Thursday, February 10, 2011

Sticking It To Penn and Teller



A normal person, after humiliating himself so badly, would not post it on YouTube. Fortunately, Troofers are not normal people, and so we get the huge entertainment value out of this clip. Like all the dolts, he has to give a speech first, in lieu of asking an actual question. And he misstates the number of "Truther" architects and engineers as 4200; the correct number is of course 42 million.

232 Comments:

At 10 February, 2011 20:32, Blogger Alan said...

I dont understand why it is so hard to figure out what happened to 7. The towers collapsed practically on top of it, gouged out a good chunk of the corner, firefighters said hours before it collapsed it was going to, it was tilting to the favored corner, etc. Twoofers need to get their own dose of reality.

 
At 10 February, 2011 21:17, Blogger paul w said...

Sorry, OT.

An Aussie truthers calls the Australian National Security Hotline to tell them about 9/11, vaccines, chipping, etc.

This is the OZ truthers at their very finest: calling a branch of govt security to complain about the NWO.

Go figure.

http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=9780

 
At 10 February, 2011 22:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Alan, your beliefs about WTC7 are obsolete. NIST's position is that structural damage had nothing to do with the initiation of the collapse. Had the tower been leaning, or severely damaged on one side, it would not have retained its planar morphology as it came down.

 
At 10 February, 2011 22:25, Blogger Pat said...

Well, if you want to take NIST's word for it, Brian....

 
At 10 February, 2011 22:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, I don't take NIST's word for it. But since they have devoted significantly more man-hours to the problem than I have, and since they were highly motivated to provide a plausible explanation for the collapse and the manner of collapse, I will suppose that their abandonment of the "scooped out south wall" hypothesis as an indication that it was not consistent with what happened.

If I quote truther experts, your guys will poo-poo those. And if I quote NIST you'll be all over me for that.

 
At 10 February, 2011 22:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Isn't that special. The goat molester agrees with the NIST Report while simultaneously disagreeing with the NIST Report.

This is classic Orwellian doublethink. And I quote:

"...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth." -- George Orwell, 1984, Chapter 3, page 32.

You're an idiot, goat molester.

Now, go play in the freeway--you degenerate.

 
At 10 February, 2011 22:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...truther experts."

That's an oxymoron--you fucking jackass.

 
At 10 February, 2011 23:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I know in your world it is contradictory, Orwellian, and degenerate to accept the data in one part of a report while rejecting the conclusions in other parts, but for educated folks in the rational world it's quite a familiar concept.

Hast thou by any chance plucked out thine eye lately?

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

You're not "educated," goat molester.

You're an idiot with a GED, at best.

On the other hand, I'm quite well educated--which explains why I consistently expose the dishonesty, lies and logical fallacies that drip from every post you make to this blog.

Deal with it, douche bag.

 
At 10 February, 2011 23:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your belief that your obsolete technical training constituted an education is given the lie by your consistent inability to reason competently.

 
At 10 February, 2011 23:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

Since when is a BA and an MA in mathematics "obsolete"? Since when is an MS in Computer Science and Applied Mathematics "obsolete"?

Talking out of your ass again, goat molester?

How does Orwellian doublethink, lies, obfuscation, and nonsense add the force of "credibility" to your argument, shit-for-brains?

 
At 10 February, 2011 23:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

How could I be so blind?

Obviously, mopping floors and cleaning toilets trumps higher education.

If only I suffered from tertiary syphilis, like the esteemed goat molester.

I'm not worthy.

 
At 11 February, 2011 00:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

In your case, clearly it was obsolete before you even completed it.

 
At 11 February, 2011 00:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

If I want your worthless opinion, goat molester, I'll beat it out of you.

On the other hand, I'm happy to see that you're not letting tertiary syphilis get in the way of your boundless capacity for deceit and, above all, stupidity.

 
At 11 February, 2011 07:14, Blogger Len said...

LOL the loon said THEY were "disrespectful" to HIM as if haranguing them and calling them liars was ‘respectful'.

I looked at his site and he seems to subscribe to every CT under the sun HIV doesn’t cause AIDS, chemtrails, Obama isn’t a “natural born citizen”, Federal Reserve, Illuminati, freemasons etc etc

 
At 11 February, 2011 07:55, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, I know in your world it is contradictory, Orwellian, and degenerate to accept the data in one part of a report while rejecting the conclusions in other parts, but for educated folks in the rational world it's quite a familiar concept.

Brian, you wouldn't know rational if it gave you a list of 273 unanswered questions.

GutterBall, your belief that your obsolete technical training constituted an education is given the lie by your consistent inability to reason competently.

Brian, your belief that you know how to reason competently is not reasonable. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that GuitarBill doesn't reason competently?

In your case, clearly it was obsolete before you even completed it.

Brian, your belief that GuitarBill's education is obsolete is amusing. You make up your facts.

Anyway, Brian, can you tell us who blew up WTC and why they did it?

 
At 11 February, 2011 08:06, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

And no surprise here this loony is into chemtrails too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VRuc4c5RVWk#at=28

 
At 11 February, 2011 08:16, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

From his web site

BOB TUSKIN SPEAKS ON OUTRAGEOUS AIDS FRAUD

ALOE VERA: BIG PHARMAS WORST NIGHTMARE

STUDIES LINK WATER FLUORIDATION TO REDUCED IQ IN CHILDREN

MASS DEATH OF BIRDS AND FISH: IS THERE A COVER UP?

This kook has got it all Covered.

 
At 11 February, 2011 09:25, Blogger Lazarus Long said...

"snug.bug said...
Pat, I don't take NIST's word for it."

Of course you don't.

You're insane.

 
At 11 February, 2011 09:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't know who blew up the WTC, if anyone.

But I know that the official reports on the subject are dishonest, incomplete, obfuscatory, and unbelievable. And until we get some credible investigations I'll stand with the architects and engineers, now 1400-strong, who provide compelling reasons why we need new investigations.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I don't know who blew up the WTC

Yeah Brian, you're whole life has been alot of "I don't Know".

You don't know anything, you haven't even graced us with your sources or evidence. All you have are just repeated words from a long dead cult.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

But I know that the official reports on the subject are dishonest, incomplete, obfuscatory, and unbelievable.

Ummm you have no evidence for all that, do you? Didn't think so dumbass!

And until we get some credible investigations I'll stand with the architects and engineers, now 1400-strong, who provide compelling reasons why we need new investigations.

Actually, until you get some credible evidence, you might have a slim chance. But that'll be a cold day in hell when you do have evidence to show.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:29, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I don't know who blew up the WTC, if anyone.

Of course not. Then you'd have to come up with a coherent theory, instead of babbling about thermite one moment and explosives the next.

I know who blew up the WTC.

But I know that the official reports on the subject are dishonest, incomplete, obfuscatory, and unbelievable.

Brian, your irrational beliefs about the official reports are amusing. You make up your facts.

And until we get some credible investigations I'll stand with the architects and engineers, now 1400-strong, who provide compelling reasons why we need new investigations.

Nobody cares.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:58, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"And until we get some credible investigations I'll stand with the architects and engineers,"

Sounds a lot like Bill O'Reilly when he says because biological evolutionary science is too hard for him to understand he is sticking with the bible. Very common with religious beliefs like creationist and truthers.

Yes Brian we understand that you, a person of very low intelligence can't understand the NIST report that is written for smart people. And that you have aligned yourself with a small numbers of bottom of the barrel so call engineers. So What? There is not going to be a new investigation that explains stuff the intelligent members of society already understand. Just to satisfy a lowly simpleton janitor with questions?

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:58, Blogger Triterope said...

Again we see the 84% in action. The moment he mentions 9-11 Truth, the crowd starts booing.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, 1400 credentialed architects and engineers and 11,000 supporters is not nobody.

How many can you show who support the NIST report? You can't show even one who's not tainted with conflicts of interest.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, where do you get the idea that the NIST report is hard to understand? It's easy to understand.
It's dishonest, it's incomplete, it's obfuscatory, and it's unbelievable--but it's not hard to understand.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:07, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Bob Tuskin can't understand how jet leave condensation trails so he is standing with the chemtrail conspiracy theorist.

UFO loons can't understand how you can easily fake lights over the Jerusalem Dome of the Rock using AfterEffects, so they’re standing by alien spaceships.

Brian is in the company of the sorriest bunch of "Know Nothings"

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, where do you get the idea that the NIST report is hard to understand?

It is easy to understand, for me, but apparently not for a janitor like you, That is why you get so much of what it said do wrong, your low IQ make it a big conspiracy.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:13, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

1400 credentialed architects and engineers and 11,000 supporters is not nobody.

And not a one of them has designed anything over a story or two, and than only as architects not structural engineers. So yes you have a group who are nobodies in the world of large structure engineering. Gage is a joke.

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

You see Brian this is why truther will always be booed in public. They have people like you and Bob Tuskin. Silly little fools. Debunker have people like Ian and myself.

People who meet you see a nothing of a man, low of intelligence gullible to a religious cause. A person deserving of his lot in life as a person who scrubs toilets. People recognize me as bright, talented and quick witted, and no ones fool. The choice is easy.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:28, Blogger Triterope said...

Ian, 1400 credentialed architects and engineers and 11,000 supporters is not nobody.

The number of 9-11 Truthers in that auditorium sure looked like "nobody" to me.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

They don't laugh at me in public, DK.

GutterBall has had many opportunities to come and confront Richard Gage in public in the San Francisco Bay Area. He won't do it. He doesn't have the guts. He'll claim he doesn't have time, though he seems to have hours and hours to spend here grousing under a pseudonym.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:30, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

In 2003, three engineers at the University of Edinburgh published a paper in which they provisionally concluded that the fires alone (without any damage from the airplanes) could have been enough to bring down the WTC buildings. In their view, the towers were uniquely vulnerable to the effects of large fires on several floors at the same time.[64]
http://www.era.lib.ed.ac.uk/handle/1842/1216

Wow, and they’re not even in the US and they see the truth.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:33, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

They don't laugh at me in public, DK.

Well if you only hang out with truthers and other fools.

And if you note we laugh at you, and when I mention the things you say to others it get a laugh. You are always good as an example of the low life nature of truthers.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Reflections on the World Trade Center
The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.


Of course this guy know more on the subject than all the 1400 a&etruth people combined.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, 1400 credentialed architects and engineers and 11,000 supporters is not nobody.

Brian, your belief that they are not nobody is amusing.

How many can you show who support the NIST report? You can't show even one who's not tainted with conflicts of interest.

False.

DK, where do you get the idea that the NIST report is hard to understand? It's easy to understand.
It's dishonest, it's incomplete, it's obfuscatory, and it's unbelievable--but it's not hard to understand.


It's easy to understand for normal people, but for ignorant liars like you, it's tough to understand.

They don't laugh at me in public, DK.

How can anyone laugh at you in public when you spend 24/7 on the computer in your parents' house?

Believe me, Brian, very few people are as laughable as you. I mean, the truthers threw you out of their movement, how funny is that?

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:43, Blogger Ian G. said...

Anyway, on a day in which thousands of people in Egypt dealt a stinging rebuke to the logic of jihad by forcing a dictator from power with mass demonstrations (instead of suicide bombings), Brian is still babbling about magic thermite elves and imaginary widows.

It's quite hilarious to see how important Brian sees himself compared to how little the world even knows he exists.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:50, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

WORLD TRADE CENTER - SOME ENGINEERING ASPECTS


"Once one storey collapsed all floors above would have begun to fall. The huge mass of falling structure would gain momentum, crushing the structurally intact floors below, resulting in catastrophic failure of the entire structure. While the columns at say level 50 were designed to carry the static load of 50 floors above, once one floor collapsed and the floors above started to fall, the dynamic load of 50 storeys above is very much greater, and the columns at each level were almost instantly destroyed as the huge upper mass fell to the ground."

University of Sydney gets it right, But lets stand with a half assed architect.

