Monday, March 07, 2011

Richard Gage Opposed to NIST Safety Regulations

Usually I just make fun of these idiots, but the recent debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr shows just how scary these people can be. I suppose we should be thankful that Gage is now a full time nutter and not an actual working architect anymore. Based just on this exchange regarding the NIST World Trade Center 7 report, he should have his license pulled. From around 1:52 into the debate.

Mohr: Do you also oppose the fire and safety regulations that NIST has proposed in these reports?

Host: Well we have one minute now for Richard to discuss that, perhaps Richard would like to…

Gage: In fact I do, there are billions of dollars that are spent needlessly as a result of the recommendations that NIST forced, that were forced on several other building codes.

Mohr: That would scare me.

Gage: It is needless, and architects and engineers, 1400 of us are crying for a new investigation.

Labels:

109 Comments:

At 07 March, 2011 21:34, Blogger Ian said...

Well, that's the end of any chance he ever had of regaining his dignity and a decent job once the con artist gig stops paying the bills.

How dumb can Gage be?

 
At 07 March, 2011 23:39, Blogger Greg said...

Safety codes!? We don't need no stinkin' safety codes!?

 
At 08 March, 2011 05:00, Blogger Len said...

On yes thabled 1400 A's & E's only a dozen or so are structural engineers and only 1 or 2 of whom claim experience with tall buildings. As opposed to the ASCE and other engineering bodies which endorsed NIST's recomendations and who have far more members and more importantly far more QUALIFIED members that Gage's lunatic fringe.

 
At 08 March, 2011 05:01, Blogger Len said...

The 3rd and 4th words should have been 'the fabled' not sure what happened

 
At 08 March, 2011 13:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 March, 2011 14:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, AE911Truth has 52 qualified structural engineers.

Please tell us where you get your misinformation.

 
At 08 March, 2011 14:59, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Brian, in view of the revelations in the Cass Sunstein post, I have to ask: Did you spot any cointelpro operations at AE911Troof when you were there? Or did you have to leave
because you yourself were suspected of being cointelpro?

 
At 08 March, 2011 17:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, I never heard of AE911Troof. Certainly William Rodriguez and Kevin Barrett have made suggestions that I was cointelpro, and Carol Brouillet has reported that people tried to get her to believe I was, though she said she didn't believe them.

 
At 08 March, 2011 17:50, Blogger Ian said...

Brian is obviously not cointelpro. He's the lunatic true believer who joins a religious cult to give his empty life meaning. Instead of the Branch Davidians or Heaven's Gate, he joined 9/11 truth. Hopefully, it won't end in mass suicide.

 
At 09 March, 2011 05:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Dylan Unsavery wrote, "...Or did you have to leave because you yourself were suspected of being cointelpro?"

In the goat molester's case, that would be costupidopro.

 
At 10 March, 2011 07:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Hopefully, it won't end in mass suicide.


Hopefully, it WILL end in mass suicide, and greatly improve the gene pool.

 
At 10 March, 2011 08:36, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Arup Fire’s presentation regarding tall buildings and the events of 9/11

"It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically important document for tall building design worldwide.

Its conclusions will have a major influence on the Regulatory environment, and on clients’ expectations for tall building design. We believe it will provide invaluable data for future design validation."

Well I don't think Box Boy will be offered a Job at Arup anytime soon, but then the are a major worldwide builder and Gage is.... well, you know.

Funny how professional grade structural engineers find the NIST report so important and find no flaws with it basic conclusions, they may disagrees on minor points, like the effect of the knocked off fireproofing, but not the fact fire and fire alone caused the collapse.

While Box Boy and Janitor Boy float laughable controlled demolition ideas.

 
At 10 March, 2011 08:44, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

FYI, Arup builds stuff like this,

And Gage and his group? Nothing to speak of.

 
At 10 March, 2011 20:13, Blogger Triterope said...

Hopefully, it won't end in mass suicide.

I was thinking they might try self-immolation. Hey, it worked in Algeria.

 
At 11 March, 2011 00:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, DK, good find. Stop the presses! A big engineering firm thinks a $20 million government study will be important! Wowie Zowie!

Of course your Arup document was written before the NIST report was released. But you guys are that desperate for validation for the NIST report that you'll grab onto anything.

