Monday, February 14, 2011

Whole Lot of Shakin' Going On

Over at 9-11 Flogger, in the wake of Eric Larson's takedown of David Ray Griffin and his fantasy about cellphone fakery. That post is approaching 200 comments at this point.

Some of them understand the consequences of accepting that the phone calls were real:
I'm afraid that conceding the phone calls are real is would make the OCT true in many people's opinion, if not a whole lot harder to prove a conspiracy. Is there any plausible scenario how the hijackers could have been on the plane until the very last moment and it still be a conspiracy?

Aye, there's the rub. Remember, only last week we posted a video of Richard Gage, the reigning superstar of 9-11 Troof, saying that Muslims weren't behind 9-11. Now, it's probably true that the Troofers, like the three little pigs, can run to the next house in search of safety from the big, bad wolf. They'll say, well, okay there were hijackers but a) they weren't really Muslims and b) they didn't fly the planes:
Even if hijackers were on the planes, it is far from clear they were in control of those planes for the entire flights, or much beyond the point of hijacking.

No matter how many layers of the onion are peeled away, there's always a conspiracy theory left over.

It's amusing in a way, but also a little sad. We spend our time here poking fun at them, but reading the posts you can see that they really don't see how deluded they are. It's not an internet game to them. They've invested a great deal of time and effort in 9-11 Troof. Granted, some of them seem to have done it with half a brain. It's amazing how much hooey gets recycled in that post. One guy goes on and on about the length of some of the phone calls:

The phone call by Jeremy Glick would not have been interrupted by the crash of the aircraft. Phone call started at 9:37:41. line left open (7,565 seconds). So the call ends at 11:43:46. This conflicts with the official crash time of 10:03 AM.

There is no technical explanation that I know of and unless you can come up with one you should accept that these calls were not made from the plane. At very least this is evidence that the calls were not made from the plane.

Now, how deluded do you have to be to believe that the government would go to all the trouble of faking the phone calls, only to have it blown because somebody forgot to hang up the phone?

Labels: ,

79 Comments:

At 14 February, 2011 16:05, Blogger Triterope said...

Good post. Sometimes it easy to forget how seriously these people take this stuff, and the true sadness of it all.

This line struck me:

conceding the phone calls are real is would make the OCT true in many people's opinion, if not a whole lot harder to prove a conspiracy

Notice the issue is not whether the phone calls WERE real or not. The issue is that admitting it would damage the credibility of the conspiracy movement. It is a bald admission that public relations are more important than facts to these people.

 
At 14 February, 2011 20:15, Blogger pumpitout911 said...

Pat, I would like to set up a debate with you.

 
At 15 February, 2011 02:26, Blogger Gerben said...

Sorry, OT. Progressive collapse of three buildings in France:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=feb_1297545164

 
At 15 February, 2011 08:54, Blogger Greg said...

Progressive collapse of three buildings in France

Now if only they can have a controlled demolition team fly a plane into a building and initiate the progressive collapse at the impact point...then we'll have something!

 
At 15 February, 2011 12:24, Blogger Bill said...

"Now if only they can have a controlled demolition team fly a plane into a building and initiate the progressive collapse at the impact point...then we'll have something!

I can see the news cover age now:

To silence the crazies today NIST, Controlled Demolition Inc., and just about any body and everyone who has ever listened to a truth kook was on-hand while a scrapped 757 was plowed into the Aon Center. All this in contrast to much of the complaints of residents, & safety officials.

One man on hand, who referred to himself as a free thinker, said "Well this is all fine and good but it all depends on the results. If it doesn't collapse then it will confirm what we have known all along....9/11 was an inside job. But if it does collapse, then the test is obviously faulty as its much smaller and because no steel framed high-rise has ever collapsed due to fire. Either way it confirms what we know, there was a cover-up".

 
At 16 February, 2011 00:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

We already had the Chinese CCTV tube-structure fire. What more do you need? The $1.2 billion structure suffered $24 million in damage.

http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/cctv/

 
At 16 February, 2011 02:27, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian, Ove Arup & Partners did the structural engineering for the CCTV building, incorporating the lessons learned from the World Trade Center. You can find this in their blurb.

Also, unlike the WTC, the CCTV fire was vigorously fought.

In the meantime, verinage goes on,sans explosifs, sans supermagiconanothermite.

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

OT, but it looks like I'll have a new job lined up at One Liberty Plaza. Anybody know if Nico still hangs out down by the WTC site? I should say hello if/when I'm down there.

 
At 16 February, 2011 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, does verinage work in steel buildings? I doubt it.

 
At 16 February, 2011 15:24, Blogger Bill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2011 15:25, Blogger Bill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 February, 2011 15:29, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"DU, does verinage work in steel buildings? I doubt it."

Is your doubt supposed to be of relevance?