 
At 11 February, 2011 12:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I've been following developments in Egypt very closely, and I know someone who just returned from a week in Tahrir Square.

DK, do you have a point about Mr. Robertson's article? Did you even read it? I don't only hang out with truthers. I do public 9/11 work on the street. That's why I don't do conspiracy theories.

 
At 11 February, 2011 12:20, Blogger James said...

Of course this asshat looks like Side Show Bob. Are there any truthers that aren't mongoloids?

 
At 11 February, 2011 12:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Mr. Robertson's knows why the towers fell, FIRE and fire only. And your idiot leader Gage is not qualified to lick Robertsons ass.

 
At 11 February, 2011 12:28, Blogger Triterope said...

I know someone who just returned from a week in Tahrir Square.

Do you really expect us to believe that you know someone?

 
At 11 February, 2011 12:28, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I do public 9/11 work on the street.

Street actions with your fellow idiots is nothing to brag about.

 
At 11 February, 2011 13:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, So how did Mr. Robertson know that just a few months after 9/11?

His claim that the design criterion was a slow 707 lost in fog is contradicted by a paper cited in "City in the Sky" that shows that the firm was using the spec of a 707 at 600 mph.

His claim that they did not design for jet fuel fires is contadicted by John Skilling's statement to the Seattle Times that the building would survive the fires.

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:02, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I've been following developments in Egypt very closely, and I know someone who just returned from a week in Tahrir Square.

Was it Willie Rodriguez? That seems to be the only person on earth that you care about.

I don't only hang out with truthers.

Right, they banned you from the movement.

I do public 9/11 work on the street.

San Francisco sure has its fair share of insane derelicts wandering the streets.

That's why I don't do conspiracy theories.

Except for everything you've ever posted here.

His claim that the design criterion was a slow 707 lost in fog is contradicted by a paper cited in "City in the Sky" that shows that the firm was using the spec of a 707 at 600 mph.

Stop lying, Brian.

His claim that they did not design for jet fuel fires is contadicted by John Skilling's statement to the Seattle Times that the building would survive the fires.

Well, there were also planes that hit the towers, causing massive damage. If you'd learn to Google, you'd know this.

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:27, Blogger paul w said...

I know someone who just returned from a week in Tahrir Square.


No, you do not.

That does not work any more, so stop it.

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, if you're going to accuse me of lying, you should at least check first. "City in the Sky" does indeed discuss a paper showing that the design criteria included impact from a 707 at 600 mph. If you would bother to go the Amazon and access the "look inside" function you could check this before making a fool of yourself.

paul w, it really amazes me how you guys seem to think you know things that you can not possibly know. I thought you imagined yourself to be critical thinkers.

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:43, Blogger Triterope said...

it really amazes me how you guys seem to think you know things that you can not possibly know.

This from a guy who lectures us on the World Trade Center elevator maintenance schedule, the movements of British commando forces, four-digit temperatures inside burning debris piles, top-secret NORAD procedures, the opinions of five women who've never met him and would spray him with mace if they did, and who apparently personally supervised the creation of the outline of the 9-11 Commission Report.

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...His claim that the design criterion was a slow 707 lost in fog is contradicted by a paper cited in 'City in the Sky' that shows that the firm was using the spec of a 707 at 600 mph."

Bullshit! You've never offered one iota of evidence to substantiate that assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the goat molester). The only "evidence" we have that "City in the Sky" made the "707 at 600 mph" assertion is your word, and your word alone. Thus, the claim is hearsay, because, as a proven habitual liar, you have no credibility, goat molester.

Continued...

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...His claim that they did not design for jet fuel fires is contadicted [SIC]by John Skilling's statement to the Seattle Times that the building would survive the fires."

Another bald-faced lie.

Skilling was talking about a 707 lost in the fog and traveling at 180 MPH, not a fully loaded 767 traveling at over 500 MPH.

The Seattle Times wrote, "...Concerned because of a case where an airplane hit the Empire State Building, Skilling's people did an analysis that showed the towers would withstand the impact of a Boeing 707....'Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed,' he said. 'The building structure would still be there.'"

Continued...

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Leslie Robertson, of course, completely contradicts the goat molester's pathological lying:

"...Yes, I do. I support the general conclusions of the NIST Report. It was prepared, by the way, not just by NIST, but by a series engineering firms around the country, who provided advise and assistance to NIST in their investigations. It was reasonably thorough and amounted to, as I recall, about $16 million of effort. Our firm participated, in a small way, by providing information about the basic structure that was constructed...The project was designed for the impact of a...ah...we call it a low-flying, slow flying Boing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time. Actually the intercontinental version. We envisioned it much as the case would be for the aircraft that struck the Empire State Building in the Second World War. More or less the same condition--lost in the fog--ie, an accidental impact by an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jet that actually hit it. In fact, those jets were flying well above their rated speed at that altitude." -- Leslie Robertson, Chief Structural Engineer for the World Trade Center Towers.

Continued...

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Thus, we see, once again, that the goat molester is lying.

The goat molester sources a dead man, John Skilling, and provides not one hyperlink to substantiate his claims.

The goat molester sources a book, "The City in the Sky," which can't be verified by hyperlink. Thus, we're required, once again, to take the goat molester's word for it.

Thus, it's safe to conclude that the goat molester is lying again.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "...Ian, if you're going to accuse me of lying, you should at least check first. 'City in the Sky' does indeed discuss a paper showing that the design criteria included impact from a 707 at 600 mph. If you would bother to go the Amazon and access the 'look inside' function you could check this before making a fool of yourself."

Here's the link to the "Look Inside" page for "City in the Sky."

Notice that not one of the goat molester's claims can be verified.

Thus, he's lying.

BUSTED LYING ONCE AGAIN, GOAT MOLESTER!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

When will you learn, goat molester?

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "...Ian, if you're going to accuse me of lying, you should at least check first. 'City in the Sky' does indeed discuss a paper showing that the design criteria included impact from a 707 at 600 mph. If you would bother to go the Amazon and access the 'look inside' function you could check this before making a fool of yourself."

Here's the link to the "Look Inside" page for "City in the Sky."

http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0805074287/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

Notice that not one of the goat molester's claims can be verified.

Thus, he's lying.

BUSTED LYING ONCE AGAIN, GOAT MOLESTER!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, "City in the Sky" can be verified by anyone who bothers to looks in Amazon "Look Inside".

It says that the paper on a 600 mph 707 was part of the design process.

Skilling said the building was designed for the fires. That's what I said he said, and that's what he said. Your claims that I was lying are a lie.

Robertson is not an independent engineer since his firm LERA had a contract with NIST. You still have not been able to name even one engineer who is independent of NIST who endorses their report.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, if you would bother to search on "707" in "City In the Sky" you would find p. 131, 132, and 133 discuss the 600 mph design criterion.

You claim to be a computer scientist, but you can't do a simple text search? I know someone who works at Google, but I sure as hell wouldn't recommend you to him for a job. You're not just as obsolete as your poofy hair, you're lame.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, if you would bother to search on "707" in "City In the Sky" you would find p. 131, 132, and 133 discuss the 600 mph design criterion."

I did find the passage, asshole. And all I discovered is that you're quote mining.

The book, "City in the Sky" doesn't claim the Towers could withstand an impact with a 707 traveling at 600 MPH. In fact, the book argues JUST THE OPPOSITE.

The book argues that the port authority didn't trust Skilling's calculations. And I quote:

"...At least that is how Wein saw it. And that was why Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation that the twin towers were 'unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane.'"

Thus, you're not only quote mining, you're misrepresenting the contents of the book.

BUSTED AGAIN--YOU LYING SCUMBAG!!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's right there on page 135--you lying douchebag!

"...At least that is how Wein saw it. And that was why Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation that the twin towers were 'unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane.'"

BUSTED QUOTE MINING AGAIN--YOU LYING SCUMBAG!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:44, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

His claim that they did not design for jet fuel fires is contadicted by John Skilling's statement to the Seattle Times that the building would survive the fires.

Because you are an idiot Brian you don't know Skilling died in 1998. So he sure as hell was not talking about 9/11. So you lie again.

Stick to being a janitor.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying douchebag!!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It's doesn't matter, Dave.

I caught the goat molester quote mining and misrepresenting the content of "The City in the Sky."

The goat molester is the scum of the Earth. He's lower than a snake's belly. You can't believe anything he says because he's an habitual liar.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, John Skilling said in 1993 that the towers were designed to withstand the fires from a jet crash.

GutterBall, where did you get the idea that Larry Wien was in the Port Authority? You're quote-mining. If you bother to read the book in context you see that Wien's gang was engaging in fear-mongering about the towers' safety before they were built.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:50, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Leslie Robertson was around to see the size of the fires and Skilling was NOT. And Leslie Robertson is a skilled structural engineer and Gage is not.

Also the people who built the Titanic SAID it was unshakable, but reality blew that all to hell. Brian is so devoid of thinking ability he can not grasp simple logic.

So Brian once again proves himself to be the ignorant half wit we all have come to know, and a lair to boot by conveniently ignoring the fact Skilling was dead on 9/11.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, where did you get the idea that Larry Wien was in the Port Authority? You're quote-mining. If you bother to read the book in context you see that Wien's gang was engaging in fear-mongering about the towers' safety before they were built."

Bullshit!

And you're proven to be a LIAR with one simple question: Who was right about the twin towers being "unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane", Skilling or Wein?

Fear mongering?

You're so full-of-shit your eyes are brown!

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:57, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian, you didn't know he was dead because everything you get comes from a conspiracy theorist site who ignore such stuff. You are in reality a true moron in keeping with your janitorial pay grade.

And the density of saying the WTC could not have fallen because a guy said so is simply astounding.

Seriously Brian it must be true what they say about you, you are mentally challenged, ergo a 58 year old janitor living with mom and dad. right?

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying douchebag!!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

DK, John Skilling said in 1993 that the towers were designed to withstand the fires from a jet crash.

That's nice, Brian.

GutterBall, if you would bother to search on "707" in "City In the Sky" you would find p. 131, 132, and 133 discuss the 600 mph design criterion.

False.

Isn't it about time for you to call us all "girls", Brian? You're getting all upset and that's usually when you do it.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, I knew Skilling was dead. That you're not embarrassed by claims to impossible knowledge shows your epistemological incompetence.

GutterBall, your circular reasoning shows you to be incompetent. I couldn't recommend you to Apple. What's the name of the street at Apple?

Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because cCircular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because
circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because

You really are lame, you know that?

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And now, let's have a look at pages 138 and 139 of "City in the Sky." And I quote:

"...There would be another airplane study later, by Leslie E. Robertson...What is known is that the calculations again focused on a Boeing 707, 'the largest jet aircraft in the air at that time,' as Robertson would describe it, crashing into one of the towers. The study assumed that the weight of the plane was 263,000 pounds, and that its speed was 180 MPH. Robertson calculated that under those highly specific circumstances, the tower would stand. Once again, the unavoidable fires were not taken into account. All of these carefully hedged conclusions would etch themselves into the minds of those outside the design effort in a simple way: As an assurance that the towers would stand if hit by an airplane...The Port Authority was about to discover the third flaw in the confident story line ginned up on the structure of the WTC, the storyline it was using to maintain support for the project in New York."

In other words, Skilling's calculations were in error, and he lied to the Port Authority about the twin towers' ability to withstand an impact with an airliner.

Thus, we can see that the goat molester claims about Skilling are false, AND THAT THE BOOK, "City in the Sky" ARGUES JUST THE OPPOSITE. THE TOWERS WERE NEVER BUILT TO WITHSTAND AN IMPACT WITH AN AIRLINER, AND SKILLING'S CLAIMS WERE PROVEN WRONG ON 11 SEPTEMBER 2001.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another nail in your coffin--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying douchebag!!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, your circular reasoning shows you to be incompetent. I couldn't recommend you to Apple. What's the name of the street at Apple?"

Now the proven liar and quote miner wants to lecture us about alleged "circular reasoning."