GutterBall cited a bunch of papers written in the spring of 2002 as endorsement of the 2005 NIST report.

 
At 11 March, 2011 07:21, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Wow, DK, good find. Stop the presses! A big engineering firm thinks a $20 million government study will be important! Wowie Zowie!

And that REAL engineering firm used the NIST reconditions in the the work they do now. You notice there is no questions that fire brought down the towers, that is obvious to smart people and REAL structural engineers. Only question is what NIST will recommend.

You notice there is no huge outcry from the brightest and best in engineering, only from a small group of worthless self proclaimed engineers.

 
At 11 March, 2011 09:02, Blogger James B. said...

The building I work in was built in 2006. It is interesting to see how it was affected. The stairwells are huge. You can walk four abreast.

 
At 11 March, 2011 09:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, your conflation of the issue of NIST's fire safety recommendations with the validity of their collapse mechanism findings is irrational.

And if you expect a large engineering firms in the world to challenge a US government agency's findings in a time of war, you are terribly naive.

Even if Arup engineers recognized any problems with NIST's analysis, they would not make these public unless they had proof. And since NIST restricted access to the relevant information, and since the firm can not be expected to conduct an expensive investigation of its own without a paying client, they're not going to come forward.

There was no outcry when NIST completely reversed the conventional wisdom of the truss failure theory with its outwardly-buckling columns and substituted the column failure theory with its inwardly-buckling columns. No defense of the earlier theory, no soul-searching about how they could all have been so wrong. The apathy is an indictment of the integrity of the entire engineering profession.

If Richard Gage is traveling around selling snake oil to impressionable young people and thus blighting their lives, why don't responsible engineers like Guitar Bill go to his shows and ask him devastating questions and make a fool of him? Why won't NIST or Popular Science debate on National Geographic or History Channel and settle the issues? Why does NIST refuse to provide the collapse visualizations and the structural analysis information? What are they hiding?

 
At 11 March, 2011 12:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

If Richard Gage is traveling around selling snake oil to impressionable young people and thus blighting their lives, why don't responsible engineers like Guitar Bill go to his shows and ask him devastating questions and make a fool of him?

For the same reason biologist don't feel the need to debate every kook creationist who writes a book to con the gullible pinhead like yourself. Evolution will always be fact and god did it the raving of the idiot class. Same as fire is what destroyed the WTC and controlled demolition the ravings of people like you, losers who will be nothing more that janitors and the like.

So face it Brian, you will always be who you are, a low life with the metal capacity of a child. When people meet you they see that, when you post here we see that. You will always be the loser because you were born to lose. As I said your own personal inferiority to people like me and the rest is the only issue here.

Oh, and if you have any swing with Gage let him know I personally will take him on if he comes to Detroit or pays my way to see him. I every bring the boxes.

 
At 11 March, 2011 12:45, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Brain again, why is it YOU have to live with mom and dad at your age? Why still only a janitor if you are so smart? Are you not ashamed of that? I would be.

 
At 11 March, 2011 12:53, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

There was no outcry when Evolutionist completely reversed the conventional wisdom of the slow state theory with and substituted Punctuated equilibrium? No defense of the earlier theory, no soul-searching about how they could all have been so wrong.

You see Brian why that is such a silly thing to say? why it hold no water with bright logical thinking people? Why it would only come from the mind of a child/man like you?

Do I have to explain "God of the Gaps" to you, the way I have had to school you in everything else?

 
At 11 March, 2011 13:06, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"And if you expect a large engineering firms in the world to challenge a US government agency's findings in a time of war, you are terribly naive. "

Wrong again Brian Arup is very much an international form who do more work outside the US. Even if you where gullible enough to thing the US government could prevent them from doing business inside the US. And is indicative of your scumbag nature, yeah truther are the only ones willing to question the events of 9/11 and all others willing to take money to hide mass murder. it's why you are a dirtbag compared to me.

I take that back Brian, to be a worthless dirtbag you would have to be smart enough to know what you are saying to so asinine, but you are not that, you are just a poor simpleton sap of a man who will never have the intellect to realize how wrong you are.

 
At 11 March, 2011 15:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, your creationist analogy is very poor. Creationists are selling a faith-based program, so trying to defeat them in scientific terms is futile. Gage claims to be offering a program based in science, evidence, and rational analysis. Totally different animal.

