Jesse Ventura Exposed
(Volume check at work) Coins does a great job with these, sorry I missed it earlier.
Labels: Conspiracy Theories TV Show, Jesse Ventura
posted by Pat @ 9:38 AM
149 comments
As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!
Monday, February 28, 2011
(Volume check at work) Coins does a great job with these, sorry I missed it earlier.
Previous Posts
- Alex and Charlie's Other Friend
- Goodbye Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal
- Another Victim of the Troof
- Proof of Voice-Morphing BS by Ventura
- Yes, You Are Wrong
- Why, Yes, He Is A Nutty Conspiracy Theorist
- 12 Angry Morons
- My New Favorite Truther "Peer-Reviewed Paper"
- Rove: Stomp on Birthers and "9-11 Deniers"
- Jon Gold: I'm Bigger than Egypt!
View My Stats
Allies:
149 Comments:
aw, Pat.. you're slippin!!
This was a great 1!
Hey, the NWO didn't alert me through the microchip in my arm! ;)
...and this is why nobody uses thermite (nano or super) for demolition.
I also like how they edited the test footage to shape it to their forgone conclusions.
Sad.
MGF, see Jonathan Cole's video for a demonstration of what thermite can do if somebody wants to use it for something more than a fireworks show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4
MGF, see Jonathan Cole's video for a demonstration of what thermite can do if somebody wants to use it for something more than a fireworks show.
Nobody cares.
see Jonathan Cole's video for a demonstration of what thermite can do if somebody wants to use it for something more than a fireworks show.
If that is the video of a guy cutting a steel beam no where on the order of the kind from the WTC, we now how to account for the cuts & materials no one observed.
Cole is full of it. I love that he includes the NASA thermal images without noting that the temperatures recorded by NASA are far below those required to melt steel. He lies when he says that the red-gray chips were "positively identified as nanothermite".
In short, he's a pretty typical hero for Brian.
"...MGF, see Jonathan Cole's video for a demonstration of what thermite can do if somebody wants to use it for something more than a fireworks show."
What's next, goat molester?
Will you present cropped photos of the twin tower's perimeter columns after being angle cut by clean up workers with a thermitic lance, and claim the columns were cut by supermagicothermite?
By the way, credit goes to Dave Kyte for the photograph from Ground Zero.
Pat wrote, "...He [Cole] lies when he says that the red-gray chips were 'positively identified as nanothermite'."
Of course Jones' dust samples were "positively identified as nanothermite," provided that no one tries to independently replicate the results.
Thus, we have The Goat Molester Method (as opposed to the scientific method), which states the goat molester's claims need not be subjected to tests for falsification or verification by third parties. The goat molester said it, therefore no further investigation is required.
No doubt, the goat molester is a "sciency guy" (his words). And if you believe that nonsense, I have a bridge in Arizona I'd like to sell...cheap (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).
Continued...
And notice that Cole cites Newsweek for particulars of the collapse of the twin towers, while ignoring the contents of the NIST Report that contradict Newsweek. Thus, Cole pretends the notoriously inaccurate corporate news media is an authority on the cause of the collapse--and I quote:
"...The intense fire, more than the impact, caused the towers to collapse...It melted the structural steel." -- Newsweek.
Notice that Cole exploited the inaccuracy of Newsweeks' verbiage--"melted the structural steel"--to his advantage in order to attack the NIST Report, which is a naked straw man argument.
Of course, we all know troofers would never resort to logical fallacies in order to rig a debate, or make false and grossly inaccurate claims. Right?
Yeah, the goat molester is a "sciency guy," provided you define "sciency guy" as habitual liar.
Continued...
Next, Cole cites the NIST Report--and I quote:
"...The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said, 'The maximum WTC air temperature was 1832 degrees F', or a thousand degrees colder than what is needed to melt steel."
Meanwhile, Cole ignores the contents of the NIST Report, which never claimed the steel melted as a result of the fires. This is BREATHTAKING INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY ON COLE'S PART.
Next, Cole assumes, without the benefit of evidence, that the steel "melted", and asks disengenously, "[w]hat can melt steel and explain all the evidence?"
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Again, we witness another example of BREATHTAKING INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY on the part of the pseudo-scientists who claim to be on a quest for the "truth about the events of 9/11", which they shamelessly masquerade as "reasoned scientific inquiry and debate."
You're are absolutely vomit inducing, goat molester.
Continued...
Next, Cole blatantly lies about the color of molten steel--and I quote:
"NIST understood that molten aluminum is silver, not red-yellow."
Red-yellow, the reader should understand, is ORANGE, as any artist with oil painting experience will happily verify with a couple of dabs of paint on his or her mixing pallet.
Cole's assertion implies that molten steel is "red-yellow" or ORANGE. In fact, Cole's assertion is a bald-faced lie. Molten steel is white or, in some cases, pale yellow in color, as the following video proves beyond a doubt.
Steel foundry--tapping of melt metal from an induction furnace.
Thus, we can see, once again, that Jonathon Cole is lying and intentionally misleading his audience.
As they used to say, "It's enough to drive you to drink."
Continued...
As you can see, molten aluminum is NOT silver at 1800 degrees F, it's orange.
Molten Aluminium at 1800 degrees F is NOT silver.
Pouring molten aluminum into sand molds.
Thus, we can see, once again, that Jonathon Cole is lying and intentionally misleading his audience.
The ball's in your court, goat molester.
Come on, goat molester--you lying, intellectually dishonest shit bag--lie to us.
Or will you change the subject--you science illiterate monkey?
GMS, how do you know what no one observed? ASCE was not allowed on the site until almost a month after. Also, given that most of the wreckage was just scooped up with heavy equipment, no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted.
Pat, NASA's thermal images are surface temperatures. Since there were no 1300 F fires on the surface at the time, they are indicative of much greater temperatures below the surface, under the insulating dust.
GutterFail, there you go with your usual logic: "Look here! It's a zebra! That proves that donkeys don't exist!" Does your wife let you get away with logic like that, or do you only think she does?
Cole doesn't assume the steel melted. He knows it melted because people like Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem and FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo and a couple of dozen other people said it did.
Molten steel falling through air loses heat, so orangeness is not an issue. Actually, the video looks to me more like yellow than orange, but I'm not going to make temperature judgments based on a youtube video.
Since aluminum melts at 600 degrees, how can you expect it to stay still until it's heated to 1800 degrees? You're making stuff up.
You're just trying to cover over the fact that Cole showed that he could rather easily find away to make thermite cut vertically--after years of debunkers claiming it couldn't be done.
"...Cole doesn't assume the steel melted. He knows it melted because people like Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem and FDNY Captain Philip Ruvolo and a couple of dozen other people said it did."
False. There's no scientific evidence to prove that steel melted. Again, opinion is not fact.
No scientific study or assay of the substance, NO CIGAR.
FAIL
"...Molten steel falling through air loses heat, so orangeness is not an issue. Actually, the video looks to me more like yellow than orange, but I'm not going to make temperature judgments based on a youtube video."
Molten steel is not orange, it's white to pale yellow as the videos I provide prove beyond a doubt. And colorblindness on your part is no excuse.
Photographic evidence: Molten steel is white to pale yellow not orange.
FAIL
"...Since aluminum melts at 600 degrees, how can you expect it to stay still until it's heated to 1800 degrees? You're making stuff up."
That's not evidence, that's your worthless, lying opinion. In fact, you're telling a half truth, because aluminum melts at different temperates depending on the composition of the alloy. Thus, you're caught red-handed misleading the reader again.
FAIL.
"...You're just trying to cover over the fact that Cole showed that he could rather easily find away to make thermite cut vertically--after years of debunkers claiming it couldn't be done."
He didn't prove anything--you moron. How did the supermagicothemite survive the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fire? How did "the conspirators" manage to get the supermagicothemite into the building, while simultaneously evading Port Authority security, let alone install the stuff, which would require a monumental and invasive effort?
FAIL
The goat molester prevaricates, "...Pat, NASA's thermal images are surface temperatures. Since there were no 1300 F fires on the surface at the time, they are indicative of much greater temperatures below the surface, under the insulating dust."
Bullshit!
That's your lying opinion, not a fact--you cowardly, lying weasel.
The USGS data is based on Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) remote sensing data. The AVIRIS instrument is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) remote sensing instrument that measures upwelling spectral radiance in the visible through short-wavelength infrared spectrum. The instrument has 224 spectral channels with wavelengths from 0.37 to 2.5 micrometers. In fact, a spectrometer overcomes any problems in terms of theraml emission, because the shape of the thermal spectrum can be used to derive a unique temperature, and the intensity gives the area of the emitting source.
Thus, your claim that the fires are "indicative of much greater temperatures below the surface, under the insulating dust" is pure, unsubstantiated malarcky.
FAIL
GutterBall, did it occur to you that when steel cools, it is no longer molten?
It doesn't matter what the alloy of the aluminum is. Obviously for it to get orange hot it's going to have to be heated far beyond its melting point, and you can't explain any mechanism for this.