Notice that the goat fucker offers not one iota of evidence to substantiate his claim that I used "circular reasoning."

You're a joke, goat molester.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, goat fucker, spew more unsubstantiated nonsense, garnished with bald-faced lies.

Squirm, goat molester, squirm--you lying douchebag!!!!

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:38, Blogger Ian G. said...

On the day Hosni Mubarak resigns, ending a long dictatorship in the largest Arab country, Brian needs this day to be about him and his fantasies about invisible widows and thermite elves.

Brian, the victims of 9/11 don't want you babbling on their behalf, they want justice. You should be ashamed of yourself!

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you're quote-mining.

I wasn't talking about Robertson's study. I was talking about Levy's study based on a 600 mph 707 impact, and Skilling's statement that the bulding would survive the fire.

I was also talking about your lies in seeking to conflate Wien's gang with the Port Authority, and Skilling's statement with Robertson's study.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, according to you there are no victims of 9/11.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another nail in the goat molester's coffin. More proof the the book "City in the Sky" is SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE GOAT FUCKER CLAIMS.

From page 138 we read--and I quote:

"...All of the conclusions reached by the engineers on the resilience of the towers would be proved wrong if the huge fire set by the jet fuel softened that steel to the point at which it buckled. But no one at the firm or the Port Authority seriously investigated that possibility."

What were you saying about "read the book in context", goat fucker?

Thus, we can see once again that the goat molester is a lying son-of-a-bitch.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I wasn't talking about Robertson's study. I was talking about Levy's study based on a 600 mph 707 impact, and Skilling's statement that the bulding [SIC] would survive the fire."

Who cares what you were babbling about--you illiterate moron.

I was in the process of proving that the book "City in the Sky" doesn't make the argument you claim it makes.

The book "City in the Sky" doesn't in any way support the argument of the 9/11 "truthers". The book is clear: The designers of the twin towers mislead the port authority about the towers' ability to withstand an impact with an aircraft. The book clearly argues that the towers were never designed to withstand an impact with an aircraft, and Wein, et al, questioned the designers false claims with the words "unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane."

The events of 11 September 2001 proved that Wein, et al, were right to question the designers claims. After all, the buildings collapsed, which proves the towers were "unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane."

Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat molester is a douchebag and an idiot.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the book "City In the Sky" supports my claim that there were studies before the tower was built that showed that the towers could survive an impact from a 707 at 600mph.

You lied by claiming that was not true, and by claiming that Skillings's claim that the towers could survive the jet-fuel fire were based on Roibertson's study.

You also lied in claiming that Wien was the Port Authority. In fact he was a business rival of the Port Authority.

And then you engage in blatant circular reasoning to claim that because the building collapsed, Wien was right.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another nail in the goat molester's coffin. More proof the the book "City in the Sky" is SAYING THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THE GOAT FUCKER CLAIMS.

From page 134, we find the following:

"...Wien had something to say about the towers that would surpass it if the Port Authority had its way. Whatever the architectural merits of Yamasaki's vision--and Wien thought there were few--his own building [The Empire State building] would always have something that the twin towers were certainly not going to have, Wien told reporters. The Empire State building was structurally sound. The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe. especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse."

Thus, we can see once again that the goat molester is a lying son-of-a-bitch, who misrepresents the contents of the book "City in the Sky."

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

GutterBall, the fact that you take the fear-mongering claims of a business rival to the construction of the WTC as fact shows you to be incompetent.

You should relinquish check-writing authority to your wife. Please. For your daughters' sake.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, according to you there are no victims of 9/11.

False. There were almost 3,000 victims of 9/11. Learn to Google.

GutterBall, the book "City In the Sky" supports my claim that there were studies before the tower was built that showed that the towers could survive an impact from a 707 at 600mph.

I love how pure theory (Brian even says the towers weren't built yet) is ironclad fact to Brian. Just keep babbling about this, Brian, and we'll keep laughing at you.

You lied by claiming that was not true, and by claiming that Skillings's claim that the towers could survive the jet-fuel fire were based on Roibertson's study.

False.

You also lied in claiming that Wien was the Port Authority. In fact he was a business rival of the Port Authority.

Nobody cares.

And then you engage in blatant circular reasoning to claim that because the building collapsed, Wien was right.

False.

Wow, Brian, you're really having a bad day here. Maybe you should stick to babbling about the love of your life, Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:24, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, the fact that you take the fear-mongering claims of a business rival to the construction of the WTC as fact shows you to be incompetent.

You should relinquish check-writing authority to your wife. Please. For your daughters' sake.


My, such squealing!

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, the book "City In the Sky" supports my claim that there were studies before the tower was built that showed that the towers could survive an impact from a 707 at 600mph."

No one disputes that the studies were conducted--you jackass. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU QUOTE MINED THE PORTION OF THE BOOK THAT SUPPORTS YOUR SCURRILOUS LIES, AND THEN YOU IGNORED THE REMAINDER OF THE BOOK THAT PROVES THE DESIGNERS LIED ABOUT THE TOWER'S ALLEGED ABILITY TO WITHSTAND AN IMPACT WITH AN AIRLINER AND SURVIVE THE SUBSEQUENT FIRES.

Thus, you're a quote mining son-of-a-bitch!!!!

"...You lied by claiming that was not true, and by claiming that Skillings's claim that the towers could survive the jet-fuel fire were based on Roibertson's [SIC] study."

I did no such thing. How could I lie about a book I've never read until today--you scurrilous liar?

My argument is simple: THE BOOK DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT. YOU QUOTE MINED THE BOOK AND THEN IGNORED THE REMAINDER OF THE BOOK THAT PROVES SKILLING MISREPRESENTED THE BUILDING'S ABILITY TO WITHSTAND AN IMPACT WITH AN AIRLINER.

Thus, you're proven to be a quote miner and a liar.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, the fact that you take the fear-mongering claims of a business rival to the construction of the WTC as fact shows you to be incompetent."

Did the building collapse, or not, asshole?

Was Wien correct about the twin towers lack of structural integrity or not--you lying felcher?

FACE IT, YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING THE CONTENT OF THE BOOK. I CAUGHT YOU RED-HANDED.

NOW, STOP LYING AND ACCEPT DEFEAT, YOU NO ACCOUNT SON-OF-A-BITCH!

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...And then you engage in blatant circular reasoning to claim that because the building collapsed, Wien was right."

And that one sentence is all the proof we need to conclude that you're an insane liar.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ummm, GutterBall ...

I used the "City in the Sky" book as authority for my claim that there were studies on the WTC done under conditions of a 707 striking at 600 mph. And that is true. The book supports that claim.

How could I lie about a book I've never read until today

You could read it today and lie about it today. And such an argument is to be expected from someone so poorly educated as to be unable to recognize the petitio principii in their own arguments.

Bill, enjoy your wife and your daughters. You're obviously not cut out for extra-domestic life.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

You could read it today and lie about it today. And such an argument is to be expected from someone so poorly educated as to be unable to recognize the petitio principii in their own arguments.

Oh boy, now Brian's using latin words to try to sound smart instead of the delusional failed janitor that he is!

C'mon, Brian, you're obviously not capable of handling the kind of information that gets passed around by the adults here. Perhaps you could get your GED? That would be a first step towards getting the critical thinking skills necessary to be able to talk about 9/11.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I used the "City in the Sky" book as authority for my claim that there were studies on the WTC done under conditions of a 707 striking at 600 mph. And that is true."

Bullshit! YOU QUOTE MINED THE BOOK AND IGNORED THE PORTION OF THE BOOK THAT PROVES THE DESIGNERS MISREPRESENTED THE BUILDING'S ABILITY TO WITHSTAND COLLAPSE.

"...You could read it today and lie about it today. And such an argument is to be expected from someone so poorly educated as to be unable to recognize the petitio principii in their own arguments."

MORE BULLSHIT! You quote mined the book and misrepresented the contents found therein.

And that's the reason why I make the big bucks and you're an unemployed shut in who lives on handouts from the government.

Not only are you a liar, you're a loser.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let's recall all the DIRECT QUOTES from "The City in the Sky" that prove the goat molester quote mined the book.

"...At least that is how Wein saw it. And that was why Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation that the twin towers were 'unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane.'"

"...There would be another airplane study later, by Leslie E. Robertson...What is known is that the calculations again focused on a Boeing 707, 'the largest jet aircraft in the air at that time,' as Robertson would describe it, crashing into one of the towers. The study assumed that the weight of the plane was 263,000 pounds, and that its speed was 180 MPH. Robertson calculated that under those highly specific circumstances, the tower would stand. Once again, the unavoidable fires were not taken into account. All of these carefully hedged conclusions would etch themselves into the minds of those outside the design effort in a simple way: As an assurance that the towers would stand if hit by an airplane...The Port Authority was about to discover the third flaw in the confident story line ginned up on the structure of the WTC, the storyline it was using to maintain support for the project in New York."

"...All of the conclusions reached by the engineers on the resilience of the towers would be proved wrong if the huge fire set by the jet fuel softened that steel to the point at which it buckled. But no one at the firm or the Port Authority seriously investigated that possibility."

"...Wien had something to say about the towers that would surpass it if the Port Authority had its way. Whatever the architectural merits of Yamasaki's vision--and Wien thought there were few--his own building [The Empire State building] would always have something that the twin towers were certainly not going to have, Wien told reporters. The Empire State building was structurally sound. The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe. especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse."

Thus, it's easy to see that the goat molester QUOTE MINED THE BOOK AND THEN IGNORED THE REMAINDER OF THE BOOK THAT PROVES SKILLING MISREPRESENTED THE BUILDING'S ABILITY TO WITHSTAND AN IMPACT WITH AN AIRLINER.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:52, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Just because something has been designed to survive damage doesn't mean that it will. The Titanic, Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the Cypress Structure in Oakland are all examples of this.

An architech or an engineer would know this (at least the good ones).

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:57, Blogger Ian G. said...

Just because something has been designed to survive damage doesn't mean that it will. The Titanic, Challenger, Tacoma Narrows Bridge, and the Cypress Structure in Oakland are all examples of this.

An architech or an engineer would know this (at least the good ones).


But we're not dealing with an architect or an engineer here, we're dealing with an unemployed janitor who calls people "girls" when he gets pissed off.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, the fact that you take the fear-mongering claims of a business rival to the construction of the WTC as fact shows you to be incompetent."

Another bald-faced misrepresentation of the contents of the book "City in the Sky."

The book clearly states that Rosaleen Skehan and the NY Fire Department had raised doubts about the structural integrity of the twin towers, too. And I quote:

"...But those same engineers, all of them either working for the Port Authority or, like Skilling, under contract to it, did not think through the doubts that Rosaleen Skehan and her Fire Department friends were already starting to raise."

Thus, not only did Wien have doubts about the structural integrity of the twin towers, Rosaleen Skehan and the NY Fire Department also expressed doubts about the twin towers structural integrity.

As a result, you're proven to be a liar and quote miner once again, goat molester.

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's more proof that the NY Fire Depratment was critical of the WTC design practices.

John T. O'Hagan (1925–1991), 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York was critical of the WTC design and safety practices.

Wikipedia writes, "...He earned a reputation as a brilliant fire officer and a tough manager, despite his initial lack of knowledge of how to work the levers of city government. Even Chief O'Hagan, commanding a leader as he was, could not thwart a 1968 revision of the building code, drafted in large part by the real estate industry, that he thought thinned the margin of fire safety...Still, Chief O'Hagan did not give up. He returned in 1973 with safety measures added to the code. But they did not apply to the World Trade Center, which, being owned by another government agency, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was exempt from city codes — and fire inspections."

Thus, we can see that 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, John T. O'Hagan, was critical of the WTC design practices, too.

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

So GutterBall, if your claims that the towers were defectively designed are correct, that only proves my claims that the NIST report is dishonest--because NIST did not put forward that issue.