Where do you get the idea I will never be anything more than a janitor? Mr. Gage is coming to Southfield Michigan April 18, 7 pm, College of Architecture & Design at Lawrence Technological University. So you get your boxes together. Why don't you call around and see if you can find even one structural engineer who is willing to defend the NIST report in public?

Your "punctuated equilibrium" is also a poor analogy because it did not reverse the mechanism of evolution but only refined it.

It doesn't matter where Arup does its work. It's very bad luck to challenge the sole remaining superpower on the planet, especially in time of war. It would be irresponsibile to their clients, their employees, and their employees' dependents.

Don't disappoint me and wimp out next month. Don't forget the boxes.

 
At 11 March, 2011 15:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, your creationist analogy is very poor. Creationists are selling a faith-based program, so trying to defeat them in scientific terms is futile. Gage claims to be offering a program based in science, evidence, and rational analysis. Totally different animal.

9/11 truth is a faith and not science as much as you would like to think it is. Creationist say Intelligent Design is science too. You don't see the difference because you are part of the cult. Creationist have their own so call scientist. And you have Gage a so call engineer.

"Your "punctuated equilibrium" is also a poor analogy because it did not reverse the mechanism of evolution but only refined it."

And when NIST does the same, you try and make out as a failure. That is how religious nuts work.

Evolution = Fire induced collapse = True
9/11 Truth = controlled demolition = False

 
At 11 March, 2011 15:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

And get an engineer who's willing to state his name and his license number like the AE911Truth engineers are. "Ian's Uncle Steve" ain't gonna cut it. Bet you can't get even one.

 
At 11 March, 2011 15:45, Blogger James B. said...

Trutherism is faith based. Supermagiconanothermite is a magical paranormal substance with ethereal qualities unconstrained by early limits.

 
At 11 March, 2011 15:47, Blogger James B. said...

Err, earthly even.

 
At 11 March, 2011 16:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, certainly there are many faith-based practitioners and many of the selectively skeptical among the truthers. But there are a number of well-informed and genuine critical thinkers as well.

I find the Debunkers to be far more faith-based than the truthers. Most of them are very poorly informed, many make up their facts, they make glaring errors of logic, and they have a major problem of blind acceptance of authority.

NIST's columns failure theory was not a refinement of FEMA's truss failure theory. It was a total rejection of a theory that was so dumb nobody should have ever believed for a minute. (The only reason I believed it was because it came from MIT. When I started to think for myself I recognized its obvious impossibility.)

I knew you were basing your analogy on the true/false paradigm, which is why it's so dumb. Why try to reduce reality to a one-bit computer?

James B, yes nanothermite was promoted as something of a magic elixer that cures all--it's an incendiary! It's an explosive! And you're right to make fun of that. As I've said, I have always regarded the nanothermite evidence as simply interesting speculation until I see the results confirmed by an independent lab. I still don't see how it could have pulverized the concrete, no matter how explosive it may be.

 
At 11 March, 2011 18:32, Blogger Triterope said...

Why won't NIST or Popular Science debate on National Geographic or History Channel and settle the issues?

Because the issues are already settled.

 
At 12 March, 2011 10:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, the issues are not settled. PM knocks down a few straw man conspiracy theories and declares Case Closed. Nat'l Geo presents a phony demonstration to show that thermite can not melt steel.

NIST has not explained the molten iron, the pulverization of the concrete, the speed or symmetry or totality of the collapses, the vaporized steel in FEMA Appendix C, or the fire on the roof of WTC1.

 
At 12 March, 2011 10:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, psychopath?

Your idiotic questions aren't evidence, gay boi.

Shall we discuss how you lied about Skillings calculations? Tell us more about the towers ability to withstand an impact with a 707 traveling at 600 MPH.

Go for it, goat molester, lie to us again. I double dare you--you lying scumbag.

 
At 12 March, 2011 10:47, Blogger Ian said...

TR, the issues are not settled.

The issues are settled among professionals who understand things, Brian. You don't think they're settled because you're an ignorant failed janitor who believes nonsensical things about 9/11.

NIST has not explained the molten iron, the pulverization of the concrete, the speed or symmetry or totality of the collapses, the vaporized steel in FEMA Appendix C, or the fire on the roof of WTC1.

See what I mean?