"[0006] The purpose of this invention is to overcome this gap by proposing demolition methods and equipment may be suitable for all types of buildings regardless of height." (European Patent# 1 082 505 B1)

Seriously, look for answers instead of "just asking questions"

 
At 16 February, 2011 18:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

"May be suitable" is just establishing the broadest possible claim for the patent, and has nothing to do with practicability.

I am very skeptical that verinage is used for steel buildings because of the low weight-to-strength ratio of steel compared to concrete.

 
At 16 February, 2011 19:48, Blogger Greg said...

I am very skeptical that verinage is used for steel buildings because of the low weight-to-strength ratio of steel compared to concrete.

Huh?

 
At 16 February, 2011 20:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because of the low weight-to-strength ratio of steel compared to concrete, I am very skeptical that verinage is used for steel buildings.

 
At 17 February, 2011 10:43, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"May be suitable" is just establishing the broadest possible claim for the patent, and has nothing to do with practicability.

I am very skeptical that verinage is used for steel buildings because of the low weight-to-strength ratio of steel compared to concrete.


So your personal belief trumps again?

 
At 17 February, 2011 11:31, Blogger dumdiedeldum said...

Interesting, it seems you guys can actually argue instead of just bitching around like in all those other post comments. Keep it up!

 
At 17 February, 2011 11:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can always argue, because I know what I'm talking about. Most of these other guys here can't do much more than act like bitchy 8-year-old girls.

 
At 17 February, 2011 13:36, Blogger Ian said...

I can always argue, because I know what I'm talking about. Most of these other guys here can't do much more than act like bitchy 8-year-old girls.

Nothing's more amusing than the squeals of a failed janitor who tries to convince a bunch of strangers on an obscure blog of his genius, but only gets laughed at.

So Brian, when is that new investigation that you want going to happen?

 
At 17 February, 2011 21:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I don't know. But even if it doesn't happen for 50 years there will be dust to sample, there will be archives to search, there will be deathbed confessions to compile, there will be computers capable of modeling the buildings' collapse failure.

Truth is patient.

 
At 18 February, 2011 06:28, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

I can always argue, because I know what I'm talking about.

Anyone can argue. Having facts & logic to support those arguments is something else entirely. An appeal to self authority is not a good start.

 
At 18 February, 2011 07:50, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't know. But even if it doesn't happen for 50 years there will be dust to sample, there will be archives to search, there will be deathbed confessions to compile, there will be computers capable of modeling the buildings' collapse failure.

Brian, I'd offer you a wager on whether or not we see an investigation in the next 10 years, but I'm dealing with an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents. I don't want to take the last $5 in your savings account.

I'll be waiting for those deathbed confessions. Ha ha ha!

 
At 18 February, 2011 09:14, Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 February, 2011 09:20, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Presuming there will be deathbed confessions alone demonstrates the faith based nature of Brian's beliefs.

I have heard so many truthers talk about evidence that is hidden or what we will learn in the future which will vindicate them. No different then the Christians who believe the J man is coming back soon.

 
At 18 February, 2011 11:18, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 February, 2011 11:26, Blogger Triterope said...

in 50 years there will be dust to sample, there will be archives to search, there will be deathbed confessions to compile, there will be computers capable of modeling the buildings' collapse failure.

We have all of these things now!

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

Yes, we have them now (except no deathbed confessions that I know of) so we could have a new investigation right now. So why not? Why not make fools of us?

We will still have all that evidence 50 years from now.

 
At 18 February, 2011 19:11, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 February, 2011 19:12, Blogger Triterope said...

Why not make fools of us?

Because you do a much better job of it.

 
At 19 February, 2011 08:51, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Why not make fools of us?

Because tax payer money should be spent on worthwhile endeavors; not entertaining the loonies.

you guys have an alleged collection of over 1400 so called experts, yet fail to produce anything meaningful. Its all smoke and mirrors to appear like science.

 
At 21 February, 2011 12:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Have you seen David Chandler's work? Chandler forced NIST to acknowledge that for 2.5 seconds WTC7 came down in free fall.

 
At 21 February, 2011 14:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Chandler and the goat molester have a great deal in common: They're both cretins.

The reason building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration (there's no such thing as "free fall speed"--you physics illiterate moron) for 2.5 seconds is easy to explain, and not at all surprising to anyone with an IQ above room temperature.

Building 7 had a huge open space atrium in the lower floors (or entrance, if you prefer) of the building. When column 79A buckled, the building met no resistance as the lower portion of the building fell through the atrium. Once that portion of the collapse was complete the building met plenty of resistance--you fucking retard.

Now, get out of here, goat molester. Go play in the freeway.

 
At 21 February, 2011 14:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I didn't say anything about free fall speed. I said that for 2.5 seconds the building came down in free fall.

GutterBall, you invent your facts.
Where does the NIST report say the building fell through the atrium?

 
At 21 February, 2011 15:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I didn't say anything about free fall speed. I said that for 2.5 seconds the building came down in free fall."

Really? No kidding?