If you had any intellectual integrity at all, you should be joining with 1433 engineering and architectural professionals in calling for new investigations. But you don't, and you won't.

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So GutterBall, if your claims that the towers were defectively designed are correct, that only proves my claims that the NIST report is dishonest--because NIST did not put forward that issue."

No, wrong again. That the towers were not designed to withstand an impact with an aircraft, as Skilling falsely claimed, proves nothing about the NIST Report.

Why?

Because the NIST Report's scope did NOT include determining whether the twin towers were improperly designed. The NIST Report's sole purpose was to determine the collapse mechanism up to the point of failure--nothing more, nothing less.

"...If you had any intellectual integrity at all, you should be joining with 1433 engineering and architectural professionals in calling for new investigations. But you don't, and you won't."

I don't need to cavort with a group of charlatans who lie about the events of 11 September 2001.

On the contrary, I have known for several years that the towers' design was not robust or stalwart, through my study of the books written by John T. O'Hagan and the Marin County Postal Coast's investigative journalist, the late Jim Scanlon. It's no secret that the twin towers were poorly designed fire hazards that were prone to collapse.

9/11 "truth" will accomplish nothing. Only changing the design practices and building codes will prevent future tragedies.

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Scanlon wrote in August 2003, "...The Skyscraper Safety Campaign, composed of parents of families of firefighters and victims of the World Trade Center catastrophe, are actively organizing and campaigning to insure that whatever is built at the site is built strictly according to the City's new international building codes. The New York/New Jersey Port Authority, which owns the site, wasn't and isn't, strictly speaking, required to abide by the City's building codes. The Port Authority is resisting formal commitment to these rules but has said it will obey them voluntarily...The reader may remember that the materials and the novel structure of the Two Towers were never subjected to rigorous testing, that they were built without sprinkler systems (or sewage treatment) and their structural steel supports were inadequately fireproofed by a subcontractor with Mafia connections. (The contractor was shot to death during litigation in the early 1990s and his body dumped in the parking lot beneath the Towers.)"

The fact is the twin towers were not built to withstand an impact with an airliner. This is the 911 "truth" movements big lie and number 1 straw man argument.

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:42, Blogger Ian G. said...

9/11 "truth" will accomplish nothing. Only changing the design practices and building codes will prevent future tragedies.

Which is of course what has happened courtesy of the NIST reports that our failed janitor and sex stalker keeps babbling about as "dishonest".

 
At 12 February, 2011 08:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

So on Planet Bill, NIST's was charged with recommending improved fire safety, but did no analysis of blatant design defects in the towers nor any recommendations for outlawing such defects.

Engineer David Black says he did studies of a 727 impact for the Skilling firm.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yslyCOrphJs

Ian, as usual you make up your facts. What design changes did NIST recommend? Did they outlaw trussed floors or tube-and-core construction?

 
At 12 February, 2011 10:09, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, as usual you make up your facts. What design changes did NIST recommend? Did they outlaw trussed floors or tube-and-core construction?

They made it illegal to use spray-on thermite to decorate the steel beems of highrises.

 
At 12 February, 2011 10:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sure that was a great comfort to the widows.

 
At 12 February, 2011 10:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm sure that was a great comfort to the widows.

What widows are you talking about?

 
At 12 February, 2011 11:45, Blogger Bill said...

As typical, the coward who posted the video is blocking any dissenting view points.

 
At 12 February, 2011 12:00, Blogger Falcon Apoda said...

"..."...The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them..."..."

It reminds me of how truthers often say things like "...WTC7, which was NOT hit by a plane...", as if such a fact would render its collapse unexplainable by any means other than controlled demolition or somesuchother.

Of course, asserting this constitutes tacit admission that planes smashing into the Twin Towers did indeed have something to do with their eventual demise. And yet they continue to maintain that such a thing was impossible.

And 'round and 'round we go.

 
At 12 February, 2011 13:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So on Planet Bill, NIST's was charged with recommending improved fire safety, but did no analysis of blatant design defects in the towers nor any recommendations for outlawing such defects."

Back for another beating, goat molester? Fine, I'll beat you senseless again.

The twin towers were the property of the New York and New Jersey Port Authority. Any building erected on the property of the NY & NJ PA was EXEMPT from New York City's building codes and regulations. As a result, the building were NOT designed in a conventional way--the consequence being the twin towers lack of structural integrity.

"...This building [The twin towers] was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced." -- Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D.

Thus, the exemption from New York building codes and regulations--which, apparently, was perfectly legal--rendered any comparisons to skyscrapers that were built to NYC code moot.

Furthermore, the scope of the NIST Report is well defined and limited specifically to determination of the collapse mechanism up to the point of failure; thus, "analysis of blatant design defects in the towers" was not undertaken for that reason.

Logically, "any recommendations for outlawing such defects" has no meaning for the simple reason that the twin towers were exempt from NYC building codes and regulations.

So, tell us, goat molester, what part of "the twin towers were exempt from NYC building codes and regulations" don't you understand?

Continued...

 
At 12 February, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...Engineer David Black says he did studies of a 727 impact for the Skilling firm."

Completely and utterly irrelevant.

Why is it so difficult for you to grasp the idea that reality doesn't necessarily conform to an engineers calculations?

Engineers, scientists and mathematicians constantly make grave errors in judgment. After all, we're only human. Couple that fact with the need to win a contract for a project, and the incentives to hedge a calculation in favor of economic interests can be overwhelming.

Thus, it should surprise no one (with the exception of the goat molester, I suppose) that John Skilling, Leslie Robertson and Mr. Black deliberately hedged their calculations in a manner that gave the NY & NJ PA an inaccurate assessment of the twin towers potential for collapse.

It's called human nature, goat molester. And, as a result, human beings have an incredible propensity to deceive when their self-interest is at stake.

 
At 13 February, 2011 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, as usual you don't know what you're talking about, and you unwittingly compare apples to kiwis.

The Twin Towers were far from unique--the Sears Tower, John Hancock tower, and Standard Oil of Indiana building all used tube structure. The CCTV building in Beijing used tube structure and survived a raging inferno of manuy hours.

Your evidence-free belief that the twin towers lacked structural integrity contradicts every report that has been made--FEMA's, NIST's, and Weidlinger's. If your speculations are correct, then the official institutions are incredibly corrupt, and have participated in insurance fraud.

NIST states in the front matter to NCSTAR1: "NIST takes no position as to whether the design or construction of a building was compliant with any code."

If you would bother to look at the opening pages to NCSTAR1, you will see on page xxix that specific objectives of the report included the determination of "why and how" the towers collapsed. "How" would seem to require addressing the nature of the collapses themselves.
Another objective was to determine design and construction procedures and practices, which would appear to provide scope for the detection of blatant design defects.



Do you have a source for your claim that the scope of the Report was "limited specifically to determination of the collapse mechanism up to the point of failure" or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Since many other tube structure high rises remain in service, and since the option of retrofitted remediation to any design defects remains, your argument that the issue is mooted because of code jurisdiction is quite bizarre.


David Black's studies of a 727 impact for the Skilling firm are quite relevant because they show that Leslie Robertson's very limited studies were not the only airplane impact studies, and they show that a certain very opinionated and very ignorant internet poster was speaking from reckless ignorance when he called John Skilling a liar.

If you are going to claim that it's human nature for engineering professionals to lie for economic advantage, why are you so unreasonably resistant to the notion that the NIST scientists bowed down to group think and political authority?

It would have been highly embarrassing to the Skilling firm to have the towers fail in a hurricane. Your belief that they tolerated shoddy design is without evidence, it is cynical, it is reckless, and it is shameful.

 
At 13 February, 2011 11:52, Blogger Triterope said...

Yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak, yak.

That's all you're here to do, isn't it, Brian? Bury every statement under an avalanche of nonsense.

 
At 13 February, 2011 13:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...It would have been highly embarrassing to the Skilling firm to have the towers fail in a hurricane. Your belief that they tolerated shoddy design is without evidence, it is cynical, it is reckless, and it is shameful."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, asshole?

"...If the World Trade Center towers had been built in a more conventional way and in strict accordance with New York City building codes — from which they were exempt because they were built under the auspices of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey — the buildings probably would not have collapsed, and thousands of lives might have been saved...This building was so strange, and so many violations of practice and code were introduced...The design contains at least 10 unusual elements...For example, rather than using a traditional skeletal framework of vertical and horizontal columns, the twin towers relied partly on a "bearing wall" system in which the floors and walls worked together to support each other...That system allowed designers to use thinner steel in the buildings' columns and exterior than would be used in a traditional design...in some places the steel in columns was only one-quarter of an inch thick...Those are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down." -- Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Ph.D.

http://lettrist.blogspot.com/2006/09/berkeley-engineer-searches-for-truth.html

 
At 13 February, 2011 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

And what's this, asshole?

"...The Skyscraper Safety Campaign, composed of parents of families of firefighters and victims of the World Trade Center catastrophe, are actively organizing and campaigning to insure that whatever is built at the site is built strictly according to the City's new international building codes. The New York/New Jersey Port Authority, which owns the site, wasn't and isn't, strictly speaking, required to abide by the City's building codes. The Port Authority is resisting formal commitment to these rules but has said it will obey them voluntarily...The reader may remember that the materials and the novel structure of the Two Towers were never subjected to rigorous testing, that they were built without sprinkler systems (or sewage treatment) and their structural steel supports were inadequately fireproofed by a subcontractor with Mafia connections. (The contractor was shot to death during litigation in the early 1990s and his body dumped in the parking lot beneath the Towers.)" -- the late Jim Scanlon, Marin County Coastal Post Investigative Journalist, 2002.

Notice that I present evidence from credible sources, and the goat molester gives us his worthless, head-up-his-ass opinion.

Who would you believe? A nut bag, habitual liar and sex stalker, or credible sources?

 
At 13 February, 2011 14:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Here's the link to Jim Scanlon's article, titled "The End of Ground Zero."

http://web.archive.org/web/20030823050036/http://www.coastalpost.com/03/08/08.htm

 
At 13 February, 2011 14:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Prediction:

The goat molester will go ape-shit.

Why?

Because 9/11 "truth" is based on the erroneous assumption that the twin towers were incapable of collapse. Only "foul play," in the misinformed opinion of the troofers, could bring about the total collapse of the twin towers.

As I've already proven, from multiple sources, the structural integrity of the twin towers was brought into question prior to, and during, the construction by many prominent individuals, including Empire State Building owner Lawrence A. Wien; the 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, John T. O'Hagan; the NY Fire Department; and Rosaleen Skehan among others.

The revelation that the twin towers lacked structural integrity blows a hole a mile wide through the troofers idiotic conspiracy theories and accompanying propaganda campaign.

As Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl makes crystal clear, "[t]hose are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down."

 
At 13 February, 2011 15:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The following articles are from the Skyscraper Safety Campaign. The articles expose the reality of what happened on 11 September 2001, sans the lies, distortions, obfuscation and political propaganda promoted by the so-called 9/11 "truth" movement.

9/11 cops saw collapse coming.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040619.html

Building Code Reform Bill is Signed at City Hall June 21, 2004.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/building_code_reform.html

Evacuation Plans Due for High Rises in New York City.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040805.html

Falling Bodies, a 9/11 Image Etched in Pain.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20040910.html

Fireproofing Eyed in Trade Center Collapse.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20050405.html

Staircases in Twin Towers Are Faulted.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20050406_nyt.html

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton Commends Skyscraper Safety Campaign in Statement.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20050406_hclinton.html

Explaining the WTC disaster in gibberish.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/article_20050407.html

Muddled WTC report.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/toeditor_20050422.html

Safety at Ground Zero.

http://skyscrapersafety.org/html/toeditor_20050430.html

 
At 13 February, 2011 15:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Triterope wrote, "...That's all you're here to do, isn't it, Brian? Bury every statement under an avalanche of nonsense."

BINGO! You win the Spot The Fraud Contest.

The goat molester does NOT debate in good faith--and he never will.

