covert. Not to mention the breaking of the windows suggests the internal collapse. In fact the 15+ secs has been corroborated by seismograph as well as video. No rationalization will change the fact that the penthouse, and the structure below was part of the collapse.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_WTC/fact_sheet.htm

Since NIST's computer animations in no way resemble the actual behavior of the building, this inference should be treated skeptically.

You mean the one thats not meant to represent the actual collapse right?

Damage to adjacent structures was minimal considering that WTC7 was 47 stories tall and very close to adjacent structures.
How are yon determining this measurement of "minimal". You keep saying, yet never backing it up.

I'm not sure a 47 story building had ever been brought down that way before.

I thought you said it was a classic controlled demolition? This is why the CD theory is not falsifiable. It is ever changing and relies on untestable assumptions.

Note that when they took down the Banker's Trust (41 stories) they took it down piece by piece.

Funny you bring up another building damaged by WTC 7. With this unquantifiable "minimal damage". funny you say minimal damage then make up excuses why we need to excuse this from your own standards when they turn out to be untrue (straight down, "minimal damage", free fall.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/FEMA_-_4019_-_Photograph_by_Michael_Rieger_taken_on_09-21-2001_in_New_York.jpg

"The WTC7 model with damage is truncated in time. Why is that? We need the whole thing. I bet they cut it off because it tipped over to the south, as a damaged building should do."

Have you asked them? Instead of betting why not ask?

Yes, symmetrical. In just the same way you could point to a flower or a lizard or a supermodel and claim it's not symmetrical, but you'd look pretty silly doing it.
False analogy. If it collapsed symmetrically the penthouse wouldn't have collapsed first, it wouldn't have kinked below the penthouse, nor leaned. It wasn't symmetrical in 3 different respects. If your parameters don't adhere to whats observed that may say something for your beliefs. You don't get to say animal A is a cat because it has 4 legs and fur, while ignoring all the aspects that don't infer a cat.

 
At 28 February, 2011 16:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, I guess the notion of a head fake never occurred to you? KSM was waterboarded 183 times. He confessed to having plotted an attack on a bank that didn't even exist at the time he was accused of plotting. His statements are meaningless."

Nope, he boasted in court too.

"How do you know there were no explosives? How come Ray Downey thought there were? How come Ron Hamburger and Van Romero thought there were? How come there was testimony from 118 first responders about sounds of explosions and flashes of light?"

I know there are no explosives because no evidence of explosives were found. For you fucked up theory to work all of the thousands of first responders would either had no knowledge of explosives and never served in the military. Then none of the hundreds of federal, state, and city investigators could have seen any evidence of explosives, saw evidence but didn't know what they were looking at, or they all saw evidence of controlled demo yet remained silent.

The first responders heard what they thought were explosions, that's understandable because the WTC collapse was unique. The bright flashes were most likely CRTs detonating as the floor crashed on top of them. There could have been 100+ on each floor.

Either way nobody found evidence of explosives, and that's how I know.

 
At 28 February, 2011 22:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, do you deny that developing computer technology will soon make possible in engineering schools all across the country the simulations NIST said they couldn't do?

MGF, if I was waterboarded 183 times I might boast in court too.

How can you expect to find evidence of explosives when NIST didn't look for evidence of explosives?

So first you say the first responders were so explosive-wise they would have recognized the signs of explosives. And then you say the first responders were so naive about explosives that they thought they heard explosions when they didn't.

Gee, equivocate much?

 
At 01 March, 2011 04:37, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, do you deny that developing computer technology will soon make possible in engineering schools all across the country the simulations NIST said they couldn't do?

Objection your honor, relevance?

How can you expect to find evidence of explosives when NIST didn't look for evidence of explosives?

Hey, who knows better about whether anyone looked for explosives than a failed janitor and sex stalker?

So first you say the first responders were so explosive-wise they would have recognized the signs of explosives. And then you say the first responders were so naive about explosives that they thought they heard explosions when they didn't.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Face it, Brian, you floozy "widows" will never have their questions answered and you'll never be anything other than a failed janitor sitting alone in your parents' basement.