Mr. Cole proved that it's rather easy to devise a means of doing vertical cuts with thermite--a feat that "can't do" debunkers had been declaring for years to be impossible. Those nincumpoops at "mythbusters" couldn't even cut through a car!
GutterBall, your spectro-babble simply distracts from the point--there were no 1300 degree fires at the surface. Thus the temperature data had to come from heat sources below under insulating dust and dirt.
"...It doesn't matter what the alloy of the aluminum is. Obviously for it to get orange hot it's going to have to be heated far beyond its melting point, and you can't explain any mechanism for this."
Another bald-faced lie.
In fact, NASA reports a temperature range of 800 degrees F to 1350 degree F on September 15th, 2001. Aluminum melts at between 800 degrees F and 1184 degrees F--depending on the composition of the alloy.
The fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers; thus, the towers reached a temperature well in excess of the temperature required to make the aluminum glow orange.
FAIL
"...Mr. Cole proved that it's rather easy to devise a means of doing vertical cuts with thermite--a feat that "can't do" debunkers had been declaring for years to be impossible. Those nincumpoops at "mythbusters" couldn't even cut through a car!"
That's another evasion.
Answer the questions--you god damned weasel: [1] How did the supermagicothemite survive the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fire? [2] How did "the conspirators" manage to get the supermagicothemite into the building, while simultaneously evading Port Authority security, let alone install the stuff, which would require a monumental and invasive effort?
Failure to answer my questions is not debate, it's stonewalling.
"...GutterBall, your spectro-babble simply distracts from the point--there were no 1300 degree fires at the surface. Thus the temperature data had to come from heat sources below under insulating dust and dirt."
That's your opinion. Your opinion is NOT evidence.
The USGS data based on Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) reports a temperature range of 800 degrees F to 1350 degree F.
Graph: Plot--Intensity ratio vs. wavelength, 16 September 2001.
As per usual, I provide real data from reliable sources, and document my claims, while you offer nothing more than your worthless, lying opinion.
FAIL
"...It doesn't matter what the alloy of the aluminum is. Obviously for it to get orange hot it's going to have to be heated far beyond its melting point, and you can't explain any mechanism for this."
Another bald-faced lie.
In fact, NASA reports a temperature range of 800 degrees F to 1350 degree F on September 15th, 2001. Aluminum melts at between 800 degrees F and 1184 degrees F--depending on the composition of the alloy.
The fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers; thus, the towers reached a temperature well in excess of the temperature required to make the aluminum glow orange.
FAIL
Continue...
Continued...
"...Mr. Cole proved that it's rather easy to devise a means of doing vertical cuts with thermite--a feat that "can't do" debunkers had been declaring for years to be impossible. Those nincumpoops at "mythbusters" couldn't even cut through a car!"
That's another evasion.
Answer the questions--you god damned weasel: [1] How did the supermagicothemite survive the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fire? [2] How did "the conspirators" manage to get the supermagicothemite into the building, while simultaneously evading Port Authority security, let alone install the stuff, which would require a monumental and invasive effort?
Failure to answer my questions is not debate, it's stonewalling.
"...GutterBall, your spectro-babble simply distracts from the point--there were no 1300 degree fires at the surface. Thus the temperature data had to come from heat sources below under insulating dust and dirt."
That's your opinion. Your opinion is NOT evidence.
The USGS data based on Airborne Visible/Infrared Imaging Spectrometer (AVIRIS) reports a temperature range of 800 degrees F to 1350 degree F.
Graph: Plot--Intensity ratio vs. wavelength, 16 September 2001.
As per usual, I provide real data from reliable sources, and document my claims, while you offer nothing more than your worthless, lying opinion.
FAIL
Another nail in your coffin--you lying dirt-bag.
Graph: Plot--WTC Hot Spot A, Intensity ratio vs. wavelength, 16 September 2001.
UtterFail, we were talking about the metal pouring out of WTC2 shortly before it came down. The NASA flights on 9/15 have nothing to do with that. You've really got to stop pontificating on stuff you know nothing about.
You're dodging the point that aluminum melts at 600 degrees or whatever, and the only way to heat it up to 1800 degrees is to put it in a crucible. So what was the crucible in which the aluminum was heated?
I have already answered many times. Thermite inside the hollow core columns would be protected from fires. Also, there's no evidence of big fires in the cores.
None of NIST's core samples show heating above 480 F.
Thermite could be placed inside the core columns simply by drilling a small hole and pumping or spraying it in. A nine-month elevator renovations project provided ample cover for such a task.
As usual, you provide irrelevant dataspam in a desperate attempt to bully and bullshit. You're pathetic.
"...UtterFail, we were talking about the metal pouring out of WTC2 shortly before it came down. The NASA flights on 9/15 have nothing to do with that. You've really got to stop pontificating on stuff you know nothing about."
The USGS confirms that the fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers; thus, the towers reached a temperature well in excess of the temperature required to make the aluminum glow orange.
FAIL
"...You're dodging the point that aluminum melts at 600 degrees or whatever, and the only way to heat it up to 1800 degrees is to put it in a crucible. So what was the crucible in which the aluminum was heated? "
Read it again, asshole, until you get it through your thick skull:
"...The fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers; thus, the towers reached a temperature well in excess of the temperature required to make the aluminum glow orange."
FAIL
"...I have already answered many times. Thermite inside the hollow core columns would be protected from fires. Also, there's no evidence of big fires in the cores.
None of NIST's core samples show heating above 480 F"
That's not an answer, that's an evasion. Read it again, and answer all the questions:
[2] How did "the conspirators" manage to get the supermagicothemite into the building, while simultaneously evading Port Authority security, let alone install the stuff, which would require a monumental and invasive effort?
How do you explain the failure of the perimeter columns? The buildings failed at the perimeter, as demonstrated by video evidence. Your babbling about the core is PURE SPECULATION, and completely avoids the obvious failure of the perimeter columns.
FAIL
Furthermore, you didn't answer the question. And your lame, unrealistic answer doesn't pass the smell test, Your answer is illogical bullshit.
The towers failed at the point of impact. Thus, the thermite would have to be installed at the point of impact. The aircraft penetrated the columns and heated the columns to a high temperature.
[1] How did the supermagicothemite survive the aircraft impacts and the subsequent fire? Placing the thermite inside the column would not prevent the aircraft from destroying the thermite. [2] How did the detonation equipment, moreover, survive the impacts?
FAIL
"...Thermite could be placed inside the core columns simply by drilling a small hole and pumping or spraying it in. A nine-month elevator renovations project provided ample cover for such a task."
Then how do you explain the failure of the perimeter columns at the point of impact?
Your bogus answer totally fails the smell test.
FAIL
"...As usual, you provide irrelevant dataspam [SIC] in a desperate attempt to bully and bullshit. You're pathetic."
That's not an answer, that another evasion.
You're theory is readily verified nonsense and doesn't remotely explain the observed phenomenon.
FAIL
The goat molester tries to get cute, and scribbles, "...You're dodging the point that aluminum melts at 600 degrees or whatever...[blah][blah][blah]."
600 degrees?
600 degrees what? Fahrenheit or Celsius? Up to your old tricks again, goat molester?
Aluminum does NOT melt a 600 degrees F.
Aluminum melts at between 800 degrees F and 1184 degrees F--depending on the composition of the alloy.
If you meant 600 C, you're babbling. 600 degrees C equals 1112 degrees F, which is more than enough to melt aluminum; thus, your statement is not only moot, it's babbling bullshit.
Thus, you're caught red-handed spreading misinformation.
FAIL
GMS, how do you know what no one observed? ASCE was not allowed on the site until almost a month after. Also, given that most of the wreckage was just scooped up with heavy equipment, no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted.
Thats funny because you tried to quote Astenah in such a fashion until it was proven he wasn't saying what you wanted. We have covered this. SEAoNY was there the next day and the NSF was there 48 hours later. NIST, SEAoNY, FEMA, & the ASCE have all been reported as being on scene, taking samples, and examing steel. Not 1, even those you cite, reported seeing anything like that. Your declarations have no effect on reality.
people like Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem
I thought you said no study of the steel was done?
no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted.
Yup...I thought you did. Seems reality bends to your whim, no?
NIST, SEAoNY, FEMA, & the ASCE have all been reported as being on scene, taking samples, and examing steel....
That should include the National Science Foundation, which Astenah was a part of IIRC; who you say both did and did not examen the steel....depending on the given claim that is.
UtterFail, we were talking about the metal pouring out of WTC2 shortly before it came down.
Yes we are, Brian. The color of the material gives us a big clue to its temperature ~ 1800 degrees F. Ergo, it is not molten iron caused by a thermite reaction.
Be warned, Brian. Any reply other than 'yes, you are right DU' gets you another F-.
The other issue in the molten materials argument is that people assume what they are looking at is a pure sample.
GutterBall, pray tell, what was the USGS doing at Ground Zero on 9/11 measuring the temps in the building? Do you have a link for that?