In fact, the goat molester has more ulterior motives and hidden agendas lurking under his feigned veneer of "concern for the victims of 9/11" than a corrupt member of the United States House of Representatives or Senate. And if that revelation doesn't make you physically ill, nothing will.

 
At 13 February, 2011 15:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

9/11 "truth" is based on the erroneous assumption that the twin towers were incapable of collapse.

I'm used to hearing stupid statements from you, but that's a real zinger, GutterBall. 9/11 truth is based on unanswered questions, blatant dishonesty in official reports, and an official story that doesn't add up.

The revelation that the twin towers lacked structural integrity blows a hole a mile wide through the troofers idiotic conspiracy theories

You seem to be missing the point that if your claims are true, then the official reports are a dishonest coverup. If you had any integrity, you would be calling for new investigations and you would be calling for Leslie Robertson to be jailed.

 
At 13 February, 2011 15:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, asshole! I'm not "missing the point" at all.

In fact, you're ignoring the points I made here and here.

Your argument is irrelevant, illogical, completely unsubstantiated (your worthless opinion is not evidence, and it never will be evidence) and utterly erroneous.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:03, Blogger Ian G. said...

I'm used to hearing stupid statements from you, but that's a real zinger, GutterBall. 9/11 truth is based on unanswered questions, blatant dishonesty in official reports, and an official story that doesn't add up.

No, 9/11 truth is based on the fact that ignorant lunatics like you can't wrap your head around what happened that day, so you make absurd claims about unanswered questions and dishonest reports, but nobody cares what you think, Brian.

You seem to be missing the point that if your claims are true, then the official reports are a dishonest coverup. If you had any integrity, you would be calling for new investigations and you would be calling for Leslie Robertson to be jailed.

Poor Brian, he just really isn't capable of thinking clearly.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

I ignored them because they were irrelevant. Even if they are true, the fact that NIST left them out of its report is the important point--and you should be the first one to demand an honest investigation instead of a coverup.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...If you had any integrity, you would be calling for new investigations and you would be calling for Leslie Robertson to be jailed."

Wrong again, idiot!

Again, what part of "[t]he New York/New Jersey Port Authority, which owns the site, wasn't and isn't, strictly speaking, required to abide by the City's building codes" don't you understand--you fucking idiot.

It's IMPOSSIBLE to prosecute an entity that is EXEMPT from New York City and international building codes.

Thus, your point is irrelevant and, as a result, moot.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you just make it worse and worse. Your fixation on code violations is loony. There is such a thing as criminal negligence, and you seem to be asserting (with no evidence at all) that this was a case of it.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I ignored them because they were irrelevant. Even if they are true, the fact that NIST left them out of its report is the important point--and you should be the first one to demand an honest investigation instead of a coverup."

There was no cover-up--you stupid fuck.

The New York and New Jersey Port Authority is EXEMPT from New York City and international building codes. Thus, you cannot prosecute anyone.

Get it through your thick skull--you jackass.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you just make it worse and worse. Your fixation on code violations is loony."

What codes are you babbling about--you fucking jackass?

There are no code violations because the New York City and international code doesn't apply to the NY & NJ Port Authority.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...There is such a thing as criminal negligence, and you seem to be asserting (with no evidence at all) that this was a case of it."

And that statement is proof positive that you read at the third grade level. Your reading comprehension skills are nonexistent.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Since the illiterate goat molester doesn't understand the meaning of the word exempt, I'm forced to provide the definition:

Exempt tr.v To free from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject

Exempt adj Freed from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject; excused

Exempt n One who is exempted from an obligation, a duty, or a liability.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exempt

Got it, goat molester?

The New York and New Jersey Port Authority is EXEMPT from New York City and international building codes. As a result, they are not subject to prosecution or liability for non-conformance to New York City or international building codes.

Got it, jackass?

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your continued insistence that the exemption from local building codes somehow justified criminal negligence in engineering an unsafe structure is quite bizarre.

If as you claim the buildings were defectively designed, I don't understand how the lack of code jurisdiction impinges at all on NIST's coverup of the defective design.

You make no sense at all.

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:31, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, your continued insistence that the exemption from local building codes somehow justified criminal negligence in engineering an unsafe structure is quite bizarre.

Brian, can you explain what the design flaws of the WTC have to do with your claims that 9/11 was an inside job?

If as you claim the buildings were defectively designed, I don't understand how the lack of code jurisdiction impinges at all on NIST's coverup of the defective design.

See, we're completely off-topic because you'll never let anything go because you'll never admit error.

You make no sense at all.

Babble babble babble....

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, your continued insistence that the exemption from local building codes somehow justified criminal negligence in engineering an unsafe structure is quite bizarre."

Still working on the meaning of the word exempt, idiot?

There can be no "criminal negligence" if there is no liability.

Get it through your thick skull--you jackass.

"...If as you claim the buildings were defectively designed..."

I didn't "claim" anything. I produced quotes from reliable sources that prove the twin towers structural integrity was in question before, during and after the completion of the project including Empire State Building owner Lawrence A. Wien; the 22nd Fire Commissioner of the City of New York, John T. O'Hagan; the NY Fire Department; Rosaleen Skehan; and Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl among others.

Again, all you've managed to prove is that you have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader.

And Ian G. is absolutely correct when he wrote, "you'll never let anything go because you'll never admit error."

You're a bull-headed, dishonest, malevolent idiot, goat molester, and you always will be a bull-headed, dishonest, malevolent idiot.

 
At 13 February, 2011 18:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, where did you get the idea that exemption from building codes is a license to engage in a criminally negligent building design practices?

And where did you get the idea that NIST was not obligated to honestly examine the issue?

You seem to believe that NIST's investigation was a coverup, but you don't want new investigations. What is wrong with you?

 
At 13 February, 2011 18:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, where did you get the idea that exemption from building codes is a license to engage in a criminally negligent building design practices?"

You haven't proven "criminal negligence," asshole. Only a court of law can determine "criminal negligence." Are you an attorney now, goat molester?

Again, there is no "criminal negligence" where no liability exists. Again, learn the meaning of the word exempt--you fatuous dork.

"...And where did you get the idea that NIST was not obligated to honestly examine the issue?"

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said any such thing, Pinocchio. I defined the scope of NIST's investigation, which is confirmed by the NIST Report itself.

"...You seem to believe that NIST's investigation was a coverup, but you don't want new investigations. What is wrong with you?"

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said any such thing, and I defy you to prove that I ever said such a thing.

If you can't debate in good faith, asshole, fuck off.

 
At 13 February, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

I haven't proven "criminal negligence," and neither have you.
Your claim (are you an attorney?) that the exemption from local building codes is a license to engage in criminally negligent building practices is bizarre.

You lied when you defined the scope of the NIST investigation.
I showed that page xxix shows they were obligated to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed, and to determine design and construction procedures and practices. So don't lecture me about good faith, liar.

Your claims make no sense. Why do you think it's okay for the NIST report to ignore evidence that you seem to think exists of design flaws?

 
At 13 February, 2011 19:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I haven't proven "criminal negligence," and neither have you. Your claim (are you an attorney?) that the exemption from local building codes is a license to engage in criminally negligent building practices is bizarre."

If you admit that you haven't proven "criminal negligence," why are you babbling about it--you idiot?

Furthermore, your statement is another naked straw man argument, because I never said "exemption from local building codes is a license to engage in criminally negligent building practices." I said that you cannot prove "criminal negligence" if you can't establish liability.

Again learn the definition of the word EXEMPT--you bull-headed idiot.

"...You lied when you defined the scope of the NIST investigation. I showed that page xxix shows they were obligated to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed, and to determine design and construction procedures and practices. So don't lecture me about good faith, liar."

According to whom? A proven liar?

You haven't proven anything. All you did was quote mine the NIST Report.

Grade: F-

"...Your claims make no sense. Why do you think it's okay for the NIST report to ignore evidence that you seem to think exists of design flaws?"

Again, idiot, the NIST Reports' scope didn't include establishing blame. NIST's goal was to determine the collapse mechanism up to the point of failure. In fact, you have admitted this limitation in the past, and now you're changing your story to suit your thoroughly dishonest argument. As everyone knows, you engage in this sort of dishonest debate constantly. Thus, you acknowledge the limitations on the scope of the NIST Report one day, then deny your admission the next day. Hypocrite!

Grade: F-

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

 
At 13 February, 2011 19:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bug.fuck bald-faced lies, "...I showed that page xxix shows they were obligated to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed, and to determine design and construction procedures and practices. So don't lecture me about good faith, liar."

Wikipedia wrote, "...The scope of the NIST investigation was focused on identifying "the sequence of events" that triggered the collapse, and did not include detailed analysis of the collapse mechanism itself (after the point at which events made the collapse inevitable)"

Source: NIST final report (2005). NCSTAR 1, page xxxvii.

Thus, you are proven to be a liar once again, goat molester.

Grade: F-

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

 
At 13 February, 2011 23:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

I said that you cannot prove "criminal negligence" if you can't establish liability.

What you don't seem to understand is that an exemption from the local building code is not an exemption from liability.

Page xxix of NCSTAR1 shows they were obligated by an Act of Congress to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed, and to determine design and construction procedures and practices.

Yes, page xxxviii does describe the "focus" of the investigation in far more limited terms. That simply describes what NIST did, which was to ignore much of what they were charged to do, and to dishonestly limit their investigation.

 
At 13 February, 2011 23:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What you don't seem to understand is that an exemption from the local building code is not an exemption from liability."

Here we go again, back to square one.

No, wrong again. Obviously, you can't read, and have the reading comprehension skills of a child.

Read the definition of the word exempt:

Exempt tr.v To free from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject

Exempt adj Freed from an obligation, a duty, or a liability to which others are subject; excused

Exempt n One who is exempted from an obligation, a duty, or a liability.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/exempt

In every case, exemption makes one free from liability--period. END OF STORY.

"...Page xxix of NCSTAR1 shows they were obligated by an Act of Congress to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed, and to determine design and construction procedures and practices."

Repeating the same lies ad infinitum does NOT prove you are right.

Page xxxvii contradicts your claims, and states clearly that the scope of the NIST investigation was focused on identifying "the sequence of events" that triggered the twin tower's collapse--period. The NIST Report NEVER concerned itself--not ONE jot or tittle--with applying blame for the events of 11 September 2001. END OF STORY.

"...Yes, page xxxviii does describe the "focus" of the investigation in far more limited terms. That simply describes what NIST did, which was to ignore much of what they were charged to do, and to dishonestly limit their investigation."

Now, you're contradicting yourself.

Thus, we can see that you're lying again, and playing your hair splitting games like an ambulance chaser with a gerbil shoved up his rump.

You're an idiot--and a dishonest idiot at that.

Now, go play in the freeway, goat molester.

 
At 13 February, 2011 23:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The quote mining goat molester prevaricates, "...Page xxix of NCSTAR1 shows they were obligated by an Act of Congress to determine "why and how" the towers collapsed, and to determine design and construction procedures and practices."

Here's the detailed scope of the NIST Report, not the quote mined fragment you've taken out of context.

Here's the "why and how" quote IN CONTEXT:

"...One of the four main objectives of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) investigation of the collapse of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers was to determine why and how the two towers collapsed. Events that played a significant role in the structural performance of the towers were the aircraft impact, the rapid ignition of fires on multiple floors, the growth and spread of fires and the structural weakening resulting from effects of high temperatures."

Notice that assigning blame for the collapse owing to exemption from New York and international building code is never mentioned.

Continued...

 
At 13 February, 2011 23:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 February, 2011 00:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 14 February, 2011 00:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Now, here's the NIST Report's detailed scope definition from NIST NCSTAR1--Executive Summary, E2, APPROACH:

"...To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, about 200 staff contributed to the investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower."

Source: NIST NCSTAR1--Executive Summary, E2, APPROACH

Again, notice that assigning blame for the collapse owing to exemption from New York and international building code is never mentioned or specified.