 
At 12 March, 2011 11:24, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, the issues are not settled.

Yes, they are, Brian.

 
At 12 March, 2011 12:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I didn't lie about Skillings's calculations. The 2/3/64 white paper says the building could take a hit from a 707 at 600 mph. The belief that the fuel was not considered is unreasonable, given that a 73-ton 707-320B might be carrying 80 tons of fuel.

TR, the professionals at AE911Truth understand things and they are informed about the issues. Most engineers are not informed, and refuse to discuss the issues. That's why GutterBall still can not name even one engineer independent of NIST who will publicly endorse NIST report's findings on the collapses.

The issues are not settled. NIST has not explained the molten iron, the pulverization of the concrete, the speed or symmetry or totality of the collapses, the vaporized steel in FEMA Appendix C, or the fire on the roof of WTC1.

 
At 12 March, 2011 13:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...The belief that the fuel was not considered is unreasonable, given that a 73-ton 707-320B might be carrying 80 tons of fuel."

Where's your evidence to support that assertion, goat molester?

You're nuttier than squirrel shit, and you lie like a rug.

Again, jackass, where's the evidence to support that assertion? And remember, Pinocchio, your opinion isn't evidence.

 
At 12 March, 2011 13:45, Blogger Triterope said...

The issues are not settled.

Yes, they are, Brian.

 
At 12 March, 2011 13:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, ass face, I'm waiting for your evidence.

 
At 12 March, 2011 13:46, Blogger Ian said...

TR, the professionals at AE911Truth understand things and they are informed about the issues. Most engineers are not informed, and refuse to discuss the issues. That's why GutterBall still can not name even one engineer independent of NIST who will publicly endorse NIST report's findings on the collapses.

False, false, and false. C'mon Brian, one more lie and you'll have the golden sombrero!

The issues are not settled. NIST has not explained the molten iron, the pulverization of the concrete, the speed or symmetry or totality of the collapses, the vaporized steel in FEMA Appendix C, or the fire on the roof of WTC1.

Brian, those are not "issues". They're the delusions of a failed janitor and ignorant liar who gets laughed at by people more intelligent and successful than he is.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, since F=ma and KE=1/2mv^2, the mass of the aircraft is essential to the study of impact damage from a plane crash, and leaving out the mass of the fuel would be incompetent.

You can't figure that out, Mr. Applied Mathematics?

Ian, for something to be a delusion it must be untrue. NIST has not explained the molten iron, the pulverization of the concrete, the speed or symmetry or totality of the collapses, the vaporized steel in FEMA Appendix C, or the fire on the roof of WTC1.

If you believe they have, you are suffering from delusions.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:19, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, for something to be a delusion it must be untrue.

Yes.

NIST has not explained the molten iron, the pulverization of the concrete, the speed or symmetry or totality of the collapses, the vaporized steel in FEMA Appendix C, or the fire on the roof of WTC1.

Well, not all of these are delusions, but you have to be completely insane and ignorant to wonder why there might be a fire on the roof of 1 WTC. Kinda like you, Brian.

If you believe they have, you are suffering from delusions.

I don't believe they have. I don't care that they haven't because I'm not under the delusional impression that they're important. I'm not a delusional failed janitor, liar, and sex stalker. That's you, Brian, remember?

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, since F=ma and KE=1/2mv^2, the mass of the aircraft is essential to the study of impact damage from a plane crash, and leaving out the mass of the fuel would be incompetent...You can't figure that out, Mr. Applied Mathematics?"

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, asshole?

I'm the one who claimed that Skilling never considered the impacts of the jet fuel and the ensuing fire, while you claimed Skilling did consider the impact of the fuel and the ensuing fire. So which it is--you double-talking liar?

Get your lies straight, goat molester. You can't have it both ways, Pinocchio.

So tell us, goat molester, why are you lying again and cherry picking the NIST Report when it suits your propaganda--you filthy, lying felcher?

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients.

I haven't lied about anything. You're going to call any citation or quote "cherry picking". You are impugning the process of scholarship and analysis.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:19, Blogger Triterope said...

You are impugning the process of scholarship and analysis.

This is a blog, Brian, not the fucking New England Journal of Medicine.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients."

But a you're self-proclaimed expert on the contents of the NIST Report. Right, Pinocchio?