Where do you get your information that the fires in the towers burned at 1800 F? NIST's core steel sample only show 480 F. The core columns had to fail for a collapse on one side of the building to propagate at the speed of sound to the other side. Failure of the perimeter columns on one side alone would have generated an asymmetrical collapse.
Perimeter columns at the point of impact failed because they were hit by an airplane. And you wonder why I think you're stupid.
Aluminum melts at 600 C. That's 1100 F, and nowhere near the 1800 F
you keep babbling about. You're dodging the question. Where is the crucible that retained the aluminum while it heated from 1100 to 1800?
GMS, Dr. Astaneh said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center". That's what he said, and I never said he said anything different. It's true he did and did not examine the steel. He saw some of it. Most of it he never saw. He wanted a scientific investigation. There wasn't one.
Dr. Astaneh's attempts to study the steel were obstructed and finally he gave up his empirical studies to concentrate on computer modeling.
DU, if it was iron, the color of the material shows it was significantly hotter than 1800 F.
Since NIST has no steel samples showing heating above 1100 F, NIST's sampling process was obviously flawed. If it was aluminum, how did it get heated to 700 degrees higher than its melting point? Where was the crucible for this located? And how do you get 1800 F fires when 98% of NIST's steel samples only show heating to 480 F?
GMS, I don't assume anything. That's why I want new investigations. So I don't have to.
It's true he did and did not examine the steel. He saw some of it. Most of it he never saw. He wanted a scientific investigation. There wasn't one.
Dr. Astaneh's attempts to study the steel were obstructed and finally he gave up his empirical studies to concentrate on computer modeling.
Self contradictory and making shit up.
DU, if it was iron, the color of the material shows it was significantly hotter than 1800 F.
Oh dear, so disappointing.
F- Brian.
FYI- Your still ignoring the other teams who were there who according to your own source, who you choose to listen to and ignore at your whim, were taking samples and examining it. You declaring it not scientific is nothing but your say so. Like always your dictation is not reality.
Sorry but out of 5 agencies who were at Ground Zero, beginning with some the day after 0 reported incendiary cuts signs of explosives, etc. Fact free truth.
I'm not making stuff up. Read Astaneh's testimony to the House Science Committee. There are several other interviews with him.
Here's one with CBS:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/terror/main503218.shtml
"If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That’s only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major machine, a major manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."
Read Astaneh's testimony to the House Science Committee.
I did and as I demonstrated you have not because had you, you would know his major complaints had nothing to do with your claims. But you chose to ignore him then and you still do. Keep cherry picking.
DU, molten iron is significantly hotter than 1800 F.
GMS, I am not an expert on who was and was not at the site and what they did. I do know there was no scientific examination of the steel because Dr. Astaneh says so and because NIST does not have the steel samples to support their hypothesis that the fires weakened the steel.
Instead NIST relies on a computer model which was fudged by simply upping the input parameters until they generated a collapse. That's reverse-engineering, "dry-labbing", not science.
It's true he did and did not examine the steel.
This really needs to be saved for posterity.
I do know there was no scientific examination of the steel because Dr. Astaneh says so and because NIST does not have the steel samples to support their hypothesis that the fires weakened the steel.
Stop lying he never said that. Funny, IIRC Astenah's own study included a column sample that failed during the fire. Oh right thats another example of you cherry picking.
FYI- Every team who was there disagrees with you. They all say they were there. They all say they took samples. They all say they examined the steel. 0 describe finding signs of any CD. 0 subscribe to any brand of trutherdom.
The goat molester prevaricates, "...no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted."
Bullshit! Not only are you contradicting yourself, you are bald-faced lying, goat molester.
Annealing studies confirm that many structural members reached a temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade (1112 degrees Fahrenheit), as cited in Mechanics of Progressive Collapse by Zedenek Bazant and Mathieu Verdure, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, March 2007.
Grade: F-
GMS, Dr. Astaneh was able to study some steel. But most of it got away from him. So he did examine the steel, but he did not examine the steel. Is that too subtle for you? I have a car, but it doesn't run, so I don't have a car.
He certainly said there was not a scientific examination of the steel. He described what was necessary for one, and he contrasted that with the reality of one guy, "just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on."
Whatever samples may have been taken, quite clearly they were not enough, because NIST does not have steel samples to support its claims.
GayTardBully, Dr. Bazant's statement in the "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse" betrays his careless work. He says "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed by annealing studies of steel debris."
He cites NIST (2005)(248 pages) for that. That's NCSTAR1.
NIST's annealing studies do not confirm that. In fact, NCSTAR1 says (p. 180) "None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies...."
Dr. Bazant is confusing the results of the annealing studies with the parameters of the computer simulation. That's the quality of the scientific analysis upon which you rely, UtterFail.
History is going to look back at clowns like Bazant and Sunder and despise them.
The goat molester deliberately quote mines and misrepresents Bazant's paper, and scribbles, "...'many structural steel members heated up to 600°C, as confirmed by annealing studies of steel debris.'...NIST's annealing studies do not confirm that. In fact, NCSTAR1 says (p. 180) 'None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures ABOVE 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies.'"
This is proof positive that you're intellectually dishonest--a compulsive liar.
Do you see that word "above"?
That means the structural steel reached a temperature of 600 degrees and NO MORE.
In addition, you're quote mining and misrepresenting the content of Bazant and Verdure's paper.
This is what the paper really says, sans your lying, quote mining and blatant misrepresentation of the content found therein--and I quote:
"...Because a significant amount of steel insulation was stripped, many structural members heated up to 600 degrees centigrade, as confirmed by the annealing studies of the steel debris (NIST 2005) [the structural steel losses about 20% of its yield strength already at 300 degrees centigrade and about 85% at 600 degrees centigrade (NIST 2005); and exhibits significant viscoplasticity or creep above 450 degrees centigrade (e.g., Cottrell 1964, p. 299), especially in the columns overstressed due to load redistribution; the press reports right after September 11, 2001 indicating temperature in excess of 800 degrees centigrade, turned out to be groundless, but Bazant and Zhou's analysis did not depend on that]." -- Zedenek Bazant and Mathieu Verdure, Journal of Engineering Mechanics, ASCE, March 2007.
Thus, we can see that you're lying again, goat molester. You deliberately ommitted the portion of Bazant's paper that describes the HUGE LOSS OF YIELD STRENTH AT 600 DEGREES CENTIGRADE.
And, as always, you prove that you have no credibility and cannot be trusted to tell the truth.
Grade: F-
The goat molester prevaricates, "...Dr. Bazant is confusing the results of the annealing studies with the parameters of the computer simulation. That's the quality of the scientific analysis upon which you rely, UtterFail."
Once again, you're trying to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact.
In fact, you offered not one scintilla of evidence to support that assertion; thus, it's safe to assume that you're lying, once again.
Grade: F-
They recovered the plane out at the Fresh Kills site. I don't know if they laid it out on a grid, but the bottom line is that they didn't have to.
We know what caused the crash. There is no mystery to this end.
TWA 800 is an example of a mystery, and why we went to great expense and effort to retrieve the wreckage from the bottom of the sound. It wasn't obvious as to what caused the crash, and it wasn't until they'd reassembled the plane did they figure out the wiring caused the crash.
There was no investigation because we knew the who,what,when,where, and why of the crash.
Rational people accept this.
GutterBall, Dr. Bazant claimed that the the annealing studies confirmed that "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C". This is not true. Nowhere does NIST say that the steel heated up to 600 degrees. NIST is citing a metallographic analysis technique that detects exposure to temperatures above 600 C.
For you to suppose that saying "None of them were above 600 C" means "They were 599 C" is absurd.
NIST says (p. 181 NCSTAR1) that only three of their samples reached temps above 250 C (480 F)--and those were all perimeter columns, not core columns.
Dr. Bazant must be confusing the sims with the empirical data, because his assertion is consistent with the sims, but not the empirical results.
MGF, if they recovered the plane at Fresh Kills, I guess that means the fires' temps did not exceed the melting point of Aluminum, and that the molten metal pouring out of WTC2 was iron, not aluminum.
Typical UtterFail logic: 1) He won't answer the question, therefore he can't answer and 2) It wasn't above 600 so it must have been 599.
The goat molester deliberately quote mines and misrepresents The NIST Report, and scribbles, "...NIST's annealing studies do not confirm that. In fact, NCSTAR1 says (p. 180) 'None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies....'"
More quote mining and deliberate misrepresentation of the NIST Report.
Here's what page 180 of the NIST Report really says--and I quote:
"...None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure."
At 300 degrees centigrade, the crystal structure of steel shifts to a softer, weaker form. At 600 degrees centigrade the shift in crystal structure equals an 85% loss of yield strength. Thus, collapse was inevitable.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...GutterBall, Dr. Bazant claimed that the the annealing studies confirmed that "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C". This is not true. Nowhere does NIST say that the steel heated up to 600 degrees. NIST is citing a metallographic analysis technique that detects exposure to temperatures above 600 C."
Would someone care to translate that pack of lies from retard into English?
"...For you to suppose that saying "None of them were above 600 C" means "They were 599 C" is absurd."
Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.