 
At 01 March, 2011 07:12, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 01 March, 2011 07:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

WTC7 only leaned at the end...

So you agree it wasn't straight down. This is why such beliefs are unfalsifiable. You set up a standard then when that standard isn't met the standard changes. Gage pulled this during his presentation with Sullivan.

The 15 second collapse has not been proven...
Well aside from starting with the beginning of the actual collapse. You don't get to dismiss because its inconvenient. The "behavior" as you refer to it, is the falling (aka- collapsing) of the internal structure and likewise the east penthouse. Either way the penthouse ( part of the structurer) begna to collapse at that time. And yes its been confirmed aside from visual vis a vis the seismic readings.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html

Since NIST's computer animations in no way resemble the actual behavior...
Of course which is the one without damage. And does this somehow show it didn't happen in reality?

Damage to adjacent structures was minimal considering that WTC7 was 47 stories tall and very close to adjacent structures...

How exactly do you quantify "minimal"? Also note you state classic controlled demolition but now you are claiming uniqueness. Somewhat self contradictory. Again this is the unfalsifiable nature of such beliefs. Its classic when it needs to be and unique then it ti doesn't.
FYI- here is some "minimal damage" to BT.
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ4zQJLaJsmR0hNGLcoOSGg6PO_OGiQ0y5nI1L87aPJ8cCPDO-ltQ



"The WTC7 model with damage is truncated in time. Why is that?..."

Why don't you ask instead of betting?

"Yes, symmetrical. In just the same way you could point to a flower..."

False analogy. We are looking for quantifiable information. In 3 ways WTC 7 was not symmetrical. It leaned, the Penthouse collapsed before (There is no disputing this, it happened), and there was a kink. Somehow you get to dismiss them when it shows that your standards aren't factually based to maintain the standard.

 
At 01 March, 2011 08:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you can't disprove the prima facie case that the collapse was symmetrical. You are simply disputing established facts. Were it not symmetrical, you should be able to prove it with photographic evidence or a statement from a reliable source. You can't. Nobody but you has put forth that case because it's stupid.

You are not an authoritative source, goat molester. You're a proven habitual liar.

I asked you to provide a source that substantiates your argument, and you ignored the request, which is a blatant stonewalling tactic.

Furthermore, you are resorting to petitio principii, or a fallacious argument that assumes some unproven or unstated "fact" (so-called "symmetrical collapse") which is designed to stump any objection.

Resorting to stonewalling tactics, moreover, does not constitute debate. You repeatedly resort to appeal to permanent unknowability or unknowable statistics, which is a tactic designed to end debate. When asked to substantiate your argument with quotes from the RJ Lee Report, you ignored my requests for the relevant information, which is another tactic designed to cut off further discussion (ie., blatant stonewalling). The reason you ignored my requests is easy to determine. You ignored my requests because you lied about the contents of the RJ Lee Report. In fact, you refused to answer my questions because to do so would instantly nullify your argument.

Thus, you lose the debate because you failed to provide confirming evidence in the face of repeated opportunities to do so--which is intellectually dishonest, and constitutes blatant stonewalling.

Conclusion: Have another heaping bowl of FAIL, goat molester.

 
At 01 March, 2011 11:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know NIST didn't look for explosives because they said they didn't. And your insults to the victims of 9/11 are about what I expect from someone of your moral qualities.

GMS, WTC7 went down as straight as any professional controlled demolitionist could have been expected to bring it down. I doubt that a 47-story building had ever been brought down with explosives before (aside from the twin towers of course). Also, a pro op would WANT to tip the building to the south, so as to avoid damage to the buildings to the north.

NIST, and you, define the beginning of the "actual collapse" with the collapse of the east penthouse. You fail to allow for the fact that if someone were to bring the building down in 6.5 seconds, they would wish to simulate the effects of a longer collapse, and cutting the floors immediately under the Penthouse would be about the only way they could do this.