Then why did you lie and pretend that the NIST Report doesn't contradict your propaganda?

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

"...I haven't lied about anything. You're going to call any citation or quote "cherry picking". You are impugning the process of scholarship and analysis."

A high school drop out can't claim to be a "scholar." You're a cherry picking propagandist who lies with abandon.

There's not an institution of higher learning in the World that wouldn't have expelled you by now. After all, I've caught you quote mining an lying on at least one hundred occasions.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Impugning the process of scholarship and analysis is stupid and cynical whether it's done in a medical journal, on a blog, on the street, at a football game, in a tavern, or at a meeting of the KKK.

I'm quite familiar with the BushBot program to try to discourage people from citing the "liberal media" as authority, and from accusations of "quote mining" (don't know what it is, but it sounds bad!). UtterFail takes this a step beyond by demanding that one subscribe to the conclusions of a text if they want to cite facts in the text--except when he wants to do it, of course.

So in GutterBall's book, the Jew-hater, liar, and raving violence-mongering nut-job Dr. Kevin Barrett is a perfectly valid source for information about Brian Good.

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients."

But a you're self-proclaimed expert on the contents of the NIST Report. Right, Pinocchio?

Then why did you lie and pretend that the NIST Report doesn't contradict your propaganda?

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

Continued...

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I haven't lied about anything. You're going to call any citation or quote "cherry picking". You are impugning the process of scholarship and analysis."

A high school drop out can't claim to be a "scholar." You're a cherry picking propagandist who lies with abandon.

There's not an institution of higher learning in the World that wouldn't have expelled you by now. After all, I've caught you quote mining an lying on at least one hundred occasions.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 12 March, 2011 15:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients."

But a you're self-proclaimed expert on the contents of the NIST Report. Right, Pinocchio?

Then why did you lie and pretend that the NIST Report doesn't contradict your propaganda?

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients."

But a you're self-proclaimed expert on the contents of the NIST Report. Right, Pinocchio?

Then why did you lie and pretend that the NIST Report doesn't contradict your propaganda?

Continued...

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Coninued...

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So in GutterBall's book, the Jew-hater, liar, and raving violence-mongering nut-job Dr. Kevin Barrett is a perfectly valid source for information about Brian Good."

Lying again, scumbag?

The original source for the thread the appears at Barrett's website is SLC, not a "Jews-did-9/11 website".

Thus, you're caught lying and misleading the reader again.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Coninued...

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

PAT!

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH THIS WEBSITE?

THE SITE CONSTANTLY DELETES MY POSTS.

FIX THIS GOD DAMNED WEBSITE!

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients."

But a you're self-proclaimed expert on the contents of the NIST Report. Right, Pinocchio?

Then why did you lie and pretend that the NIST Report doesn't contradict your propaganda?

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

"...I haven't lied about anything. You're going to call any citation or quote "cherry picking". You are impugning the process of scholarship and analysis."

A high school drop out can't claim to be a "scholar." You're a cherry picking propagandist who lies with abandon.

There's not an institution of higher learning in the World that wouldn't have expelled you by now. After all, I've caught you quote mining an lying on at least one hundred occasions.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Skilling told the Seattle Times that the building was designed to take a hit from an airliner and the resulting fires. You argue like a defense attorney who gets paid to lie for guilty clients."

But a you're self-proclaimed expert on the contents of the NIST Report. Right, Pinocchio?

Then why did you lie and pretend that the NIST Report doesn't contradict your propaganda?

The NIST Report states--and I quote: "...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, it's proven, once again, the you're cherry picking the NIST Report, which is intellectually dishonest.

"...I haven't lied about anything. You're going to call any citation or quote "cherry picking". You are impugning the process of scholarship and analysis."

A high school drop out can't claim to be a "scholar." You're a cherry picking propagandist who lies with abandon.

There's not an institution of higher learning in the World that wouldn't have expelled you by now. After all, I've caught you quote mining an lying on at least one hundred occasions.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:27, Blogger Punxsutawneybarney said...

GutterBall, where do you get the idea that I'm a high school dropout?

The NIST report does not contradict the fact that Skilling said the towers were designed for airliner impact and fires.

Please support your claim that Barrett's original source was SLC. Barrett's link doesn't work.

UtterFail, competent computer users know to copy their posts to Notepad before they try to post.