Now, take your quote mined propaganda and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, goat molester.

 
At 14 February, 2011 00:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, an exemption from the building codes releases one only from the obligation to follow the building codes. It does not exempt one from liability for criminal negligence. You really have a lot of trouble with basic concepts, don't you?

Page xxix shows the scope of the investigation as they were charged by an Act of Congress. On page xxxviii a footnote describes the focus (not the scope) of the investigation that was limited by NIST. Your inability to distinguish between these two things suggests that your professional experience has been quite limited. It's like the difference between "as-planned" and "as-built", though I can't expect you will understand that either.

You are confusing the issue by inappropriately conflating the objective of determining why and how the buildings collapsed with the entirely separate objective of examining the design practices and procedures.

 
At 14 February, 2011 00:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, an exemption from the building codes releases one only from the obligation to follow the building codes. It does not exempt one from liability for criminal negligence."

Here we go again, back to square one.

Listen, asshole, you have not proven "criminal negligence." And in the absence of liability YOU CAN NEVER PROVE "CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE"--period. END OF STORY.

"...Page xxix shows the scope of the investigation as they were charged by an Act of Congress."

Another unsubstantiated lie.

"...On page xxxviii a footnote describes the focus (not the scope) of the investigation that was limited by NIST."

Another unsubstantiated lie. Page xxxvii shows the scope and approach taken in the investigation, not the "focus."

"...Your inability to distinguish between these two things suggests that your professional experience has been quite limited. It's like the difference between "as-planned" and "as-built", though I can't expect you will understand that either."

Wrong again. All you've managed to prove is that you can't read, and refuse to substantiate your assertions with verifiable evidence. You've also managed to describe your own deficiencies and project them on me.

"...You are confusing the issue by inappropriately conflating the objective of determining by and how the buildings collapses with the entirely separate objective of examining the design practices and procedures."

False. I've already proven that you quote mined the NIST Report with direct links to the information YOU TOOK OUT OF CONTEXT.

As usual you simply IGNORE all information that proves you're lying.

 
At 14 February, 2011 00:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Now, here's the NIST Report's detailed scope definition and approach from NIST NCSTAR1--Executive Summary, E2, APPROACH:

"...To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, about 200 staff contributed to the investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousands of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved in the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instance of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower."

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NCSTAR1ExecutiveSummary.pdf

NIST NCSTAR1--Executive Summary, E2, APPROACH

Again, notice that assigning blame for the collapse owing to exemption from New York and international building code is never mentioned or specified.

Now, take your quote mined propaganda and stuff it where the sun doesn't shine, goat molester.

 
At 14 February, 2011 00:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Once again, notice that all the goat molester can offer is his worthless, head-up-his-ass opinion. He NEVER substantiates his argument with links to credible sources.

Grade: F-

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

 
At 14 February, 2011 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since I never alleged criminal negligence, the fact that I haven't proven it is irrelevant. YOU seem to be alleging criminal negligence in claiming that, exempted from the NY building codes, Skilling and Robertson designed an unsafe building and lied about it.

GutterBall, the word "scope" does not even appear on page xxxvii. The word "focus" does. "Scope" is in the wikipedia article. Is that what you regard as a credible source?

Page xxix describes the goals and objectives of the investigation as set forth by the National Construction Safety Team Act.

You dishonestly take a few words in the "APPROACH" section on p. xxvii on the "sequence of events" to try to imply that the investigation was limited to that.

In fact, your own quote discusses 1000 interviews with those involved in the building's design, construction, and maintenance. "APPROACH" goes on to describe their analysis of the building's design and construction procedures and practices in order to establish a performance baseline.

Your claims are not only irrational, they are based on faulty research.

"APPROACH"

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

Oh fuck you, goat molester. You're trying to change the subject and bury the post where I caught you red-handed quote mining the "City in the Sky."

The fact remains that "City in the Sky" doesn't claim Skilling was correct when he falsely alleged that the twin towers were capable of withstanding an impact with a 707 traveling at 600 MPH--and the collapse of the towers PROVES Skilling was wrong.

In fact, you quote mined "City in the Sky" and then lied about the contents found therein. Anyone who reads "City in the Sky" can see the author accused Skilling of hedging his calculations in order to create a false impression about the tower's structural integrity. The author bolstered his argument by presenting several individuals along with the NY Fire Department who questioned the structural integrity of the twin towers before, during and after the completion of the project.

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're a quote mining degenerate who will stop at nothing to deceive the reader.

 
At 14 February, 2011 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said "City in the Sky" said Skilling was correct. I didn't quote mine anything. I said "City in the Sky" cited a study of a 707 impact at 600 mph--and it did, and your claim that it did not was a lie.

Your belief that the collapse of the towers proves Skilling wrong is typical GutterBall circular reasoning, and the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy as well.






In fact, you quote mined "City in the Sky" and then lied about the contents found therein. Anyone who reads "City in the Sky" can see the author accused Skilling of hedging his calculations in order to create a false impression about the tower's structural integrity. The author bolstered his argument by presenting several individuals along with the NY Fire Department who questioned the structural integrity of the twin towers before, during and after the completion of the project.

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're a quote mining degenerate who will stop at nothing to deceive the reader.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "...I never said "City in the Sky" said Skilling was correct. I didn't quote mine anything. I said "City in the Sky" cited a study of a 707 impact at 600 mph--and it did, and your claim that it did not was a lie."

Then why did you write the following--you God damned liar?

"...His claim that the design criterion was a slow 707 lost in fog is contradicted by a paper cited in "City in the Sky" that shows that the firm was using the spec of a 707 at 600 mph...His claim that they did not design for jet fuel fires is contadicted [SIC] by John Skilling's statement to the Seattle Times that the building would survive the fires."

Obviously, you're suffering from senile dementia.

Get your lies straight, goat molester.

"...Your belief that the collapse of the towers proves Skilling wrong is typical GutterBall circular reasoning, and the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy as well."

You wouldn't know circular logic if it jumped up and bit you, goat molester. Circular reasoning--you jackass--is based on an argument that relies on its own proposition. If the proposition is unproven, then the accusation that I resorted to circular logic applies. Since you've never proven that the twin towers were brought down by anything other than jet impacts and fire, the central point IS proven, because experts in the fields of Structural engineering, engineering mechanics and civil engineering all agree on the cause of the collapse of the twin towers; thus, the accusation that I used circular logic has no merit, and you're proven wrong again.

FACT: You're a quote miner and a liar--and a bad liar at that.

 
At 14 February, 2011 19:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why did I write that? Because it was true, and because what Mr. Robertson said was not true.

You're just trying to bury your embarrassing lies under a lot of playingdumbspam.

It hasn't been proven that the towers were brought down by jet impacts and fire, and in fact that mode of collapse (that NIST refused to even address, let alone explain) is inconsistent with a fire-induced structural failure.

Experts don't all agree. There are more experts in AE911Truth.org than there are that support the NIST report and you still can't name even one independent engineer who will endorse the report.

 
At 14 February, 2011 20:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...It hasn't been proven that the towers were brought down by jet impacts and fire, and in fact that mode of collapse (that NIST refused to even address, let alone explain) is inconsistent with a fire-induced structural failure."

False. Another pile of unsubstantiated nonsense. When will you learn, goat molester? Your opinion is less than worthless.

Your opinion < worthless

Get it through your thick skull, jackass.

"...Experts don't all agree. There are more experts in AE911Truth.org than there are that support the NIST report and you still can't name even one independent engineer who will endorse the report."

Another bald-faced lie. AE9/11truth makes up less than 0.22% of the scientific and engineering community--which means they don't rise to the level of statistical significance.

The ASCE represents 147,000 civil engineers who endorse the NIST Report and the conclusions and recommendations found therein.

147,000 > 1,400

Got it, liar?

Go for it, goat molester. Do everything you can to bury your quote mining under an avalanche of lies and spin.

 
At 14 February, 2011 20:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Notice the goat molester doesn't have anything to say about "circular logic" now that I've proven that he doesn't understand the meaning of the term.

Conclusion: The goat molester loves to make hollow accusations; however, when challenged to substantiate his assertions, he falls flat on his face.

 
At 14 February, 2011 21:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your claim is circular.

We know Skilling lied about the airplane tests because we know the towers fell from planes and fires because we know Skilling lied about the airplane tests because we know the towers fell from planes and fires about the airplane tests because we know the towers fell from planes and fires about the airplane tests because we know the towers fell from planes and fires.

If AE represents 0.22% of the engineering community then surely the participants in the NIST report represent less than 0.1% of the engineering community.

If 147,000 ASCE engineers endorse the NIST report why can't you name any who are not tainted by connections to NIST?

 
At 14 February, 2011 22:46, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, can you please squeal about baboons or Willie Rodriguez? You're getting boring with these nonsensical comments.

 
At 15 February, 2011 07:37, Blogger Bill said...

"If AE represents 0.22% of the engineering community then surely the participants in the NIST report represent less than 0.1% of the engineering community."

Only truthers think the number of people matter. For some reason you guys think the number of people who believe matters while the demonstration is irrelevant. Its actually extraordinarily sad that NIST's researchers comprise such a small fraction and can produce a technical report which has met the rigor, and then some, academics msut adhere to. Meanwhile AE911Truth has a small army of alleged professionals who have yet to produce anything meaningful.

 
At 15 February, 2011 08:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Only truthers think the number of people matter.

It's amusing that you should say that, Bill, when GutterBall was the one who brought the issue up, and is the source of the claim that the AE engineers represent 0.22% of the engineering community.

NIST's blatant dishonesty, obfuscation, and dodging of the essential issues certainly did not meet academic standards.

The final version of the WTC7 report actually removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" that appeared several times in the draft report.

 
At 15 February, 2011 09:52, Blogger Ian said...

It's amusing that you should say that, Bill, when GutterBall was the one who brought the issue up, and is the source of the claim that the AE engineers represent 0.22% of the engineering community.

Yes, because it shows that the false claims made by Richard Gage have gained no traction in the engineering community. Your constant babbling about 1400 architects and engineers is meaningless and doesn't even suggest what you think it does: that there's some sort of momentum building among professional engineers that 9/11 truthers have a point.

NIST's blatant dishonesty, obfuscation, and dodging of the essential issues certainly did not meet academic standards.

The claims of a failed janitor and liar like you are irrelevant. Nobody cares what you think is "dishonest".

The final version of the WTC7 report actually removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" that appeared several times in the draft report.

Nobody cares.

 
At 15 February, 2011 10:44, Blogger Bill said...

GutterBall was the one who brought the issue up,

Liar. It was in response to your nonsensical ad numerum:

" There are more experts in AE911Truth.org than there are that support the NIST report "

The only ting he is guilty of in that respect was entertaining such nonsense with response.

NIST's blatant dishonesty, obfuscation, and dodging of the essential issues certainly did not meet academic standards.

According to a fringe cult. Yet, somehow the National Research Academy (NIST's peer reviewers), the National Fire Safety Board, and the American Society of Civil Engineers disagree.

The final version of the WTC7 report actually removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" that appeared several times in the draft report.

And? What does that have to do with their data, conclusions, etc??

 
At 15 February, 2011 12:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"....If 147,000 ASCE engineers endorse the NIST report why can't you name any who are not tainted by connections to NIST?"

Repeating the same lie over-and-over again will never lend the force of credibility to your argument. And trying to change the subject to hide the proof that you quote mined "City in the Sky" won't work either, goat molester.

Furthermore, since you, nor anyone else, have never proven that anything other than jet impacts and fire were the cause of the collapse of the twin towers, the central point IS proven, and your "circular logic" accusation is proven false. As long as experts in the fields of Structural engineering, engineering mechanics and civil engineering all agree on the cause of the collapse of the twin towers, the accusation that I used circular logic has no merit, and you're proven wrong again.

When will you learn, goat molester? Making accusations sans evidence to support your argument doesn't prove anything. (Well, it does prove one thing. It proves that you're an idiot who's less than honest).