The penthouse is not structural. It's stuck on the top. It does not hold anything up except its own roof. You regard its collapse as evidence of a massive structural failure in the building, but there is another viable hypothesis.

The computer simulation with damage also folds up like a wet paper bag, and NIST's truncation of it leads to the suspicion that in the end the building topples.

I'm not claiming uniqueness. It's unreasonable to expect 47 stories to come down in its footprint. But it very nearly did. It's a tidy pile that, AFAIK, penetrated beyond the street almost not at all.

BT was not damaged by WTC7.

The symmetry of flowers is easily quantifiable.

The WTC7 kink was almost in the middle. You're quibbling about symmetry. It's as symmetrical as a flower or a horse.

GutterFail, your boilerplate bluster is not impressive. Thanks for the FAIL, I'll put it with all the other FAIL you produce.

 
At 01 March, 2011 11:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterFail, your boilerplate bluster is not impressive. Thanks for the FAIL, I'll put it with all the other FAIL you produce."

That's not an answer, goat molester, it's more evasion and stonewalling.

You haven't proven anything, goat molester. Well, you've proven that you're not above stonewalling and changing the subject when you're caught lying.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

I'm waiting, goat molester.

Failure to answer my questions is not debate, it's stonewalling.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

Now, get to work, goat molester, because you're sinking fast.

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not sinking, I'm just getting buried under 56,000 tons of your FAIL.

 
At 01 March, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat molester, that's another evasion.

Now get back to this thread, and answer my questions--you lying, stonewalling, intellectually dishonest shit bag.

If you're not lying, then you should have nothing to hide.

Continued failure to answer my questions means you forfeit the debate by default.

So, what's it going to be, goat molester? Will you answer the questions, or forfeit the debate?

IF YOU EVADE MY QUESTIONS ONE MORE TIME, YOU AUTOMATICALLY FORFEIT THE DEBATE.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.

 
At 01 March, 2011 15:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

I've got nothing to hide, and I'm not squirming. Who's doing all the dodging, weaving, spinning, and obfuscating? You.

 
At 01 March, 2011 17:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stonewalling is NOT debate--you lying scumbag! Stonewalling will earn you a big, fat "F" in a college debate course.

I gave you at least a DOZEN chances to answer the questions, and you continued to stonewall; thus,

FAIL.

END OF STORY. YOU LOSE.

Now put a fork in it--you no account charlatan.

 
At 01 March, 2011 18:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

What did I lose, UtterFail?

You make the rules? I jump through your hoops or a lose? Who made you lord and master if the universe?

 
At 01 March, 2011 20:32, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I know NIST didn't look for explosives because they said they didn't.

False.

And your insults to the victims of 9/11 are about what I expect from someone of your moral qualities.

I haven't insulted any victims. Laurie Van Auken is not a "victim". I have a list of 165 questions for the "widows" about whether they planted thermite in the towers. 0 have been answered. I think you know what that means, Brian.

 
At 01 March, 2011 21:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Drop dead, Ian. I mean that most sincerely.

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What did I lose, UtterFail?"

You lose because you don't debate in good faith.

Debate involves answering your opponents questions. You steadfastly refuse to answer my questions, which is STONEWALLING. And stonewalling will get you a big, fat "F" in a debate class. Thus, YOU LOSE because you won't answer legitimate questions.

In debate, the opponent who shuts down the debate--and stonewalling is designed purely to end debate--loses the debate by default.

FAIL

 
At 02 March, 2011 11:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, maybe your educational experience leads you to expect that bullying liars give the grades (it sure looks that way) but I'm not going show up at any school like that.

I don't debate liars.

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't proven anything.

I've proven that you're a liar, and your refusal to debate and answer legitimate questions is all the proof that's necessary to validate my assertions.

Notice that you can't substantiate your accusations. Again, you're a liar.