That's a deliberate misrepresentation of what I wrote.
Here's what I wrote: "...That means the structural steel reached a temperature of 600 degrees and NO MORE."
It's not absurd at all. And the NIST Report directly contradicts your lies.
"...NIST says (p. 181 NCSTAR1) that only three of their samples reached temps above 250 C (480 F)--and those were all perimeter columns, not core columns."
False.
Your opinion is not evidence.
"...Dr. Bazant must be confusing the sims with the empirical data, because his assertion is consistent with the sims, but not the empirical results."
False. That's your unsubstantiated opinion, not a fact.
How many times must I tell you? I DON'T WANT YOUR OPINION! THE OPINION OF A PROVEN HABITUAL LIAR AND FAILED JANITOR ISN'T WORTH THE ASCII CHARACTERS YOU WASTE TO POST IT.
Grade: F-
GutterBall, you are dishonestly conflating the time-temoperature tests with the metallographic analysis. They are saying that the conditions necessary to alter the microstructure were not met.
NIST had 236 steel samples. Only three of them showed heating above 250 C. None of them showed heating above 600 C. Learn to read.
OOO, he's mad! Yeah, I know it's frustrating to get pwned by an unemployed janitor. But that's okay, you should be used to it by now, UtterFail.
Bullshit! You have some explaining to do, mister.
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
YOU DELIBERATELY VIOLATED THE RULES OF DEBATE AGAIN, WHICH IS SOMETHING YOU DO CONSTANTLY.
Explain yourself, or you're finished, mister. I've had just about enough of you. Put up, or go fuck yourself--you lying, intellectually dishonest sack-of-shit.
"...GutterBall, you are dishonestly conflating the time-temoperature [SIC] tests with the metallographic [SIC] analysis. They are saying that the conditions necessary to alter the microstructure were not met."
How many times must I tell you? I DON'T WANT YOUR OPINION! THE OPINION OF A PROVEN HABITUAL LIAR AND FAILED JANITOR ISN'T WORTH THE ASCII CHARACTERS YOU WASTE TO POST IT. EITHER OFFER PROVE TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ASSERTIONS, OR SHUT THE FUCK UP.
"...NIST had 236 steel samples. Only three of them showed heating above 250 C. None of them showed heating above 600 C. Learn to read."
I know how to read, and you're lying.
Again, offer proof to substantiate your assertions, or shut the fuck up.
"...OOO, he's mad! Yeah, I know it's frustrating to get pwned by an unemployed janitor. But that's okay, you should be used to it by now, UtterFail."
Your opinion is NOT evidence. The only thing you've "pwned" is your own credibility.
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
Here's more proof that you quote mined the NIST Report.
"...None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. These results provide some confirmation of the thermal modeling of the structures, SINCE NONE OF THE SAMPLES WERE FROM THE ZONE WHERE SUCH HEATING WAS PREDICTED." -- NCSTAR1, Final Report, page 180.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR1.pdf
In other words, you lying son-of-a-bitch, YOU DELIBERATELY THREW OUT THE MODELING DATA THAT PREDICTED TEMPERATES OF 600 DEGREES C WERE IN FACT WIDELY PRESENT IN THE STRUCTURE AS WAS REPORTED ON PAGES 141 THROUGH 147 OF THE NIST REPORT.
Shall I directly quote pages 141 through 147--you lying son-of-a-bitch?
You're finished, goat molester.
I have you by the balls--you lying, quote mining, intellectually dishonest sack of dog excrement.
Here's the content from page 141 of the NIST Report:
"...Results for a typical floor (floor 81) showed that temperatures of 700 degrees C to 760 degrees C were reached for over approximately 15% of the west floor for less than 10 minutes. Approximately 60% of the floor steel had temperatures between 600 and 700 degrees C for 15 minutes. Approximately 70% of the floor steel had temperatures that exceeded 500 degrees C for 35 minutes...Inward bowing was necessary but not sufficient condition to initiate collapse. In both WTC1 and WTC2 significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary to initiate building collapse." -- NCSTAR1, Final Report, page 147 and 148.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR1.pdf
Thus, it's proven that Dr. Bazant wasn't confused or dishonest at all. He reported the results faithfully, and his conclusions are perfectly valid based on the simulation data.
AGAIN, YOU DELIBERATELY, AND WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION, THREW OUT THE MODELING DATA THAT PREDICTED TEMPERATURES OF 600 DEGREES C OR MORE WERE IN FACT WIDELY PRESENT IN THE STRUCTURE AS WAS REPORTED ON PAGES 141 THROUGH 147 OF THE NIST REPORT.
Thus, you stand exposed as a liar, once again, goat molester.
Check and mate
GutterBall, are you ever going to stop beating your wife? Answer me! What do you have to hide?
Thanks for the quote: "NONE OF THE SAMPLES WERE FROM THE ZONE WHERE SUCH HEATING WAS PREDICTED."
That's proves my point. How could the samples show heating at 600 C if they were from zones without hot fires? So your quote proves that you are wrong and that Dr. Bazant is wrong too.
I deliberately threw out the modeling data because synthetic modeling data is not an annealing study. Dr. Bazant claimed that the annealing study showed that most of the steel was heated to 600 C. That was not true.
By all means, directly quote pages 141 through 147, and I will walk you through it line by line and teach you how to read.
Page 141 is talking about a computer model. It is not talking about an annealing study. The annealing study is an empirical study of physical samples of steel.
You've gone over the bend, GutterBall. You can't tell a computer game from reality.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Oh, and UtterFail, I note that you still haven't supported your claim (3/01 13:56) that USGS was at Ground Zero and established fire temps of 1800 F before the towers fell. I'm not going to let you get away with that.
"...That's proves my point. How could the samples show heating at 600 C if they were from zones without hot fires? So your quote proves that you are wrong and that Dr. Bazant is wrong too."
Can you read, idiot?
Read it again until you get it through your thick skull:
"...None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. These results provide some confirmation of the thermal modeling of the structures, SINCE NONE OF THE SAMPLES WERE FROM THE ZONE WHERE SUCH HEATING WAS PREDICTED."
Samples from the zones where temperatures in excess of 600 degrees C were reached were not available to the engineers, as a result thermal modeling (which includes simulated annealing) was performed. Obviously, there would be no need for thermal modeling if samples from the zones where temperatures in excess of 600 degrees C were made available. THAT'S WHY SIMULATION WAS VITAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE DETAILS OF THE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING AND, ULTIMATELY, THE COLLAPSE MECHANISM.
FAIL.
Continued...
"...That's proves my point. How could the samples show heating at 600 C if they were from zones without hot fires? So your quote proves that you are wrong and that Dr. Bazant is wrong too."
Can you read, idiot?
Read it again until you get it through your thick skull:
"...None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. These results provide some confirmation of the thermal modeling of the structures, SINCE NONE OF THE SAMPLES WERE FROM THE ZONE WHERE SUCH HEATING WAS PREDICTED."
Samples from the zones where temperatures in excess of 600 degrees C were reached were not available to the engineers, as a result thermal modeling (which includes simulated annealing) was performed. Obviously, there would be no need for thermal modeling if samples from the zones where temperatures in excess of 600 degrees C were made available. THAT'S WHY SIMULATION WAS VITAL TO UNDERSTANDING THE DETAILS OF THE DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING AND, ULTIMATELY, THE COLLAPSE MECHANISM.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9983809/Optimization-of-Reinforced-Concrete-Structures-by-Simulated-Annealing
FAIL.
Continued...
Continued...
"...I deliberately threw out the modeling data because synthetic modeling data is not an annealing study. Dr. Bazant claimed that the annealing study showed that most of the steel was heated to 600 C. That was not true."
False.
You threw out the modeling data because you're a liar. The modeling data clearly shows that temperature IN EXCESS OF 600 DEGREES WERE ACHIEVED--you liar. Read it again until you get it through your thick skull:
"...Results for a typical floor (floor 81) showed that temperatures of 700 degrees C to 760 degrees C were reached for over approximately 15% of the west floor for less than 10 minutes. Approximately 60% of the floor steel had temperatures between 600 and 700 degrees C for 15 minutes. Approximately 70% of the floor steel had temperatures that exceeded 500 degrees C for 35 minutes...Inward bowing was necessary but not sufficient condition to initiate collapse. In both WTC1 and WTC2 significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary to initiate building collapse." -- NCSTAR1, Final Report, page 147 and 148.
FAIL
"...By all means, directly quote pages 141 through 147, and I will walk you through it line by line and teach you how to read."
I've already given you the relevant material from page 141 through 147 at 20:48. Can you read? Obviously not.
FAIL
"...Page 141 is talking about a computer model. It is not talking about an annealing study. The annealing study is an empirical study of physical samples of steel."
False. Today, annealing studies are virtual and are performed by computer, as I proved above (see the hyperlink).
FAIL.
"...You've gone over the bend, GutterBall. You can't tell a computer game from reality."
Projecting again, moron?
FAIL.