Then why did you write the following, Pinocchio?

"...Chandler forced NIST to acknowledge that for 2.5 seconds WTC7 came down in free fall."

You just can't stop lying, can you, Pinocchio?

The goat molester continues to lie and obfuscate, "...GutterBall, you invent your facts.
Where does the NIST report say the building fell through the atrium?"


More Orwellian doublethink, scumbag? You can't agree with the NIST Report and simultaneously disagree with the NIST Report--you lying whore.

Are you trying to argue that the building fell around the atrium--you physics illiterate fucktard?

A glance at a schematic of building 7 proves the multi-story atrium comprised the entrance to the building (from the ground to the fifth floor). Additionally, Dan Nigro talked about the atrium--and I quote:

"...3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels."

Enjoy your bowl of crow, Pinocchio.

Conclusion: Another epic failure for the liars who make up the 9/11 "truth" movement.

 
At 21 February, 2011 19:37, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"Have you seen David Chandler's work? Chandler forced NIST to acknowledge that for 2.5 seconds WTC7 came down in free fall."

LOL! Sure he did. NIST calculated the entire collapse time which moronic truthers claimed was totally in free fall.

Chandler rambled that WTC7 fell at free fall, which it didn't because it was over 15 secs. So NIST did a more detailed calculation of the entire collapse to include all changes in descent rates in which was 2.5 secs of FFA within the total 15+ secs. So now truther move the gaol posts form "IT FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED!" to "IT FELL AT FREE FALL SPEED FOR 2.5 SECS, NIST ADMITS IT, & WE MADE THEM!". Keep moving those goal posts.

Yeah I love Chandler's work. Just love those nanothermite rockets. I swear, you guys hear a word that sounds remotely sciencey and you just paste it on everything and anything you can find.

 
At 22 February, 2011 00:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I said the building came down in free fall for 2.5 seconds. I didn't say anything about free fall speed. Perhaps your poor reading comprehension makes you irritable. It's not my fault.

I never denied the existence of the WTC7 atrium, but your assertion that atrium failure caused the collapse is not consistent with the animations provided by NIST. You make up your facts.

Yes I can agree with elements of the NIST report and simultaneously disagree with it. I can also cite elements of it in criticizing its shortcomings. I'm you never learned to think.

GMS, Chandler showed that for 2.5 seconds WTC7 came down in free fall, and he got NIST to acknowledge that fact. The extended collapse times claimed by NIST have nothing to do with that fact.

You guys are getting very shrill.

 
At 22 February, 2011 01:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester proves he can't read, and scribbles, "...but your assertion that atrium failure caused the collapse is not consistent with the animations provided by NIST."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said a word about "atrium failure". I said the building fell through the atrium at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds as a result of the failure of column 79A, and when that portion of the collapse was complete the building met plenty of resistance.

Thus, it's proven once again that you refuse to debate in good faith. You're a liar and a logical fallacy spewing fucktard.

"...Yes I can agree with elements of the NIST report and simultaneously disagree with it."

Not without simultaneously admitting that you're an evil, manipulative, lying asshole who resorts to Orwellian doublethink,

As Orwell wrote in 1984, "...To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget, whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself -- that was the ultimate subtlety; consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word 'doublethink' involved the use of doublethink."

Any more logical fallacies for us, Pinocchio?

Pinocchio prevaricates, "...GMS, Chandler showed that for 2.5 seconds WTC7 came down in free fall, and he got NIST to acknowledge that fact. The extended collapse times claimed by NIST have nothing to do with that fact. "

He did no such thing. In fact, I've given you a perfectly logical explanation for the 2.5 second interval of gravitational acceleration (not "free fall"--you physics illiterate retard).

Face it: The closest you'll ever come to a brainstorm, goat molester, is a slight drizzle.

 
At 22 February, 2011 02:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you said "The reason building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration ... is easy to explain.... Building 7 had a huge open space atrium ....When column 79A buckled, the building met no resistance as the lower portion of the building fell through the atrium."

That is an atrium failure. Of course you are so ignorant you don't know that the column 79 failure (according to NIST) preceded the inception of the free fall collapse by more than 7 seconds.

Orwell's doublethink has to do with the simultaneous invocation of truth and lies, NOT the simultaneous entertainment of contradictory truths as rationality demands.

 
At 22 February, 2011 03:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester continues to lie and distort, "...That is an atrium failure. Of course you are so ignorant you don't know that the column 79 failure (according to NIST) preceded the inception of the free fall collapse by more than 7 seconds."

No, it's not an "atrium failure"--you fucking idiot.

Column 79A buckled and the building fell through the atrium's open space--nothing with respect to the atrium failed.

Can you read?

Of course you can't read. After all, you're a sex stalker, failed janitor and all-purpose habitual liar.

 
At 22 February, 2011 06:38, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Orwell's doublethink has to do with the simultaneous invocation of truth and lies, NOT the simultaneous entertainment of contradictory truths as rationality demands.