Maybe Pat is blocking your posts because they're embarrassing.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, where do you get the idea that I'm a high school dropout?"

What are you a comedian? You're an idiot.

"...The NIST report does not contradict the fact that Skilling said the towers were designed for airliner impact and fires. "

Liar.

"...The accidental 1945 collision of a B-52 aircraft with the Empire State Building sensitized designers of high-rise buildings to the potential hazards of such an event. However, building codes did not then, and do not currently, require that a building withstand the impact of a fuel-laden commercial jetliner. A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers. However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that "...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." Since the ability for rigorous simulation of the aircraft impact and of the ensuing fires are recent developments and since the approach to structural modeling was developed for this Investigation, the technical capability available to The Port Authority and its consultants and contractors to perform such and analysis in the 1960s would have been quite limited." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

Thus, you're a liar, goat molester.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:34, Blogger Ian said...

Um, Brian, you're using the wrong username. "punxsutawneybarney" is the name you use to stalk Willie Rodriguez on youtube. Here you go by "snug.bug". C'mon man, you're slipping.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Please support your claim that Barrett's original source was SLC. Barrett's link doesn't work."

It's right there in black in white, idiot.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!

"...Screwloosechange publishes Snugbug's address & phone number, various & psundry pseudonyms, prominent activist's plea for him to stop harassing her, and more."

You just can't stop lying, can you goat molester?

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian wrote, "...Um, Brian, you're using the wrong username. "punxsutawneybarney" is the name you use to stalk Willie Rodriguez on youtube. Here you go by "snug.bug". C'mon man, you're slipping."

Yep. The goat molester is caught lying to us again.

He'd lie to his mother.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, competent computer users know to copy their posts to Notepad before they try to post."

On the contrary, idiot.

Computer illiterates use M$ Notepad.

Real computer experts run Linux and integrate a FireFox plug-in called the "Recover text" database into the ForeFox browser. That way you don't need to start a separate process--you dork.

And I wasn't having a problem recovering text. My point is simple, which explains why it alludes you: THE DAMNED COMMENT SHOULDN'T DISAPPEAR IN THE FIRST PLACE--you stupid asshole.

Too stupid for words, aren't you, ass face?

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, even if I were an idiot as you claim, that does not show me to be a high school drop out. Lots of idiots get advanced degrees, like you for instance.

You own quote says "A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers."

That's what I said, and that's what NIST says.

Barrett's link to SLC doesn't work. Why would you believe Barrett's claim that the source was SLC? Selective skepticism? Do you believe a liar, a bigot, and a violence monger?

 
At 12 March, 2011 17:59, Blogger Triterope said...

Impugning the process of scholarship and analysis is stupid and cynical whether it's done in a medical journal, on a blog, on the street, at a football game, in a tavern, or at a meeting of the KKK.


The point, Brian, is that you take this lark far too seriously.

Even if you were doing actual scholarship -- which you very much are not -- this is a blog. A blog is not a place to make important scientific truths known.

You, and the rest of the Truth movement, want it both ways. You pretend you're all about facts and science and scholarship and stuff, but go to great lengths to avoid any arenas where you might be tested on those things.

So continue to post drivel here, or don't. It matters not what you do. By the way, get professional help.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I don't claim to be posting scholarship here. I rarely even bother to provide links. That doesn't change the fact that UtterFail is impugning the very concept of scholarship.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Barrett's link to SLC doesn't work. Why would you believe Barrett's claim that the source was SLC? Selective skepticism? Do you believe a liar, a bigot, and a violence monger?"

I explained this to you weeks ago, idiot. Pay attention.

The comments were deleted when SLC switched back to blogger.com's default message manager. Besides, I remember the thread, and every word of it appeared here.

As a result, I'll believe Barrett over you any day of the week.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat moleseter, you didn't answer my question.

Why do you have a blogger account named "Punxsutawneybarney"?

You swore to us that you don't use the alias "Punxsutawneybarney". Apparently, we've unearthed another lie in the endless stream of lies you tell.

Hurry, goat molester, change the subject. You were caught lying about the NIST Report, and now you've been caught lying about the long list of aliases you use to cyber-stalk innocent women and hijack blog discussions.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You own quote says "A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers."...That's what I said, and that's what NIST says."