Grade: F-
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
It must be quite discouraging for you, UtterFail, Mr. StubbyPaws, to be so thoroughly pwned by an unemployed janitor that you must rate your own work F-. That's gotta hurt.
Please reference the sections in NCSTAR1 and NCSTAR1-3 where it says that the annealing studies were simulations. They are talking about the physical 236 steel samples, 98% of which do not show heating above 480 F.
Citing a virtual annealing study is another one of your desperate "Here's a zebra, and that proves there's no such thing as a horse!" arguments. A virtual study is nothing but circular reasoning. "Here is what would have happened if it was heated to 600 C."
So you are proving my point. NIST's steel samples do not show what Dr. Bazant claims. 98% of NIST's steel samples do not showing heating above 480 F.
You have not demonstrated your claim that "Today, annealing studies are virtual and are performed by computer", you have not demonstrated that NIST's annealing study was virtual and not empirical, and you are proving my point that you can't distinguish between a computer game and reality.
"...You have not demonstrated your claim that "Today, annealing studies are virtual and are performed by computer", you have not demonstrated that NIST's annealing study was virtual and not empirical, and you are proving my point that you can't distinguish between a computer game and reality."
Yes, I have demonstrated that the annealing study was virtual, and the link I supplied proves that virtual annealing is the standard.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9983809/Optimization-of-Reinforced-Concrete-Structures-by-Simulated-Annealing
FAIL
Now, stop changing the subject and trying to weasel out of your complete failure to prove me wrong.
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
GutterBall, you have not demonstrated that NIST's annealing study was virtual. I see nothing in NCSTAR1 or NCSTAR1-3 that suggests that it was. They talk about mud-cracked paint. Was that virtual mud-cracking?
Also, how about backing up your claim that USGS showed the pre-collapse fires to be 1800F?
And when are your going to stop beating your wife?
You are proving my point. NIST has no steel samples to prove its claims that fire weakened the steel, and must rely on dry-labbed, circular-reasoned, computer-gamed sims to convince the GullibleBilked that fires brought down the WTC.
"...GutterBall, you have not demonstrated that NIST's annealing study was virtual. I see nothing in NCSTAR1 or NCSTAR1-3 that suggests that it was. They talk about mud-cracked paint. Was that virtual mud-cracking?"
YES, I HAVE--YOU GOD DAMNED JACKASS!
WHAT THE HELL DO YOU THINK THERMAL MODELING IS--YOU IDIOT?
How could they make the following determination without virtual annealing, which is part of any modeling software package (e.g., SP2000)?
"...Results for a typical floor (floor 81) showed that temperatures of 700 degrees C to 760 degrees C were reached for over approximately 15% of the west floor for less than 10 minutes. Approximately 60% of the floor steel had temperatures between 600 and 700 degrees C for 15 minutes. Approximately 70% of the floor steel had temperatures that exceeded 500 degrees C for 35 minutes...Inward bowing was necessary but not sufficient condition to initiate collapse. In both WTC1 and WTC2 significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary to initiate building collapse." -- NCSTAR1, Final Report, page 147 and 148.
You're a clueless idiot and a liar, goat molester.
FAIL
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
GutterBall, you're melting down.
What do I think thermal modeling is? I think it's a computer model. When NIST talks about its annealing studies, it's always talking in terms of its 236 steel samples--and never in terms of a computer model. I've asked you to show me where NIST says it's annealing studies are virtual, and I'm still waiting for an answer.
Your 147 and 148 page quote has to do with (reverse-engineered) temperature modeling. It says nothing about annealing studies referring to the physical steel. I defy you to show me where NIST says the computerized temperature modeling is an annealing study.
When are you going to either a) support your claim that USGS measured 1800 F fires before collapse or b) admit that you just made that up?
I don't know what drives your compulsion to lie to try to prove what everybody thinks they already know, but it's quite baffling. If your wife lets you do it she must not like you very much.
"...What do I think thermal modeling is? I think it's a computer model."
What do you think virtual annealing is--you dork? It's a computer model based on an algorithm. Read the document I gave you, jackass:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9983809/Optimization-of-Reinforced-Concrete-Structures-by-Simulated-Annealing
"...Your 147 and 148 page quote has to do with (reverse-engineered) temperature modeling. It says nothing about annealing studies referring to the physical steel. I defy you to show me where NIST says the computerized temperature modeling is an annealing study."
Get it through your thick skull, idiot. Virtual annealing is part of any structural analysis software (ie., SAP2000) suite, which includes virtual annealing and thermal modeling. ANSYS, INC also provides virtual annealing software as part of its modeling suite.
And don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I've worked for corporations that make extensive use of SAP2000 and ANSYS. I was personally responsible for deploying the software, securing and maintaining the application and license license servers and training the engineers to use of the software. I've forgotten more about SAP2000 and ANSYS than you'll ever know.
Continued...
"...What do I think thermal modeling is? I think it's a computer model."
What do you think virtual annealing is--you dork? It's a computer model based on an algorithm. Read the document I gave you, jackass:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9983809/Optimization-of-Reinforced-Concrete-Structures-by-Simulated-Annealing
"...Your 147 and 148 page quote has to do with (reverse-engineered) temperature modeling. It says nothing about annealing studies referring to the physical steel. I defy you to show me where NIST says the computerized temperature modeling is an annealing study."
Get it through your thick skull, idiot. Virtual annealing is part of any structural analysis software (ie., SAP2000) suite, which includes virtual annealing and thermal modeling. ANSYS, INC also provides virtual annealing software as part of its modeling suite.
And don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I've worked for corporations that make extensive use of SAP2000 and ANSYS. I was personally responsible for deploying the software, securing and maintaining the application and license license servers and training the engineers to use of the software. I've forgotten more about SAP2000 and ANSYS than you'll ever know.
Continued...
"...What do I think thermal modeling is? I think it's a computer model."
What do you think virtual annealing is--you dork? It's a computer model based on an algorithm. Read the document I gave you, jackass.
"...Your 147 and 148 page quote has to do with (reverse-engineered) temperature modeling. It says nothing about annealing studies referring to the physical steel. I defy you to show me where NIST says the computerized temperature modeling is an annealing study."
Get it through your thick skull, idiot. Virtual annealing is part of any structural analysis software (ie., SAP2000) suite, which includes virtual annealing and thermal modeling. ANSYS, INC also provides virtual annealing software as part of its modeling suite.
And don't tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, because I've worked for corporations that make extensive use of SAP2000 and ANSYS. I was personally responsible for deploying the software, securing and maintaining the application and license license servers and training the engineers to use of the software. I've forgotten more about SAP2000 and ANSYS than you'll ever know.
Continued...
Continued...
"...I don't know what drives your compulsion to lie to try to prove what everybody thinks they already know, but it's quite baffling. If your wife lets you do it she must not like you very much."
I'm not lying, you're lying!
"...I defy you to show me where NIST says the computerized temperature modeling is an annealing study."
The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...Under contract to NIST, Leslie E. Robertson Associates (LERA) constructed a global reference model of
each tower using the SAP2000, version 8, software...The models then served as references for more detailed models for aircraft impact damage analysis and for thermal-structural response and collapse initiation analysis." -- NIST NCSTAR 1 (Draft)
Thus, you are proven wrong again.
FAIL
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
From ANSYS software we find--and I quote:
"...ANSYS Academic software (ANSYS Multiphysics) was used to understand the annealing of the structures."
http://www.ansys.com/Industries/Academic/University+of+Michigan,+U.S.A.
Got it, jackass?
Check and mate
So we're full circle, UtterFail.
I said no scientific study of the steel was permitted. You countered with Bazant's claim that annealing studies confirm that many structural members reached a temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade.
When I said that Bazant was confusing the empirical annealing studies with the computer models, you denied it and accused me of lying.
And after a whole lot of bullshitting around, you are left arguing that the annealing study to which Bazant referred was a a computer study--which is what I said in the beginning. So what you started out denying, you wind up claiming to be expert in.
You are total bullshit.
From NIST we read the following:
"...A finite element model of the full 96th floor of WTC 1 was translated from the SAP2000 reference models into ANSYS 8.1 for detailed structural annealing evaluation...The model was used to evaluate structural response under dead and live loads and elevated structural temperatures, identify failure modes and associated temperatures and times to failure, and identify reductions in modeling complexity for global models and analyses. The deformation and failure modes identified were floor sagging between truss supports, floor sagging resulting from failure of a seat at either end of the truss, and failure of the floor subsystem truss supports." -- NIST NCSTAR 1 (Draft)
Check and mate
Come on, goat molester. Squeal like a pig!
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
Face it, goat molester, you've been nailed to the wall again.
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"...And after a whole lot of bullshitting around, you are left arguing that the annealing study to which Bazant referred was a a computer study--which is what I said in the beginning. So what you started out denying, you wind up claiming to be expert in."
I never denied any such thing.
Good God, you're absolutely shameless. Is there any lie you won't tell?
You said--and I quote: "...I defy you to show me where NIST says the computerized temperature modeling is an annealing study."
Well, I gave you the evidence directly from the NIST Report Draft and posted the relevant information at 00:43 and 00:55.