Bill's definition is the original, others have extended it to include what you are stating.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html

 
At 22 February, 2011 10:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you quote clearly ascribed the reason for WTC7's failure to the atrium. Then when I pointed out how ignorant that was, then you denied that you said what you said.

GMS, there is nothing dishonest about entertaining two contradictory ideas. That is what members of a jury are required to do while they are sorting out the evidence in a trial--they must consider the prosecution's case while maintaining the belief that the defendant is not guilty unless that case is proven.

 
At 22 February, 2011 10:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you said "The reason building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration ... is easy to explain.... Building 7 had a huge open space atrium ....When column 79A buckled, the building met no resistance as the lower portion of the building fell through the atrium."

 
At 22 February, 2011 11:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you quote clearly ascribed the reason for WTC7's failure to the atrium."

Another bald-faced lie.

Here's what I wrote: "...Building 7 had a huge open space atrium in the lower floors (or entrance, if you prefer) of the building. When column 79A buckled, the building met no resistance as the lower portion of the building fell through the atrium. Once that portion of the collapse was complete the building met plenty of resistance--you fucking retard."

Not one word of that paragraph "[ascribes] the reason for WTC7's failure to the atrium."

What the paragraph does tell us--you fucking illiterate and dishonest fucktard--is that the building fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds because THE ATRIUM IS A LARGE OPEN SPACE INSIDE THE LOWER PORTION OF THE BUILDING. NATURALLY, THE OPEN SPACE PROVIDES NO RESISTANCE TO THE REMAINDER OF THE STRUCTURE ABOVE THE ATRIUM ONCE THE "SMALL NUMBER OF LARGE COLUMNS" FAIL. Column 79A was the critical column; column 79A was also one of the "small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels." Got it, jackass?

"...3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels." -- Dan Nigro

Only a pathological liar would claim otherwise.

Now, go fuck yourself--you God damned liar.

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you quote-mined yourself by leaving out the preceding sentence.

You wrote: "The reason building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration ... is easy to explain.... Building 7 had a huge open space atrium in the lower floors (or entrance, if you prefer) of the building. When column 79A buckled, the building met no resistance as the lower portion of the building fell through the atrium."

So now you're trying to maintain that falling at gravitational acceleration is not failure?

On what floor was there a "small number of large columns" and how many is a small number? I can't find a floor with small number of columns.

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you quote-mined yourself by leaving out the preceding sentence."

Another bald-faced lie--and the quote you butchered proves you're lying. I didn't leave anything out. As usual you fail to substantiate your lies.

"...So now you're trying to maintain that falling at gravitational acceleration is not failure?"

And you wonder why I refer to you as "the illiterate goat molester."

Pathetic. 57 years-old and he still can't read beyond the third-grade level.

"...On what floor was there 'small number of large columns' and how many is a small number? I can't find a floor with small number of columns."

Now you're calling Dan Nigro a liar? Unbelievable.

Try the ground floor--you cretin.

Grade: F-

 
At 22 February, 2011 13:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you did leave out the context of the bit about the atrium--a classic bit of quote-mining. The sentence immediately preceding said the reason WTC7 fell at gravitational acceleration is not hard to explain. That you bring up the atrium in the succeeding sentence implies that the atrium was the reason for this.


So how many large columns were there on the ground floor? I would refer to Figure L-6 of Appendix L of the NIST report but it's sufficiently ambiguous that I think you'd try to litigate what's a large column and what's not.

So why don't you provide a reference plan and count the columns, and tell me if you're talking about columns outside of the substation or columns inside the substation.

 
At 22 February, 2011 15:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...That you bring up the atrium in the succeeding sentence implies that the atrium was the reason for this."

So, you honestly believe that you know the meaning of what I wrote better than I do?

Stupid, dishonest and arrogant. What a lovely combination.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're an idiot, goat molester.

Is that the best you can do--you quote mining son-of-a-bitch?

"...So how many large columns were there on the ground floor? I would refer to Figure L-6 of Appendix L of the NIST report but it's sufficiently ambiguous that I think you'd try to litigate what's a large column and what's not...So why don't you provide a reference plan and count the columns, and tell me if you're talking about columns outside of the substation or columns inside the substation."

LOL! "columns outside of the substation or columns inside the substation"?!?!?!?!?!?

Thanks for proving that you have no idea what you're talking about.

All you have is incoherent, know-nothing babbling.

You're an idiot.

 
At 22 February, 2011 16:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, how many large columns are there on the first floor? Are you of the impression that the substation covers the entire first floor? If you so are very wrong, and very lazy.

 
At 22 February, 2011 22:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, how many large columns are there on the first floor? Are you of the impression that the substation covers the entire first floor? If you so are very wrong, and very lazy."

WTC 7 was an irregular trapezoid shape. The building was 75 meters long on the south face and 100 meters on the north face, 44 meters wide and 186 meters tall.