 
At 02 March, 2011 12:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you lied in your second post in this thread when you claimed I made a failed career out of mopping floors.

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you lied in your second post in this thread when you claimed I made a failed career out of mopping floors."

Your desperation is palpable, goat molester.

"Who cares? Just some asshole from San Francisco. See, he [the goat molester] admitted it in the previous post. And Willie's crack research team has unmasked him. I heard he used to be a janitor and he has a gay crush on Willie and he flipped out when Willie got married. That would explain a lot, wouldn't it? He has a hardon for Kevin Barrett 'cause he has a bad case of PhD-envy and microphone-envy."

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.

FAIL

 
At 02 March, 2011 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, that doesn't say I failed as a janitor. Nor does it say I had a career as a janitor. It's hearsay hearsay from an alleged anonymous internet poster featured on a website put up by a bigoted, lying lunatic who has been accused by his wife of trying to bash her head on the tile floor.

Thanks for proving my point. You're a liar. A STOOPID liar.

 
At 02 March, 2011 15:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Bill, Brian is a psychopath. Psychopaths are attracted to cons, because they love to fool and manipulate people...Brian doesn't give a shit about 9/11, he is just in it for the con-game. He will never concede that he's wrong because deep down he doesn't care. The con is all he has." -- M Gregory Ferris.

No person in his or her right mind will debate a psychopath.

Babble on, goat molester.

 
At 02 March, 2011 17:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, I bet M Gregory Farris knows everything there is to know about psychopaths!

 
At 02 March, 2011 17:59, Blogger Ian said...

Drop dead, Ian. I mean that most sincerely.

Boy, nothing is easier than making a liar and failed janitor and sex stalker all upset.

Tonight, I will go to sleep with a smile on my face knowing that I have a good job while you're unemployed, that I have a loving girlfriend while you stalk Carol Brouillet, that I have good friends while everyone who knows you hates, and that I'm still young while you're a feeble old man.

But most of all, I'll smile knowing that you'll be driven insane over the fact that there will never be a new investigation and that your widows won't ever have their stupid questions answered.

Now squeal Brian, squeal!

 
At 02 March, 2011 18:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 March, 2011 18:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, a whole lot of stuff you "know" just ain't so. A fool and his honey are soon parted, and you will no doubt get what you deserve.

 
At 02 March, 2011 20:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, a whole lot of stuff you "know" just ain't so. A fool and his honey are soon parted, and you will no doubt get what you deserve.

That's good squealing, Brian.

That's part of the Christian myth of the 2nd coming too, Brian. You know, the part where the wicked are cast into the lake of fire.

Just keep telling yourself that the day of judgment is at hand. I suppose it's the only thing that can keep a life as wasted as yours going....

 
At 02 March, 2011 23:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, it's indicative of the poverty of your imagination that you think of getting what you deserve in terms of judgment day. Every day is judgment day, and every day you are limited to what you are.

Bill gets what he deserves. Either his wife is so unintelligent she believes his bullshit, or she doesn't believe it for a minute but he thinks she does. Either way, he is what he is, and he's thoroughly earned it.

 
At 03 March, 2011 04:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it's indicative of the poverty of your imagination that you think of getting what you deserve in terms of judgment day. Every day is judgment day, and every day you are limited to what you are.

Yup, I am what I am: smart, well-educated, successful, with good friends and family.

And you are and always will be a liar, lunatic, and failed janitor who is pathetic that he was kicked out of a religious cult.

 
At 03 March, 2011 09:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, nobody who thinks lying that about 9/11 is clever is smart.

Don't forget, UtterFail once was led to believe he was smart. Now that some Pakistani teenager has his job, here he is desperately trying to prove his competence by cheating (lying) in debate with people he believes are the dumbest people on earth, and he can't even do that right.

 
At 03 March, 2011 16:01, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, nobody who thinks lying that about 9/11 is clever is smart.

Then maybe you should stop lying about it huh?