Grade: F-

 
At 15 February, 2011 12:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...GutterBall was the one who brought the issue up, and is the source of the claim that the AE engineers represent 0.22% of the engineering community."

It's proven, whether you accept the truth, or not, goat molester.

There are 600,000 scientists and engineers in the United States. Hence,

(1,400)/(600,000) x 100 = 0.22%

"...NIST's blatant dishonesty, obfuscation, and dodging of the essential issues certainly did not meet academic standards."

According to whom? A failed janitor, sex stalker and proven habitual liar? Pardon me while I fall off my chair laughing.

"...The final version of the WTC7 report actually removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" that appeared several times in the draft report."

Which proves what exactly? Answer: Absolutely nothing.

Grade: F-

 
At 15 February, 2011 14:00, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian is all talk and no walk.

He should put his janitoral money where his mouth is.

 
At 15 February, 2011 14:14, Blogger Ian said...

He should put his janitoral money where his mouth is.

What janitorial money? Brian is unemployed and lives with his parents.

 
At 15 February, 2011 23:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, GutterBall started with the argument of authority, citing NIST experts. I simply brought up the ad numerum in that context, pointing out that AE911Truth has more experts than were involved in the NIST report.

GutterBall then made the absurd claim that "ASCE represents 147,000 civil engineers who endorse the NIST Report and the conclusions and recommendations".

When did the National Research Academy, the National Fire Safety Board, and the American Society of Civil Engineers endorse the NIST report?

The fact that NIST abandoned their claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" suggests that influential NIST staffers are not comfortable with the analysis.

GutterBall, even while claimins 147,000 engineers endorse the NIST report you are unable to name even one who is not tainted by association with NIST through employment, contracts, co-authorship of papers, awards, or appointment to committees.

Proof of the counterargument is not necessary to show circular reasoning in your argument. Your claim that "experts in the fields of Structural engineering, engineering mechanics and civil engineering all agree on the cause of the collapse" is a lie. A number of experts disagree.

 
At 16 February, 2011 09:47, Blogger Bill said...

GutterBall started with the argument of authority, citing NIST experts...

Cool...quote him. You started your fallacy parade here.

If you had any intellectual integrity at all, you should be joining with 1433 engineering and architectural professionals in calling for new investigations.

I simply brought up the ad numerum in that context, pointing out that AE911Truth has more experts than were involved in the NIST report.

So you counter an allegedly fallacious argument with another? Wow.

When did the National Research Academy,


My bad, National Research Council conducts peer reviews of NIST's laboratory programs, annually.
Each year since 1959, the National Research Council...has coordinated an external peer review of NIST laboratory programs by members of industry and
academia

http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/rc99099.pdf

the National Fire Safety Board,
Agian my bad, the NFPA, specifically with regard to WTC 7.
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/kristinCollettewtc7comments.pdf

and the American Society of Civil Engineers endorse the NIST report?
Here is one from the Structural Engineering Institute (the ASCE's structural arm)
"We applaud NIST for the thoroughness and openness of its process, which recognizes the urgent needs of the victims' families, the professional community and the public to understand what happened. "
http://www.asce.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=6663

The fact that NIST abandoned their claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" suggests that influential NIST staffers are not comfortable with the analysis.
Are you a mind reader? Appeal to silence.

 
At 16 February, 2011 10:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The problem with Truthers is that they never found det. cord, copper residue, RDX, thermoplastic elastomers, PTFE and fluoropolymers in the debris.

They claim explosives, I say they're full of shit if they can't find what's listed above.

 
At 16 February, 2011 11:47, Blogger Bill said...

Bill, GutterBall started with the argument of authority, citing NIST experts. I simply brought up the ad numerum in that context, pointing out that AE911Truth has more experts than were involved in the NIST report.

Oh you mean the experts who have actually demonstrated their claims in a real scientific forum?

GutterBall then made the absurd claim that "ASCE represents 147,000 civil engineers who endorse the NIST Report and the conclusions and recommendations".


You started here:
If you had any intellectual integrity at all, you should be joining with 1433 engineering and architectural professionals in calling for new investigations.


When did the National Research Academy, the National Fire Safety Board, and the American Society of Civil Engineers endorse the NIST report?

The National Research Council has been responsible for the annual peer review of NIST's laboratory programs since 1959.
http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/rc99099.pdf

NFPA & WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/kristinCollettewtc7comments.pdf

The ASCE & NIST
http://www.asce.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=6655

The fact that NIST abandoned their claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" suggests that influential NIST staffers are not comfortable with the analysis.

Appeal to silence.

 
At 16 February, 2011 12:06, Blogger Bill said...

Bill, GutterBall started with the argument of authority...

Oh you mean the experts who have actually demonstrated their claims in a real scientific forum?

GutterBall then made the absurd claim that "ASCE represents 147,000 civil engineers who endorse the NIST Report and the conclusions and recommendations".


You started here:
If you had any intellectual integrity at all, you should be joining with 1433 engineering and architectural professionals in calling for new investigations.


When did the National Research Academy....

The National Research Council has been responsible for the annual peer review of NIST's laboratory programs since 1959.
http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/rc99099.pdf

NFPA & WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/kristinCollettewtc7comments.pdf

The ASCE & NIST
http://www.asce.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=6655

The fact that NIST abandoned their claim...

Appeal to silence.

 
At 16 February, 2011 12:16, Blogger Bill said...

Is there a length limit on posts, URL's etc? Mine keeps getting deleted.

 
At 16 February, 2011 13:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQ, truthers were never allowed access to the debris. In fact ASCE wasn't even given site access until October 5.

 
At 16 February, 2011 13:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQ, truthers were never allowed access to the debris."

That's because you people have incompetent researchers.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, WAQ, it's because the debris was scooped up and shipped off to China before investigators could see it.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:57, Blogger Ian said...

WAQ, truthers were never allowed access to the debris. In fact ASCE wasn't even given site access until October 5.

Nobody cares.

No, WAQ, it's because the debris was scooped up and shipped off to China before investigators could see it.

False.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:57, Blogger Bill said...

" In fact ASCE wasn't even given site access until October 5....No, WAQ, it's because the debris was scooped up and shipped off to China before investigators could see it."

Sure, thats why they were still cleaning debris in 2002.

Brian you started your fallacy parade here:

until we get some credible investigations I'll stand with the architects and engineers, now 1400-strong, who provide compelling reasons why we need new investigations.

NFPA & WTC 7
http://wtc.nist.gov/comments08/kristinCollettewtc7comments.pdf

ASCE & NIST
http://www.asce.org/PressRelease.aspx?id=6655

The National Research Council has peer reviewed NIST's laboratory programs since 1959.
http://www.er.doe.gov/bes/rc99099.pdf

 
At 16 February, 2011 15:01, Blogger Bill said...

God I love truther memes. They are like herpes. When you think you cleared it up and they are gone for good they pop up again.
http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/exhibits/longterm/documents/recovery.pdf

 
At 16 February, 2011 15:07, Blogger Bill said...

Apparently Brian has a problem with trying to save the victims. But its all about the victims. Yeah thats it.

"Because of the importance of the rescue effort at the World Trade Center complex, it was clear that information would have to be gathered without interfering with response and rescue activities...the FEMA-ASCE team first visited the site on October 6, but gathered information from others who had been on-site before this date." (Robert Shea)

 
At 16 February, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bill, in 2002 they were still scooping up debris and shipping it off to China before investigators could see it. That's why Fire Engineering Magazine was protesting, declaring the investigation a "half-baked farce".

I guess you guys don't even know that rescue efforts ceased within a week.

 
At 17 February, 2011 10:59, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Bill, in 2002 they were still scooping up debris and shipping it off to China before investigators could see it.

Changing your story huh?

That's why Fire Engineering Magazine was protesting, declaring the investigation a "half-baked farce".

1 guy from fire engineering magazine was repeating hearsay and supporting it with 0 evidence. Much like your doing here. Too bad the people who were there and the investigators say differently.

I guess you guys don't even know that rescue efforts ceased within a week.

Quote mining huh? Or is it a mere dodge?

it was clear that information would have to be gathered without interfering with response and rescue activities

 
At 17 February, 2011 11:03, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Wow...structural engineers on the scene the day after. They must've snuck all the good evidence out the day before.
http://www.ncsea.com/downloads/wtcseerp.pdf

 
At 17 February, 2011 11:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't change my story. You can't load 200,000 tons of steel onto ships overnight.

Fire Engineering was reporting fact, not hearsay. The "scoop and dump" cleanup operation was destroying the integrity of the scene and making impossible any proper scientific investigation of the most dire structural failure in history. As a result NIST does not have steel samples to support its case that the fires weakened the structure.

After one week, information gathering would not have interfered with rescue operations, because there were no rescue operations. There were no rescue operations at all at Building 7, but that one too was scooped and dumped.

Do any of those structural engineers have names? How come none of them have ever testified under oath about what they saw? No, not all the good evidence was destroyed the first day. Dr. Astaneh saw "melting of girders", De. Ghoniem saw photographic evidence of molten steel, Captain Ruvolo saw molten steel running like lava. The WPI team got samples of steel I beams that were partially vaporized.

 
At 18 February, 2011 09:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I didn't change my story. You can't load 200,000 tons of steel onto ships overnight.

Sure you didn't thats why you claimed it was removed before they could look at it.

Fire Engineering was reporting fact, not hearsay. The "scoop and dump" cleanup operation was destroying the integrity of the scene and making impossible any proper scientific investigation of the most dire structural failure in history.

I guess thats why you and he have provided first hand accounts or physical evidence of hit happening right?

As a result NIST does not have steel samples to support its case that the fires weakened the structure.

First you don't need it because we know there were fires and there is 0 evidence for another agent. No other cause results in the observed effects.

Secondly you're wrong.
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/NCSTAR1-3index.htm


After one week, information gathering would not have interfered with rescue operations, because there were no rescue operations. There were no rescue operations at all at Building 7, but that one too was scooped and dumped.

Still quote mining huh? Can't wait to see the evidence of this "scoop and dump" operation. Oh right, you "know what your talking about". Evidence free reality! Weeee!!!!.



Do any of those structural engineers have names? How come none of them have ever testified under oath about what they saw? No, not all the good evidence was destroyed the first day. Dr. Astaneh saw "melting of girders", De. Ghoniem saw photographic evidence of molten steel, Captain Ruvolo saw molten steel running like lava. The WPI team got samples of steel I beams that were partially vaporized.

 
At 18 February, 2011 09:59, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Do any of those structural engineers have names? How come none of them have ever testified under oath about what they saw?

Because the truther proclaimed standards of evidence and investigation have no bearing on the rest of the world.

No, not all the good evidence was destroyed the first day. Dr. Astaneh saw "melting of girders",

Weeks after the collapse.

De. Ghoniem saw photographic evidence of molten steel, Captain Ruvolo saw molten steel running like lava.

You can't identify molten material by eye sight. I would supply links but since your content on supplying nothing but your opinion and regurgitated BS on much of these matters I am not going to bother.

The WPI team got samples of steel I beams that were partially vaporized.

And? 2 samples from the entire site was under a corrosive attack. Do you have a point?

 
At 18 February, 2011 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

The structural steel wreckage was removed before experts could examine it. That's what Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained of to the House Science Committee. That's what Fire Engineering Magazine was hollering about. That's why NIST has not one piece of core steel showing sufficient heating to weaken it.

That Ground Zero was rapidly "cleaned up" and the steel shipped away to Asia for recycling is a matter of historical record that is not in dispute. Firefighters rioted at Ground Zero protesting the "scoop and dump" operation that desecrated the remains of the dead. The body of a man in a business suit was found in the rubble at Freshkills landfill.

There were fires. Fires can not impose the totally symmetrical and simultaneous failures that caused the towers to come down in symmetry "essentially in free fall".