The lower stories consisted of two two-story lobbies (a total of four stories), which formed the atrium.

On the north side of the first two stories was the Con-Edison substation. The substation was offset with respect to the footprint of building 7 adjacent to Washington Street and Barclay Street.

Floors 5 and 6 were mechanical spaces that housed a series of eight transfer truss assemblies. The transfer truss assemblies distributed the load of the upper floors onto the frame of the Con-Edison power station and parts of the lower four floors of the WTC 7 entrance.

The layout of the columns did NOT align with the building columns and the Con-Edison power substation. Thus, the column transfer truss assemblies within the mechanical spaces of floors 5 through 7.

Floors 7 through 47 were supported by 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns.

Twenty-one of the interior columns (#58-#78) formed the core columns, and supported the west side of the building.

The remaining three columns--columns 79, 80 and 81--were the largest (ie., critical) columns, which provided support for the unusually long floor spans on the east side of the building.

Thus, there were three large columns--columns 79, 80 and 81.

As a result, columns 79, 80 and 81 are the columns Dan Nigro mentioned when he wrote "...WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels."

Thus, we can see that Dan Nigro was telling the truth, and you, once again, are lying.

Check and mate

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

 
At 22 February, 2011 22:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

Notice that columns 79, 80 and 81 are opposite the Con-Edison power substation (located on the West Broadway Street side of the building facing to the east). Columns 79, 80 and 81 were the only columns pile driven into the bedrock below the building. Thus columns 79, 80 and 81 are the buildings' critical columns.

 
At 22 February, 2011 23:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so you are claiming there were only 3 large columns in WTC7 is that right?

 
At 22 February, 2011 23:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm not claiming anything, goat molester.

The NIST Report on the collapse of WTC 7 is clear and unambiguous--and I quote: "...The remaining three interior columns (79, 80 and 81) were particularly large, as they provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building."

The schematic on page 6 of the NIST Report on the Collapse of WTC 7--based on structural drawings, Cantor 1985--shows that the three columns, 79, 80 and 81, were opposite of the Con-Edison power station, and were pile driven into the bedrock. They were the only columns driven into the bedrock.

The atrium is described as well--and I quote: "...The lowest floors housed two two-story lobbies, one each on the center of the south side of the 1st and 3rd floors."

So no, I'm not claiming anything. I'm relying on FACTS derived from the NIST Report and the drawings provided by the building's structural engineer, Irwin Cantor.

Face it, the atrium is the open space that explains why the building fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds. After that interval, the building met plenty of resistance.

 
At 23 February, 2011 00:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh so now you're not claiming anything, though earlier you were claiming that only a pathological liar would say anything other than that "WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns". You also claimed that I am a liar.

So now you've abandoned the claim that I am a liar?

What's with the obfuscation? Are you claiming that three columns held up WTC7? If not, how many columns?

 
At 23 February, 2011 00:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So now you've abandoned the claim that I am a liar?"

Are you smoking drugs, goat molester?

You really should learn how to read. You can start with Hooked on Phonics, or, if you prefer, My Pet Goat. Good luck.

"...What's with the obfuscation? Are you claiming that three columns held up WTC7? If not, how many columns?"

Again, you really need to work on the reading comprehension thing, goat molester.

Keep staring at the words "critical columns" until you get it through your thick skull.

In fact, Shyam Sunder referred to columns 79, 80 and 81 as "critical columns."

What caused the collapse of WTC 7?

Sunder: "...WTC 7 was the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building. Because the collapse of the WTC Towers damaged the city water main, the sprinkler system for the bottom half of the stories of WTC 7 didn’t work. The uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors, damaging the floor framing on many other floors. Eventually a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical interior column [column 79] that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building. The displaced girder and other fire damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures, which left the critical column unsupported over nine stories. When this critical column buckled, it led to a progression of structural failures up to the roofline. All the interior columns buckled and failed across the building width, and the exterior walls just came down. Factors contributing to the collapse were long-span floor systems, connections not designed for thermal effects, asymmetric floor framing, and/or composite floor systems."

http://cee.mit.edu/node/2672

As anyone who has honestly studied the collapse can tell you, the buckling of Column 79 was the initiating event that led to the collapse of WTC 7. The buckling resulted from fire-induced damage to floors around Column 79, failure of the girder between Columns 44 and 79, and cascading floor failures.

Again, the open space on floor 1 through 4, which was the known as the atrium, explains why the building fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds. Following that portion of the collapse, the building met plenty of resistance.

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

Continued...