Thus,
Check and mate
Now, answer the questions--you lying maggot:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
And a denial will NOT be accepted as an explanation. You were caught red-handed; thus, there is no possible denial or excuse for your intellectual dishonesty--period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
He certainly said there was not a scientific examination of the steel.
Quote him.
UtterFail, the final report on p. 99 says "A finite element model of the full 96th floor of WTC 1 was translated from the SAP2000 reference models into ANSYS 8.1 for detailed structural evaluation."
The word "annealing" does not appear.
Talk about your quote mining! Why do you quote the draft report instead of the final?
"Squeal like a pig!" Let's see, where did I hear that before? How are you at banjo, UtterFail? Come to think of it, you do look a lot like that banjo playing kid in the movie! Was that you?
Yesterday at 3/01 18:34 you responded to my assertion that Dr. Bazant was confusing the empirical annealing studies with the computer games, you said: "you're trying to elevate your worthless opinion to the realm of fact.... It's safe to assume that you're lying, once again."
And now you are claiming that my "lying" and "worthless opinion" is the truth, you are denying that you ever said otherwise and you are either making up a quote or quote-mining. GutterBall, your kind of behavior is not just F-, it gets you expelled from the school.
GMS, I already did quote Dr. Astaneh. (3/01 15:54) He described the kind of investigation that was needed, and he contrasted it to "just myself running around trying to figure out what’s going on." Then he said
"You have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/terror/main503218.shtml
There are two sources of confusion about these "annealing studies" that UtterFail lies so shamelessly about.
The empirical annealing studies that NIST's report refers to (see p. 180-181, NCSTAR1) are studies of the actual steel samples. They do not support Dr. Bazant's claim that "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C".
The virtual studies that Bazant says "confirm" his claim, are studies not of the actual condition of the steel, but of what would have happened had the steel been subjected to high temperatures.
These are two very different things, and to try to conflate them is incompetent and dishonest.
Also, GutterBall claimed that USGS was at Ground Zero on 9/11 measuring the temps in the building before it fell. Despite repeated requests she has failed to provide the link to support this claim.
GutterBall, is this you?
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_BIwI0ohGh-s/SjZp8a5BYRI/AAAAAAAABxg/JZyLkDaxHUM/s1600-h/deliverance_dueling_banjos.jpg
"...The word "annealing" does not appear."
Bullshit!
This is beyond ridiculous. You're lying, goat molester. I have the pdf file in front of me and the word "annealing" is there.
The following quote, moreover, proves the engineers used modeling software to perform the annealing studies.
"...Results for a typical floor (floor 81) showed that temperatures of 700 degrees C to 760 degrees C were reached for over approximately 15% of the west floor for less than 10 minutes. Approximately 60% of the floor steel had temperatures between 600 and 700 degrees C for 15 minutes. Approximately 70% of the floor steel had temperatures that exceeded 500 degrees C for 35 minutes...Inward bowing was necessary but not sufficient condition to initiate collapse. In both WTC1 and WTC2 significant weakening of the core due to aircraft impact damage and thermal effects was also necessary to initiate building collapse." -- NCSTAR1, Final Report, page 147 and 148."
Where do you think the high temperature values came from if not a virtual annealing study?
And how do you explain the post at 00:43, that proves ANSYS software is capable of performing an annealing study?
"...ANSYS Academic software (ANSYS Multiphysics) was used to understand the annealing of the structures."
Get it through your thick skull, liar, a thermal model is an annealing study.
FAIL
Now, I'm fed with the lying, goat molester. And I'm also fed up with the stonewalling.
Answer the questions, liar:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
"...The virtual studies that Bazant says "confirm" his claim, are studies not of the actual condition of the steel, but of what would have happened had the steel been subjected to high temperatures."
What the Hell do you think modeling software does--you idiot?
Modeling software, like SAP2000 and ANSYS are used to "fill in the gaps" when no real structural steels samples are available. It's called SIMULATION--you idiot.
A virtual annealing study is PURE SIMULATION, and the data is perfectly valid.
And that's why you quote mined the NIST Report. Look at my post at 22:57. What does the portion of the NIST quote you deliberately omitted say?
"...None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C for longer than 15 minutes. This was based on NIST annealing studies that established the set of time and temperature conditions necessary to alter the steel microstructure. These results provide some confirmation of the thermal modeling of the structures, SINCE NONE OF THE SAMPLES WERE FROM THE ZONE WHERE SUCH HEATING WAS PREDICTED."
See the words in UPPER CASE FONT? That's the reason why ANSYS and SAP2000 were necessary. It was necessary to SIMULATE THE FIRES, in order to determine how the building was damaged, evaluate structural response under dead and live loads and elevated structural temperatures, identify failure modes and associated temperatures and times to failure, and identify reductions in modeling complexity for global models and analyses.
Obviously, you don't really know what an annealing study is, or why a virtual annealing study is necessary in the absence of real structural steel gathered from the collapse.
FAIL
Now, I'm fed with the lying, goat molester. And I'm also fed up with the stonewalling.
Answer the questions, liar:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
GutterBall, you are being deliberately deceptive. Yes, in the final NCSTAR1 "the word annealing is there". But it is not there on page 99 in association with the language you quoted from the draft report. It has been removed (if it was ever there at all).
Let us return to the context of this discussion 3/1 16:53.
I had said "No scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted."
You tried to refute this by citing Bazant's claims that NIST's annealing studies showed that "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C".
I showed that Bazant was referring to computer sims, not empirical studies, and you said I was lying.
Now you are agreeing that I was right about the sims.
I was also right about the original statement: "No scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted." The fact that you and Bazant must resort to reverse-engineered, circularly-reasoned computer sims instead of actual empirical steel studies shows that what I was saying was correct.
When are you going to back up your claim that USGS obeservations studies showed fire temps of 1800
F before collapse?
You are a lying ape like Craig Ranke is a lying ape, like Kevin Barrett is a lying ape, and like William Rodriguez is a lying ape.
Why would someone waste his time making up lies to try to support what most people (ignorantly) believe anyway? UtterFail's behavior makes no sense.
You didn't read one word I wrote, did you?
In fact, you've completely ignored the substance of my post because you know I'm right.
FACT: The data obtained for the virtual annealing simulation is valid.
FACT: The data obtained from the virtual annealing studies "fills in the gaps" and allows the engineers to understand what happened to the twin towers.
FACT: You're trying desperately to change the subject, because you know I'm telling the truth about the annealing studies.
Your dishonesty and bad faith drips from every post you write.
FAIL
Now, I'm fed with the lying, goat molester. And I'm also fed up with the stonewalling.
Answer the questions, liar:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
GutterBall, your comparing apples and oranges. Yes, the data for the computer sim is valid: If the steel got to be 600 C, then it loses this much strength.
That's the wrong question. The question is, did the steel get to 600 C? NIST's empirical anealing studies showed that it did not, and you are trying to confuse the issue by invoking the assumption of the sims as if they were conclusions.
You exhibit so much incompetence and dishonesty both, that I really can't tell when you're one or the other. You're just like GWB that way.
"...Why would someone waste his time making up lies to try to support what most people (ignorantly) believe anyway? UtterFail's behavior makes no sense."
You haven't proven that I lied.
In fact, I caught you lying and quote mining. That's why you won't answer my questions, because you're trying to bury your lies under a mountain of spam.
You're the most dishonest, underhanded, lying, two-faced cocksucker I've ever encountered.
It's no wonder the 9/11 "truth" movement kicked your out. You're intolerable.
FAIL
Now, I'm fed with the lying, goat molester. And I'm also fed up with the stonewalling.
Answer the questions, liar:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
GutterBall, when are you going to stop beating your wife? Answer the question, or you will stand accused of stone walling, and I will conclude that you do not intend to stop beating your wife.
"...That's the wrong question. The question is, did the steel get to 600 C? NIST's empirical anealing [SIC] studies showed that it did not...[blah][blah][blah]."
False.
Read it again until you get it through your thick skull:
"...These results provide some confirmation of the thermal modeling of the structures, SINCE NONE OF THE SAMPLES WERE FROM THE ZONE WHERE SUCH HEATING WAS PREDICTED."
Just because no samples were provided doesn't mean accurate predictions can be made with modeling software. OTHERWISE WHAT'S THE POINT OF DESIGNING THE SOFTWARE OR EMPLOYING THE SOFTWARE TO PERFORM A SIMULATION?
Face it, you're just babbling ignorant gibberish about a subject you know nothing about.
"...and you are trying to confuse the issue by invoking the assumption of the sims as if they were conclusions."
No one is trying to "confuse the issue" but you, goat molester.
You're not an engineer. You're not a scientist. And the gibberish and lies you post, while you dance around like chicken with your head chopped off, is proof positive of that assertion.
FAIL
Now, I'm fed with the lying, goat molester. And I'm also fed up with the stonewalling.
Answer the questions, liar:
[1] Why did you deliberately quote mine Bazant's paper? (see my post at 18:32)
[2] Why did you deliberately quote mine the NIST Report? (see my post at 19:26)
[3] Why did you deliberately misrepresent my argument? (see my post at 19:35)
Explain yourself, or you stand accused of stonewalling again.