Don't forget, UtterFail once was led to believe he was smart. Now that some Pakistani teenager has his job, here he is desperately trying to prove his competence by cheating (lying) in debate with people he believes are the dumbest people on earth, and he can't even do that right.

Brian, we're not talking about GuitarBill utterly destroying you in debate. We're talking about your inability to stop babbling about magic themite elves and modified attack baboons on this blog.

 
At 03 March, 2011 16:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't lie about 9/11. You do. And the only one babbling about magic is you.

 
At 03 March, 2011 16:49, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't lie about 9/11. You do. And the only one babbling about magic is you.

Brian babbles 'bout baboons!
Brian babbles 'bout baboons!

 
At 03 March, 2011 19:45, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, WTC7 went down as straight as any professional controlled demolitionist ....

Another evidence free claim. I see so now the goal posts shift again. Yeah I could tell they were so concerned with not damaging other buildings.
http://graphics.boston.com/news/packages/underattack/images/world_trade_damage2.jpg


NIST, and you, define the beginning of the "actual collapse" with the collapse of the east penthouse....
Yet more unfalsifiability. So your argument is that we can't include the penthouse because they wanted to look not like a CD. Your entire argument is the willful ignoring of contradictory information solely for the sake of maintaining that belief. Your evidence hinges first in the assumption of a CD then working backwards. You don't even realize you just admitted it.

The penthouse is not structural....viable hypothesis.

Another goal post moved. Being structural or not does not make it part of th building or not. Not to mention what was below the EPH was structural. Your hypothesis would be viable if you had evidence of explosive but you have 0. So yet again ignore the contradictory facts to maintain the belief.

The computer simulation with damage also folds up like a wet paper bag...

Yeah...just keep repeating yourself. It will become true if you say ti enough.

I'm not claiming uniqueness. It's unreasonable to expect 47 stories to come down in its footprint...It's a tidy pile that, AFAIK, penetrated beyond the street almost not at all.

I think the surrounding building owners would severely disagree.

BT was not damaged by WTC7.

Your right. For some reason w/ 1 & 2 they just through caution tot he wind, but with 7 they wanted to be oh so careful. regardless, you have yet to quantify the "minimal damage" claim.

The symmetry of flowers is easily quantifiable.
yet if we were talking about flowers you would be making excuse that its symmetrical even though only 1 side has 1 petal and the other has 3 by ignoring the math.

The WTC7 kink was almost in the middle. You're quibbling about symmetry. It's as symmetrical as a flower or a horse.

Its your standard not mine. Don't get mad at me if your own claims don't stack up. Keep moving those goals posts.

 
At 03 March, 2011 22:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

WTC7 was 600 feet tall. Fitereman Hall was 100 feet away. The Verizon Bldg. was 50 feet away. If not damaging other buildings was the highest priority, WTC7 would not have been brought down with incendiaries but would have been taken down piece by piece. As it was, they did a phenominal job, as Danny Jowenko pointed out.

You can include the penthouse, but you have to recognize that at least one CD hypothesis inherently includes the notion that the penthouse collapse was achieved by removing the beams under it high up in the building. Note when NIST let out the structural engineering analysis contract, they excluded the 47th floor from the analysis, probably precisely to exclude the hypothesis that "debris" damaged the penthouse or its supports and caused it to collapse.

The penthouse being unstructural may be part of the building, but it is not part of the structure.

There is evidence of explosives. Three witnesses testify to explosions at WTC7. Also, there is the evidence of incendiaries in the form of the FEMA Appendix C samples.

The fact is the computer sims show the building folding up like a wet paper bag. You're quibbling about semantics. The collapse was symmetrical in that the east walls and west walls remained parallel as the building descended straight down.

 
At 10 March, 2011 12:15, Blogger Ernst E. Konspirative said...

No time for goodbye, the journal is back:

http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

 
At 14 March, 2011 11:55, Blogger Paolo Attivissimo said...

Ernst,

No time for goodbye, the journal is back:

That link is dead, but this one is still valid:

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home