NIST wrote, "...Due to buckling of column 79 between floors 5 and 14, the upper section of column 79 began to descend. The downward movement of column 79 led to the observed kink in the east penthouse, and its subsequent descent. The cascading failures of the lower floors surrounding column 79 led to increased unsupported length in, falling debris impact on, and loads being redistributed to adjacent columns; and column 80 and the column 81 buckled as well. All the floor connections to these three columns, as well as the exterior columns, failed, and the floors fell on the east side of the building. The exterior facade on the east quarter of the building was just a hollow shell...The failure of the interior columns proceeded toward the west. Truss 2 (Figure 1-6) failed, hit by the debris from the falling floors. This caused column 77 and column 79 to fail, followed shortly by column 76...within seconds the entire building core was buckling."

NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 22.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

 
At 23 February, 2011 01:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you just continue to try to scoop bullshit on the fact that you claimed that WTC7 was built on a small number of columns, and you can not show that because it's not true.

 
At 23 February, 2011 01:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you just continue to try to scoop bullshit on the fact that you claimed that WTC7 was built on a small number of columns, and you can not show that because it's not true."

Again, you can't read.

I never claimed anything. I quoted an expert witness, FDNY chief Dan Nigro.

"...3. WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels." -- Dan Nigro

Get your lies straight, Pinocchio.

Furthermore, I just gave you testimony from another expert witness, Shyam Sunder. And he tells us that columns 79, 80 and 81 were "critical columns."

End of story. You lose the debate again, because you can't read and you're intellectually dishonest. You're a wanton liar with zero credibility. Deal with it, goat molester.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 23 February, 2011 02:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then there's this little gem from page 54 of NIST NCSTAR 1A--and I quote:

"...Columns 79, 80 and 81 were the only interior support for the gravity loads in the eastern region of the building. Once these three columns buckled and their upper sections began to descend, there was insufficient support for the floors, up to the east penthouse."

Game, set and match.

 
At 23 February, 2011 09:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

So first you claimed I was a liar, then you said you weren't claiming anything, and then you claimed I don't know how to read.

So first you claimed that the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns, and now you change the subject to say the critical columns are on the east side. Then why didn't the building fall through the east side--onto the Post Office across the street?

By your own logic, you're intellectually dishonest to quote Shyam Sunder when you reject his statements that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. You're a hypocrite, Bill.

I'm glad that you are finally educating yourself on what happened at WTC7. Column 79 had girders connected to it from three sides. How did the failure of one girder cause the failure of the other two, cascading down all the way through five floors?

You still haven't explained how many columns were on the first floor, and how you can claim that was "a few".

Your quote from NCSTAR 1A p. 22 makes no sense. First you say column 79 buckled, then the floors fell down, falling floors caused truss 2 to fail, and then columns 77 and 79 failed. So column 79 brought the floors down, and the floors brought79 down--is that what NIST is saying? And you believe this crap?

So you want to rely on Mr. Nigro's assertion that WTC7 was built on "a small number of large columns" but you won't count the columns for yourself? What do Dr. Sunder's critical columns have to the do with the atrium? They're not in the atrium. What do the floors in the eastern end of the building have to do with the atrium? You're just babbling.

 
At 23 February, 2011 13:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So first you claimed I was a liar, then you said you weren't claiming anything, and then you claimed I don't know how to read."

That's your fallacious interpretation of what I wrote, and we all know your opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

"...So first you claimed that the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns, and now you change the subject to say the critical columns are on the east side. Then why didn't the building fall through the east side--onto the Post Office across the street?"

No, I didn't claim "the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns". I said the building experienced 2.5 seconds of gravitation acceleration because the building fell through the atrium, which is composed of nothing but open space--air. And air, as all sane people know, offers negligible resistance to the falling mass of an object.

See what I mean? You're an idiot--and a dishonest, lying idiot at that.

"...By your own logic, you're intellectually dishonest to quote Shyam Sunder when you reject his statements that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. You're a hypocrite, Bill."

The building fell in 18 seconds as anyone with a stopwatch and a copy of the ENTIRE collapse video can prove. But that's irrelevant, because I agree with the reports' conclusions. There is no hypocrisy, because for all I know, your claim that Sunder said "the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" is very likely untrue, or a misstatement on Sunder's part.

Nice try, goat molester, but no cigar.

"...I'm glad that you are finally educating yourself on what happened at WTC7."

Don't condescend to me--you cretin--because I've forgotten more about the collapse of WTC 7 than you'll ever know.

"...You still haven't explained how many columns were on the first floor, and how you can claim that was 'a few'."

I didn't make the claim. I quoted FDNY chief Dan Nigro.

How many time must I point this out before you get it through your thick skull? It's intellectually dishonest to claim that I said something, when, in fact, I quoted an expert witness.

This precisely why you cannot be trusted. You're intellectually dishonest to the core.

"...Your quote from NCSTAR 1A p. 22 makes no sense."

Says whom? A failed janitor, sex stalker and proven habitual liar?

"...So you want to rely on Mr. Nigro's assertion that WTC7 was built on "a small number of large columns" but you won't count the columns for yourself? What do Dr. Sunder's critical columns have to the do with the atrium? They're not in the atrium. What do the floors in the eastern end of the building have to do with the atrium? You're just babbling."