"...GutterBall, when are you going to stop beating your wife? Answer the question, or you will stand accused of stone walling, and I will conclude that you do not intend to stop beating your wife."
That's it. I've had enough of your bad faith and tomfoolery.
YOU LOSE THE DEBATE AGAIN BECAUSE YOU REFUSE TO DEBATE.
I REPEAT: STONEWALLING AND CHANGING THE SUBJECT IN ORDER TO HIDE YOUR LIES, QUOTE MINING, INCOMPETENCE AND GROSS ERRORS IS NOT DEBATE.
Now, go fuck yourself, goat molester. You're an idiot.
"...That's the wrong question. The question is, did the steel get to 600 C? NIST's empirical anealing [SCI] studies showed that it did not and you are trying to confuse the issue by invoking the assumption of the sims as if they were conclusions."
Cherry picking the data in order to support your propaganda isn't science, it's intellectual dishonesty.
You can't throw out the virtual annealing simulation studies because a sample from the debris pile wasn't collected.
The simulations are conclusive, whether you like it or not. The software predicted that temperatures above 700 degrees C were to be expected on the west side of the building. Throwing out that data, AS YOU DID, is cherry picking the data, which is intellectual dishonesty.
BEFORE YOU CAN THROW OUT THE DATA, YOU MUST INVALIDATE THE DATA. A LACK OF PHYSICAL SAMPLES FROM THE DEBRIS PILE DOES NOT INVALIDATE THE DATA.
Again, you don't know what you're talking about. You're babbling bullshit and lying, as usual.
GayTardBully, did you never heard the expression "Garbage In, Garbage Out?"
You are confusing the totally invented input parameters of a computer model with scientific data.
I said no scientific examination of the steel was permitted. I was right. And you are trying to claim that a fictional computer model is scientific data. You are confusing a computer game with reality.
In your mind you may be Conan the Keyboardian, but in physical reality you're just BlubberBoob who can't climb a flight of stairs without getting all huffy.
No scientific examination of the steel was permitted, and all your bloviating dishonest obfuscation of the issue doesn't change that fact.
"...GayTardBully, did you never heard the expression 'Garbage In, Garbage Out?'"
Yes, and you're living proof of the validity of the expression.
"...You are confusing the totally invented input parameters of a computer model with scientific data."
Wrong. You have no proof that the data was fudged. You're making accusations without the benefit of evidence. FAIL.
You have utterly failed to invalidate the data, Cherry picking the data in order to support your propaganda isn't science, it's intellectual dishonesty. You can't throw out the virtual annealing simulation studies because a sample from the debris pile wasn't collected, or it invalidates your conspiracy theory.
That's cherry picking--pure and simple.
"...I said no scientific examination of the steel was permitted. I was right."
False.
"...And you are trying to claim that a fictional computer model is scientific data. You are confusing a computer game with reality."
Babbling again about a subject that you know nothing about? Making idiotic claims without the benefit of evidence isn't proof.
Is that why corporations pay hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for modeling software licenses, so engineers and scientists can play computer games? Is that why corporations trust modeling software, and make critical decisions based on the data produced by modeling software?
You're full of crap, as usual.
A computer model is scientific data, and the data obtained is valid until it's is falsified by other means. So far, no one, including you, has falsified the data produced by NIST--period. FAIL
"...No scientific examination of the steel was permitted, and all your bloviating dishonest obfuscation of the issue doesn't change that fact."
Repeating the same lies over-and-over again is not proof of anything other than your boundless capacity for dishonesty.
FAIL
GutterBall, you have admitted yourself (after lying about it before) that there are no empirical data to support Dr. Bazan't claim that "many structural steel members heated up to 600°C".
A computer model is scientific data in that if you plug in 600 C it shows 50% weakening or whatever. A computer model does not prove its assumptions, and all your bloviating does not change that fact. Maybe your inability to understand these simple concepts helps explain why a Pakistani teenager got your job.
"...GutterBall, you have admitted yourself (after lying about it before) that there are no empirical data to support Dr. Bazan't claim that 'many structural steel members heated up to 600°C'."
Lying again and going out of your way to avoid the substance of my argument, goat molester?
Can you read--you moron?
"...A computer model is scientific data in that if you plug in 600 C it shows 50% weakening or whatever."
"or whatever"?!?!?!?!?
Thanks for proving, once again, that you have no idea what you're talking about, goat molester.
FAIL
"...A computer model does not prove its assumptions, and all your bloviating [SIC] does not change that fact."
"[F]act"?
No one "plugged in 600 C"--you fool. Fire simulation software was used to develop a fire trajectory model. The model, which is based on verifiable data collected by fire science investigators, was used to develop the model. The temperatures are derived from that model, and the data is perfectly valid until it is falsified by other means. So far, not you, or anyone else, has falsified NIST's data or the conclusions derived from the data. Once again, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Is babbling bullshit all you know?
Pathetic. FAIL.
"...Maybe your inability to understand these simple concepts helps explain why a Pakistani teenager got your job."
Babbling again, and lying doesn't add the force of credibility to your argument. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that you lost your "career" mopping floors to a Pakistani refugee who smells almost as bad as you.
Isn't it amazing that the goat molester, a man with no qualifications to discuss engineering whatsoever, is an expert on simulation and modeling software?
He's never used modeling software, yet he's an expert on the subject.
The truth, of course, is much easier to explain: He's babbling about a subject that he doesn't understand. In fact, he has not one day of experience using modeling software to add the force of credibility to his idiotic ideas.
FAIL.
By all means, goat molester, continue to babble about a subject you know nothing about. You're only making a fool of yourself in the process.
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.
UtterFool, you make it worse and worse! Time and time again, you prove my point. You're walking the plank! You know they say the hero only dies once, the coward a thousand times? If you had just admitted you were wrong at the beginning, you only would have beem wrong once, but you're wrong again and again and again and again.
So first you claimed that Bazant was not referring to computer models, then you claimed that he was, then you claimed that all annealing studies are computer models, then you claimed that the assumptions of the ANSYS models were scientific data, and now you're claiming that those data come from a completely different model that you won't identify.
All of which proves my original point from 3/1 11:30, that no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted, and the point that 236 steel samples do not support the claim that fires weakened the steel.
So now, pray tell, where did the ANSYS software get the data? You didn't identify the source. You also have failed many times to back up your claim (3/1 14:19) that "USGS confirms that the fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse".
You're a joke.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF I am not wrong. Unlike UtterFail I don't need to be wrong in order create the illusion of proving my point.
By admitting when I am wrong, I learn very quickly to avoid making claims I can't prove. My claims upthread are all true: 1) no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted, that 2) NIST's 236 samples do not show heat damage of any structural consequence, that 3) Dr. Bazant was referring to the computer model and not to the empirical studies, that 4) UtterFail lies about what NCSTAR1 says about "annealing studies", that 5) UtterFail has not backed up his claims about USGS observations of pre-collapse fire temps of 1400 F, that 6) UtterFail's claims that I am quote-mining and lying were lies
M Gregory Ferris wrote, "...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."
That's the best advise I've had in some time, sir.
The goat molester should be shunned and ignored.
Babble on, goat molester.
UtterFail, when are you going to back up your claims about USGS observations of pre-collapse fire temps of 1400 F?
You remind me of Willie Rodriguez. I asked him what evidence he had for his claim that there was an internal 22-story collapse in WTC1, and he threatened to cancel his Bay Area appearance rather than answer the question. So then I asked him if any of the 15 people he claimed he'd single-handedly rescued had names, and why he didn't give details of these rescues in his thrilling inspirational story. And then he started to threaten me.
Ignoring me would be very good advice for you, UtterFail, because you just make a fool of yourself when you try to debate me.
These threads would go a lot better if you would ignore me. You just say your ignorant bullshit, and I'll point out how wrong you are, and I'll make fun of you, and you can pretend I didn't say anything. That will work out best for everybody.
Since when do psychopaths "debate"?
Seek psychiatric intervention, Pinocchio.
so, snug, are you ever going to answer my request on how I "disrepected" the victims in this video?
Bill, I respect you a lot, but maybe you need to take a break from arguing with Brian. Reason and facts are pointless when dealing with him.
Just mock him for the failure that is his life. He has no comebacks for that.
Ian, what makes you think my life is a failure?
Condoleezza Rice is a failure. Philip Zelikow is a failure. Shyam Sunder is a failure. Not me.
Brian, please seek professional help.
Ian, what makes you think my life is a failure?
The fact that you're an unemployed loser who can't even mop floors competently and the fact that your only solution is delusional babble about your greatness relative to others.
Condoleezza Rice is a failure. Philip Zelikow is a failure. Shyam Sunder is a failure. Not me.
See what I mean?
Brian, please never change. You're just so wildly hilarious with your never-ending stream of insane posts.
I didn't say I was great. I said Condi Rice was a failure.