It's not a matter of "truther-proclaimed standards of evidence and investigation". The NIST investigations did not adhere to the principles of NFPA 921. They do not adhere to basic scientific standards.

Maybe YOU can't identify molten material by eye sight, but most competent men know the difference between molten steel, molten aluminum, and molten plastic when they see it. Are you claiming that Dr. Astaneh, Dr. Ghoniem, and Captain Ruvolo are incompetent? Dr. Jones analyzed a sample from a 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten iron found at Ground Zero.

You are imagining reasons to prevent an investigation of these issues. Why? What are you afraid of?

2 samples of "evaporated" steel are two more samples than NIST has of fire-weakened core steel.

 
At 19 February, 2011 09:05, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The structural steel wreckage was removed before experts could examine it. That's what Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained of to the House Science Committee.

Quote him.

the steel shipped away to Asia for recycling is a matter of historical record that is not in dispute.
Awesome...lets see the evidence.

Fires can not impose the totally symmetrical and simultaneous failures that caused the towers to come down in symmetry "essentially in free fall".

Oh, well you say so. How do you knows the failures were symmetrical?I love how you guys pepper semi-true statements with bare assertion.

The NIST investigations did not adhere to the principles of NFPA 921. They do not adhere to basic scientific standards.
Sure. Thats why the NFPA backs NIST as I have demonstrated and you ignored. But I guess I will be taking the armchair scholarship of you over them.

Not to mention changing the subject. We were discussing why the structural engineers weren't questioned under oath; a standard you pulled out of thin air.

 
At 19 February, 2011 09:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The NIST investigations did not adhere to the principles of NFPA 921. They do not adhere to basic scientific standards.
Sure. Thats why the NFPA backs NIST as I have demonstrated and you ignored. But I guess I will be taking the armchair scholarship of you over them.

Not to mention changing the subject. We were discussing why the structural engineers weren't questioned under oath; a standard you pulled out of thin air.

Maybe YOU can't identify molten material by eye sight, but most competent men know the difference between molten steel, molten aluminum, and molten plastic when they see it

No, I am suggesting you're incompetent. Least of all due to your inability to provide evidence as opposed to the typical truther vomit.
"With respect to steel, looks can be deceiving. What appears to be melted may be merely oxidized. Interpret melted metals, particularly steel, with caution, and interpret the temperatures you infer from these melted metals with extreme caution."
http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/IndicatorsOfTrouble.pdf

"It is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized."
http://www.firescientist.com/Documents/MeltedSteel.pdf

 
At 19 February, 2011 10:00, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Dr. Jones analyzed a sample from a 40-pound ingot of formerly-molten iron found at Ground Zero.
Yeah, the good Dr. who dodged academic review at his own university, created his own peer review process, and continues to publish in journals which implement nothing that anyone familiar with the process would call peer review.

What are you afraid of?
Wasting time and money on the crazies.

2 samples of "evaporated" steel are two more samples than NIST has of fire-weakened core steel.

And I guess that somehow counters all the directly observed phenomena (the trusses and exterior columns) which leads to the conclusion of the failure of the core columns, as opposed to the effects of explosives or thermite (blinding light, deafening explosions, etc), which are not.

Its called inference and Occam's Razor. Real scientists use them together.

 
At 19 February, 2011 10:06, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Curious...how many of the investigators who there that you cited believe 9/11 was inside job or the collapses were the result of some form of controlled demolition?

 
At 19 February, 2011 10:52, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling. I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects...I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled. However, given the fact that other teams such as NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data. The main impediments to my work were and still are [nothing remotely close to Brian's armchair scholarship]:
-Not having a copy of the engineering drawings and design and construction documents.

-Not having copies of the photographs and videotapes that various agencies might have taken during and immediately after the collapse.

Such data has already been made available to ASCE Building Performance Assessment Team. If those are also available to us, we will be able to proceed further with our research.
(Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl,Before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives March 6, 2002)

Quote mine much? Seems the good Dr. is in no way concerned with what you claim.

 
At 19 February, 2011 11:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I think its high time Brian you started directly quoting people and providing sources for your assertions. As we can see your version isn't exactly accurate.

 
At 19 February, 2011 14:53, Blogger paul w said...

That video was great.
Note how it was all about seeing the WTC7 video?
As usual, in the truther mindset, seeing the building fall is enough; the NIST means nothing.
'Treated like a terrorist' Lol!!!

 
At 19 February, 2011 14:53, Blogger paul w said...

That video was great.
Note how it was all about seeing the WTC7 video?
In the truther mindset, seeing the building fall is enough; the NIST means nothing.
'Treated like a terrorist' Lol!!!

 
At 21 February, 2011 12:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

"It is not possible to tell by visual examination alone whether a piece of steel has melted or merely oxidized."

That's ridiculous. It is obviously easy to tell whether a steel girder has been melted or merely oxidized.

Why would you expect flashes of light from thermitic charges in elevator shaft at 75th floor to be visible from the street?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained, as I reported, that the steel was being recycled before he could examine it.
"I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled."

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/astaneh-wtc.htm

He said that since "NIST, SEAONY and FEMA-BPAT have also done inspection and have collected the perishable data, it seems to me that collectively we may have been able to collect sufficient data."

Obviously he was wrong in this assessment, because NIST, SEANY, and FEMA do not have ant steel samples to support their claims that fire weskened the building core--other that the FEMA samples which show that some unknown agent vaporized core elements.

I no longer take the time to provide sources in this forum because whenever I do, GutterBall and Ian bury my posts in lies.

 
At 21 February, 2011 14:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I no longer take the time to provide sources in this forum because whenever I do, GutterBall and Ian bury my posts in lies."

Another bald-faced lie.

You never substantiate your claims for one very simple reason: Because you know I'll catch you quote mining or bald-faced lying, which I've done on numerous occasions.

You're a sophist, liar, sex degenerate and all-purpose scumbag with the morals of an alley cat.

Used car salesmen and pimps are higher on the food chain than the goat molester.

 
At 21 February, 2011 14:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Obviously he was wrong in this assessment, because NIST, SEANY, and FEMA do not have ant steel samples to support their claims that fire weskened the building core--other that the FEMA samples which show that some unknown agent vaporized core elements."

More bullshit! Annealing studies were performed on the structural steel, and it was determined that 70% of the steel local to the impact reached a temperature of 600 degrees Centigrade. That means 85% of the structural steel's yield strength was lost in the fires, and that's precisely why progressive collapse was inevitable.

Now get out of here, goat molester. Go tell your lies to people who are gullible enough to buy into your insanity and stinks to high-heaven bilge.

 
At 21 February, 2011 14:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I frequently substantiate my claims and I do not make claims I can not substantiate. I substantiated my claims that Dr. Astaneh saw melting of girders, and that he complained to the House Science Committee that the steel was being recycled before he could examine it.

Where do you get your information on the annealing studies? Yes, there were three perimeter steel samples that showed heating of that magnitude. That's less that 2% of all the steel samples they had, and aside from those 3 none of them showed heating over 480 F.
So the quote miner and sophist would appear to be you.

Why is it that you can't defend the official story without using blatant lies?

 
At 21 February, 2011 15:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You always have to get the last word in, don't you, asshole?

"...GutterBall, I frequently substantiate my claims and I do not make claims I can not substantiate. I substantiated my claims that Dr. Astaneh saw melting of girders, and that he complained to the House Science Committee that the steel was being recycled before he could examine it."

Bullshit! You quote mined Dr. Astaneh-Asl, misrepresented his opinion, tried to claim he's troofer, and then you played semantic games in your typically dishonest fashion.

"...Where do you get your information on the annealing studies? Yes, there were three perimeter steel samples that showed heating of that magnitude. That's less that 2% of all the steel samples they had, and aside from those 3 none of them showed heating over 480 F."

Wrong again, you lying cunt. The annealing studies were reference in at least three engineering journals and one text book. All of the material referenced below, however, is way above the head of a failed janitor, sex stalker and habitual liar.

Sources:

Inferno at the World Trade Center, E. Kausel, Tech Talk, 23 September 2002, MIT.

Nonlocal integral Formulations of plasticity and Damage, Z. P. Bazant, J. Eng. Mech.

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse, Z. P. Bazant and M. Verdue, 2006, Northwestern Univ.

Stability of structures: Elastic, inelastic, fracture and damage theories, Z. P. Bazant and L. Cedolin, 2003, Dover, 2nd, Edition.

What were you saying, Pinocchio?

"...So the quote miner and sophist would appear to be you."

Projecting again--you lying felcher?

"...Why is it that you can't defend the official story without using blatant lies?"

Attempting to elevate your worthless, unsubstantiated opinion to the realm of fact, again--you lying felcher?

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

 
At 21 February, 2011 20:00, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

That's ridiculous. It is obviously easy to tell whether a steel girder has been melted or merely oxidized.

Another cause you say so argument Brian? That's convincing.

Why would you expect flashes of light from thermitic charges in elevator shaft at 75th floor to be visible from the street?

And the rest of the building? WTC 7?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained, as I reported, that the steel was being recycled before he could examine it.
"I wish I had more time to inspect steel structure and save more pieces before the steel was recycled."


Its amazing Brian you are willing to quote mine like this even though his entire quote is just above yours. His only complaints, which he noted, had nothing to do with that. Man you're pathological.

Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling.

More time does not mean no time.

Obviously he was wrong in this assessment, because NIST, SEANY, and FEMA do not have ant steel samples to support their claims that fire weskened the building core--other that the FEMA samples which show that some unknown agent vaporized core elements.

Stop lying Brian. 1. nowhere in the WPI report does it say it vaporized. 2. only 2 samples of steel in the pile from god knows where does not trump the observed mechanism. I just love how he is wrong when its not convenient but right when it is. Cherry pick your way through reality!


I no longer take the time to provide sources in this forum because whenever I do, GutterBall and Ian bury my posts in lies.

Way to make up excuses.

So Brian, how many of the people you cited support the CD hypothesis or think it was an inside job?

 
At 21 February, 2011 20:02, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Sorry Brian, but the only evidence that the debris was being recycled before being inspected is your quote mining and the hearsay of Bill Manning.

 
At 22 February, 2011 00:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, Dr. Astaneh-Asl expressed disappointment in his testimony to Congress that the steel was being destroyed before he could see it. He apparently was told that other agencies were sampling the steel sufficient to allow a scientific study. Obviously those agencies lied to him because they did not have that. NIST has not one piece of core steel showing heating sufficient to weaken it. 98% of their steel samples do not show heating about 480 F, and the fact that these studies may have been cited in books does not change those results in the least.

GMS, if you can't tell a melted girder from an oxidized one you're incompetent.

If the thermite was planted inside hollow core columns, it might burn out completely before the column failed, so the flashes would be unobserved.

Dr. Astaneh said the steel was being recycled before he could see it. No, it doesn't say vaporized in the WPI report. "Vaporized" was in the NYT. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E6DC123DF931A35753C1A9679C8B63

You provide no evidence for your claim that Bill Manning relied on hearsay. He said the evidence of the crime scene was being destroyed, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said the same thing. Dr. Sunder said the investigation was hampered because the steel was "scattered".

 
At 22 February, 2011 00:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 February, 2011 01:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, it's obvious that the steel was recycled before it was properly sampled because 98% of NIST's samples (and all the core steel samples) show no heating above 480 F.

 
At 22 February, 2011 01:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester tries to change the subject and whines, "...GutterBall, Dr. Astaneh-Asl expressed disappointment in his testimony to Congress that the steel was being destroyed before he could see it...[blah][blah][blah]."

Irrelevant. Once again, your opinion proves nothing.

The only element of the "debate" that's proven is the following: You quote mined Dr. Astaneh-Asl; you tried to claim he's a troofer; then you ignored all evidence that proves you're misrepresenting Dr. Astaneh-Asl opinion; yet, you continue to lie about not only this particular subject, but the remainder of your insane, threadbare theories.

Seek psychiatric intervention, goat molester.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home