I gave the relevant information in the form of direct quotes from the NIST Report at 23:53--and I quote: "...The remaining three interior columns (79, 80 and 81) were particularly large, as they provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building."

In fact, I never claimed the 3 large columns are "in the atrium"--you straw man argument spewing fool. Dan Nigro's testimony says the building "was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels."

Thus, it's proven, once again, that either you can't read, or you're deliberately misinterpreting my writing in order to smear me.

So which is it, goat fucker?

 
At 23 February, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So first you claimed I was a liar, then you said you weren't claiming anything, and then you claimed I don't know how to read."

That's your fallacious interpretation of what I wrote, and we all know your opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

"...So first you claimed that the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns, and now you change the subject to say the critical columns are on the east side. Then why didn't the building fall through the east side--onto the Post Office across the street?"

No, I didn't claim "the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns". I said the building experienced 2.5 seconds of gravitation acceleration because the building fell through the atrium, which is composed of nothing but open space--air. And air, as all sane people know, offers negligible resistance to the falling mass of an object.

See what I mean? You're an idiot--and a dishonest, lying idiot at that.

"...By your own logic, you're intellectually dishonest to quote Shyam Sunder when you reject his statements that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. You're a hypocrite, Bill."

The building fell in 18 seconds as anyone with a stopwatch and a copy of the ENTIRE collapse video can prove. But that's irrelevant, because I agree with the reports' conclusions. There is no hypocrisy, because for all I know, your claim that Sunder said "the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds" is very likely untrue, or a misstatement on Sunder's part.

Nice try, goat molester, but no cigar.

"...I'm glad that you are finally educating yourself on what happened at WTC7."

Don't condescend to me--you cretin--because I've forgotten more about the collapse of WTC 7 than you'll ever know.

"...You still haven't explained how many columns were on the first floor, and how you can claim that was 'a few'."

I didn't make the claim. I quoted FDNY chief Dan Nigro.

How many time must I point this out before you get it through your thick skull? It's intellectually dishonest to claim that I said something, when, in fact, I quoted an expert witness.

This precisely why you cannot be trusted. You're intellectually dishonest to the core.

Continued...

 
At 23 February, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

"...Your quote from NCSTAR 1A p. 22 makes no sense."

Says whom? A failed janitor, sex stalker and proven habitual liar?

"...So you want to rely on Mr. Nigro's assertion that WTC7 was built on "a small number of large columns" but you won't count the columns for yourself? What do Dr. Sunder's critical columns have to the do with the atrium? They're not in the atrium. What do the floors in the eastern end of the building have to do with the atrium? You're just babbling."

I gave the relevant information in the form of direct quotes from the NIST Report at 23:53--and I quote: "...The remaining three interior columns (79, 80 and 81) were particularly large, as they provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building."

In fact, I never claimed the 3 large columns are "in the atrium"--you straw man argument spewing fool. Dan Nigro's testimony says the building "was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels."

Thus, it's proven, once again, that either you can't read, or you're deliberately misinterpreting my writing in order to smear me.

So which is it, goat fucker?

 
At 23 February, 2011 14:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, you quoted Mr. Nigro as an expert but you didn't agree with what he said, and you didn't bother to say you didn't agree, you just quoted him for no reason. Is that right?

You are showing the true meaning of the "no true Scottsman" fallacy. It's when somebody says something stupid and then tried to cobble together a rationalization to claim they didn't say it.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, as anyone who bothers to listen to the first 2 minutes of this interview can see:

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

You're not just a liar, you're a verbose liar.

So are you or are you not claiming that WTC7 was built on 3 columns? If not, how many columns are you claiming it was built on.

I wouldn't smear you, I don't want to pollute my hands. I just stand back and let you smear yourself.

 
At 23 February, 2011 17:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Oh I see, you quoted Mr. Nigro as an expert but you didn't agree with what he said, and you didn't bother to say you didn't agree, you just quoted him for no reason. Is that right?"

No, wrong again. As usual you've taken my writing out of context.

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

"...No, I didn't claim "the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns". I said the building experienced 2.5 seconds of gravitation acceleration because the building fell through the atrium, which is composed of nothing but open space--air. And air, as all sane people know, offers negligible resistance to the falling mass of an object."

As per usual, you don't even bother to read what I've written.

"...You are showing the true meaning of the "no true Scottsman" fallacy. It's when somebody says something stupid and then tried to cobble together a rationalization to claim they didn't say it."

That statement is not even close to the true meaning and interpretation of the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

Thanks for proving, once again, that you're a 'tard.

 
At 23 February, 2011 17:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Oh I see, you quoted Mr. Nigro as an expert but you didn't agree with what he said, and you didn't bother to say you didn't agree, you just quoted him for no reason. Is that right?"

No, wrong again. As usual you've taken my writing out of context.