I guess UtterFail is never going to back up his lying claim that USGS monitored the pre-collapse temps in the WTC and found them to be 1400 dollars.
You wouldn't happen to be a lying psychopath and a hypocrite, would you goat molester?
Since when is debate a one-way street?
If you won't answer my questions, why should I respond to your questions?
Hypocrite.
It's not a question. It's a fact that you have not backed up your claim that USGS monitored the pre-collapse fire temps and found them to be 1400 F.
As long as you refuse to back up that claim, the suspicion is justified that, like many of your claims, you just made it up.
That's not an answer, goat molester, that's an evasion.
I asked you three questions. Answer them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
What's the matter, goat molester. Having troubles getting your lies and evasions straight?
GutterBall, I'm not making any claims. You are making claims you refuse to back up.
These tactics of sophistry are very familiar to me. I cut my internet debate teeth challenging Bushbots, and they lied using the exactly the same techniques that you do.
Your refusal to support your claim may be because you can't, or it may be a rhetorical device. One technique lying internet sophists like yourself use to cover their trail is to create a fight about some trivial point like your USGS claim and then after dozens of posts of back and forth, triumphantly reveal the source--giving an impression of victory when all they did was back up some trivial claim like any honest person would. You wouldn't be setting out to do something like that, would you?
You lied in your 6th post in this thread when you claimed "Next, Cole assumes, without the benefit of evidence, that the steel 'melted', and asks disengenously, '[w]hat can melt steel and explain all the evidence?'"
When Mr. Cole cites Newsweek at 1:40 in the video, he has just summarized this evidence:
1. video (molten metal pouring out)
2. eyewitness (FDNY Capt. Ruvolo)
3. forensic and photo evidence (microspheres and NASA thermal images)
4. tangible evidence (sulfidated steel samples from FEMA Appendix C)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4
And you accuse Cole of dishonesty. You're a liar, Bill.
"...GutterBall, I'm not making any claims. You are making claims you refuse to back up."
That's not an answer, goat molester. It's another evasion.
Furthermore, you made DOZENS of unsubstantiated claims in this thread alone, which you steadfastly refuse to back up.
Now, try to focus your shit-for-brains for one moment, and answer the questions:
[1] You wouldn't happen to be a lying psychopath and a hypocrite, would you goat molester?
[2] Since when is debate a one-way street?
[3] If you won't answer my questions, why should I respond to your questions?
I have to attend a meeting, however, I'll be back soon.
Prediction: You'll completely avoid my questions again, and spew another evasion.
He won't answer them directly. He never does. It's how can-men work, they counter with their own question (I'm just asking questions...) to change the subject and if you bite on them they change the subject away from...the truth.
Example: Brian often sites the RJ LEE report so he can bring up his iron spheres crap, THEN he turns around and says that the area was never scientifically investigated. That does not include the NYPD, NYFD, New York State, FBI, ATF, and FEMA personel who were scientists.
Like I said, it's not that he doesn't actually believe that there was no scientific investigation (he frequently quotes RJ Lee), it's just that he doesn't care. It's about winning his little argument, not about advancing a solid theory. Pick a thread on SLC that's over 70 posts and you can often see Brian defend opposite sides of an issue. That's the mental defect, the pyschopathy, it's all about the win and not about the cause.
How Brian responds within a thread shows zero consistency if he has to debate three or more people.
It's not like when some first-time troofer who stumbles into the room posting platitudes about inside jobs and guided missiles. They give up and go away. Not Brian. Why? He doesn't care. Not one bit.
GutterBall, it's not a question. It's a fact that you have not supported your claim about the USGS observation of pre-collapse temps, and the inference from that fact that your claim is a lie is entirely reasonable.
You not supporting your claims and me not answering your stupid pseudo-Socratic questions are in no way comparable.
MGF, I never said anything to the effect that "the area was never scientifically investigated". I said the steel wreckage was not scientifically investigated--and the fact that NIST has no steel samples to support its claims and so must rely on virtual GIGO annealing studies proves my point.
RJ Lee's study and USGS's study were of the dust.
I'm not interested in debating theories (though I will shoot down a bullshit theory when I can). I'm interested in establishing facts.
I defend opposite sides not to win but to establish truth, which is rarely binary, much as UtterFail tries to live in a one-bit world.
I didn't say I was great. I said Condi Rice was a failure.
Nobody cares what a delusional lunatic like you thinks.
Brian, just look at how many posts you've had all day. If you want to convince the literally tens of people left who still have doubts about the official story on 9/11, it's best not to lie about your status as an unemployed janitor.
Goat molester, why do you continue to post your bullshit?
After all, I told you that you are persona non-grata. That means you are fully unacceptable or unwelcome, and I will no longer respond to your baiting and con artist routine.
If you won't answer my questions, FUCK YOU!
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Is that clear enough for you, goat molester?
Adios, pendejo!
That's very clear. Look, it's snoopy on the doghouse! Is that what passed for computer science when you were getting your degree? Is that why you're now unemployable?
You can't win without lying, and I call you on your lies, and all you can do is cut and paste ASCIIgraphs.
Goat molester, allow me to give you a conservative estimate of your IQ:
....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\...
Curse You, Red Baron!
Look at Mr. IT, illustrating the power of one-bit binary thinking! When are you moving back to Texas, UtterFail? Pwned by an unemployed janitor! Now there's one for the resumé!
The only thing you've "Pwned" is your own nonexistent "credibility."
Tell us more about computer simulation and modeling, while you know nothing about the subject, goat molester.
Or try to tell us no scientific investigation of ground zero was allowed, while you quote mine the RJ Lee Report.
You're a liar and a hypocrite, goat molester. Now, go play in the freeway.
UtterFail, your habit of spamming multiple threads with the same erroneous claims is rude.
I did not say no scientific investigation of ground zero was allowed, while quoting the RJ Lee Report. You said yourself in the "Updates" thread (3/3 14:21) said "The RJ Lee Report is not an 'engineering' investigation. The RJ Lee Report is an analysis of environmental contaminants."
What I said (3/1 11:30 in this thread) was:
"Given that most of the wreckage was just scooped up with heavy equipment, no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted."
You have whirled, dodged, weaved, and deceived, but you can't change that fact.
The goat molester whines, "...When are you going to back up your claim that USGS obeservations studies showed fire temps of 1800 "
NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers 15 minutes after impact(e.g., see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36, page 127).
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201.pdf
FAIL
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
GutterBall, NIST invented whatever specs they needed to make the building fall down.
You claimed (3/1 14:32) that "The USGS confirms that the fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers."
You refuse to provide a source for that claim. I think you made it up.
Pretend all you want, psychopath.
I gave you the link to the NIST Report, and the report clearly states that the temperature reached a peak of 1000 degrees C (1800 degrees F).
FAIL
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
UtterFail, the NIST report dry-labs and reverse-engineers to get the data they need to support their theory.
You claimed that USGS had made temperature observations before collapse of 1800 F. You won't provide a source for this claim. You made it up, and now you're using your usual tactic of saying "Here's my Hyundai, and that proves I have a Ferrari".
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
GutterBall, when did I lie?
My claims upthread are all true: 1) no scientific examination of the wreckage was permitted, that 2) NIST's 236 samples do not show heat damage of any structural consequence, that 3) Dr. Bazant was referring to the computer model and not to the empirical studies, that 4) UtterFail lies about what NCSTAR1 says about "annealing studies", that 5) UtterFail has not backed up his claims about USGS observations of pre-collapse fire temps of 1400 F, that 6) UtterFail's claims that I am quote-mining and lying were lies.
GutterBall, when did I lie?
Every hour of every day. No wonder the truth movement is dead.
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
UtterFail, I didn't lie. But you did again and again. It started when you cited Dr. Bazant's claim that annealing studies showed widespread heating to 600 C. This wasn't true, and I pointed out that Bazant must be confusing the computer models with the empirical annealing studies NIST did, which showed that none of their steel samples were heated enough to damage them in any structurally consequential way.
Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying weasel.
UtterFail, you can't show anywhere I lied. You lie to claim I lied.
I'll leave the squirming to you, maggot.
Hired gun reporters seldom dig below their paycheck for assassination.
You qualify as a gold digging axe man paid by your puppet masters to murder Jesse Ventura and most Americans.
Jess Ventura has served well in our military and has killed as ordered by our military for our government... Have you been down that road?
Jesse Ventura has more depth in his understanding than do any of his critics. Free Web Press - 2011
READ MY COMMENTS,ON JESSE VENTURA'S HARASSMENT OF HIS JFK ETERNAL FLAME SHOW,BLOG.,,,,DAVID FULTON3.COM / DAVIDFULTONTORTURE.COM...I TALK ABOUT;SNUFF FILMS,CHILD SEX SLAVES,BLACKMAIL,COVERT ASSASINATION SQUADS,BUSH CABAL / MOSSAD JOINT HEROIN VENTURE,ETC...I AM DAVID FULTON,..IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT YOUR GOVERNMENT HAS BEEN DOING,ALSO GO LOOK ME UP ON 'MY SPACE'.
Post a Comment
<< Home