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

"...No, I didn't claim "the building fell through the atrium because there were a small number of columns". I said the building experienced 2.5 seconds of gravitation acceleration because the building fell through the atrium, which is composed of nothing but open space--air. And air, as all sane people know, offers negligible resistance to the falling mass of an object."

As per usual, you don't even bother to read what I've written.

"...You are showing the true meaning of the "no true Scottsman" fallacy. It's when somebody says something stupid and then tried to cobble together a rationalization to claim they didn't say it."

That statement is not even close to the true meaning and interpretation of the "No true Scotsman" logical fallacy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Thanks for proving, once again, that you're a 'tard.

 
At 23 February, 2011 17:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, as anyone who bothers to listen to the first 2 minutes of this interview can see:"

I don't care about some silly Nova video. It's easy to see that Dr. Sunder misspoke. After all, president Obama said "My Muslim faith," on TV. However, it's easy to determine that he misspoke.

Additionally, any one with a stopwatch and a video of the entire collapse of WTC 7 can verify that the building took 18 seconds to collapse.

Thus, your argument is meaningless hot air.

 
At 23 February, 2011 17:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You're not just a liar, you're a verbose liar."

Projecting again, Pinocchio?

"...So are you or are you not claiming that WTC7 was built on 3 columns? If not, how many columns are you claiming it was built on."

I never claimed that WTC 7 was built on three columns--and if you could read at anything beyond the third grade-level you'd know that.

You're an idiot, goat molester. How did you manage to finish the GED exam?

 
At 24 February, 2011 00:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, no I'm not projecting about verbosity. I'm not the one who needs three posts to say his piece.

If you're not claiming WTC7 was built on three columns, why do you keep harping about these three irrelevant columns, which have absolutely nothing to do with your atrium. How many columns were on the first floor? How many were inside the substation as opposed to outside of it?

 
At 25 February, 2011 10:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...If you're not claiming WTC7 was built on three columns, why do you keep harping about these three irrelevant columns, which have absolutely nothing to do with your atrium."

Says whom? A proven habitual liar? I gave you expert witness testimony. Your idiotic, lying opinion will NEVER trump expert testimony.

FAIL.

"...How many columns were on the first floor?"

Irrelevant.

"...How many were inside the substation as opposed to outside of it?"

The layout of the columns did NOT align with the building columns and the Con-Edison power substation, idiot. That's why the transfer truss assemblies were necessary.

You just get more ridiculous with every post, goat molester.

Grade: F-

 
At 25 February, 2011 11:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

GoiterBoob, your own authority says the three columns brought down the east side floors, and says nothing about the atrium. There's no connection.

Oh, so now the number of columns on the first floor is irrelevant? Then why did you cite the number of columns as a significant factor in the failure, and then steer me to the first floor when I asked you what floor you were talking about?

What do the transfer trusses have to do with the number of columns?

You don't know the differences among trusses, girders, beams, and joists.

That's like not knowing the difference between pennies, nickles, dimes, quarters, and Sacagaweas. They're all coins, so they're all the same.

 
At 25 February, 2011 12:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 February, 2011 12:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Making shit up again, goat molester?

How does a 57 year-old man who lives with his mother manage to have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader? Didn't your mother take the time to sit you down on her knee and teach you to read while she was grooming you to be a complete failure in life?

Goat molester, can I borrow your face for a few days while my ass is on vacation?

 
At 25 February, 2011 13:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh is that how you work it out? You and your ass take separate vacations, and if you hide your face behind mine you can pretend to be me while your ass is running around making whooppee on vacation?

No, I need my face to be me. And I wouldn't want anybody to think I'd gotten as fat as you are. Look at those pudgy stubby little fingers! Do you really expect people to believe you're a good guitarist?

The more you try to be clever and smart, the more pathetic you look.

 
At 25 February, 2011 14:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Babbling incoherently again, goat molester?

It's not my fault that you can't read. It's also not my fault that you're an habitual liar.

Many people have pointed out that you're not fit to sleep with pigs, goat molester. But I stuck up for you and said, "Oh yes he is."

Ingrate.

 
At 25 February, 2011 15:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

You flatter yourself when you claim you stick up for anything. You can't stick up even with a whole bottle of viagra.

 
At 25 February, 2011 15:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester has reached rock bottom and he's showing signs of starting to dig.

If you ask nicely, perhaps they'll let back into elementary school, so you can have a second chance at learning to read.

 
At 25 February, 2011 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 25 February, 2011 16:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat molester, I'm willing to bet your brain feels as good as new. After all, you've never used it.

 
At 16 May, 2011 16:02, Blogger Kissing the carpet said...

I'd just like to say, that whatever the truth or falsehood of statements made here, I am amazed at the level of childist insults flung back & forth. Surely you must all realise that the pursuit of truth & the convincing of others of that truth is never, ever served by adolescent name-calling,& flinging insults around that are intended to cause as much hurt & anger as possible. Most of you are a total disgrace - I really hope none of you have children, I really do.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home