That's right, goat molester, continue to lie and pretend that the passage I produced from page 55 of the NIST Report at 16:32 doesn't exist.

Seek psychiatric intervention, psychopath.

 
At 12 March, 2011 18:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...That doesn't change the fact that UtterFail is impugning the very concept of scholarship."

Projecting again, goat molester?

Poor goat molester. He never got out of high school, so like a little girl with a raging case of penis envy, he projects his shortcomings on anyone who has an education or a career.

Sucks to be you, loser.

 
At 13 March, 2011 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your claim that you remember "every word" of an 18,000-word thread is absurd.

I didn't swear anything and your claim that I did is a lie. I have not lied about the NIST report or about internet aliases.

Your quote from NIST in fact confirms that the study of the 707 at 600 mph exists. Your belief that confirming its existence somehow proves it doesn't exist is just loony. You live in a fantasy world.

UtterFail, how do you know I never got out of high school? Did Ian's Uncle Steve tell you that? Did Dr. Kevin Barrett tell you that?

You lie and lie and lie.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You lie and lie and lie."

Projecting again, goat molester?

There's a reason why you have no credibility, goat molester. I destroyed your credibility months ago.

Ask anyone who posts to SLC. You're a laughingstock.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

You didn't answer any of the points, but simply responded with a bare assertion in ad hominem attack, also an ad populum.

In five sentences you have four lies and three logical fallacies. Good going, UtterFail.

 
At 13 March, 2011 13:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've already proven that you're a liar at 16:32.

And all you can come up with are bald faced lies.

Again:

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that '...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.'"

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 March, 2011 14:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, at 16:32 you proved that I was telling the truth. Your quote says: "A Port Authority document indicated that the impact of a Boeing 707 aircraft at 600 MPH was analyzed during the design stage of the WTC towers."

That's what I said.

You're losing it.

 
At 13 March, 2011 14:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, that's not what you said.

You claimed the study confirmed that the building could withstand an impact with a Boeing 707, which is simply not true.

Just keep pretending that NIST didn't write the following passage--you scurrilous liar.

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that '...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.'"

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 March, 2011 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

Hurry, goat molester, run from thread-to-thread while SPAMMING to cover your latest defeat.

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail I did not claim anything except the truth. A design study found that the building could survive impact from a 707 at 600 mph. If you don't believe it, take it up with Mr. Roth. He's the one who said it.

NIST has shown a pattern of being unable to find evidence that they don't even look for, so for you to conclude anything from their inability to confirm is irrational.

 
At 13 March, 2011 15:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As predicted: Another 100% fact-free pack of lies from the goat molester.

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you're a liar. The white paper said:

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat molester, pretending that NIST didn't write the following passage--you scurrilous liar.

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that '...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.'" -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

FAIL

Grade: F-

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't pretend anything. There's no proof that NIST ever looked for the documentation they claimed they were unable to find--and since NIST has used that tactic elsewhere, notably with respect to explosive residues and the WTC7 evaporated samples, their claims in this regard are highly suspect.

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat molester, continue to pretend that NIST didn't write the following passage, while you continue to make unsubstantiated allegations without a shred of evidence to support your insane ideas--you scurrilous liar.

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that '...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.'" -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

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

You're a pathetic psychopath.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I'm not pretending anything, and your repeatspam makes me wonder what you're trying to hide upthread.

A quick look indicates that you're trying to hide just about everything: you've embarrassed yourself again and again and again.

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The only person who has something to hide is you, goat molester.

That's why you continue to pretend that NIST didn't write the following passage:

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that '...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.'" -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I'm not pretending anything. Your own quote proves that what I said was true.

 
At 13 March, 2011 17:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, my comment proves you're a liar who misrepresented the content of the NIST Report.

You don't care about "the truth." All you care about is winning the "debate" by any means possible.

Street walking whores have more personal integrity than you'll ever possess, goat molester.

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 18:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall I didn't misrepresent anything. NIST said the white paper discussed a study. I said the white paper discussed a study. You called me a liar. Your quote from NIST proves that I'm right.

 
At 13 March, 2011 19:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat molester, continue to pretend that NIST didn't write the following passage:

"...However, the investigators were unable to locate any documentation of the criteria and method used in the impact analysis and were thus unable to verify the assertion that '...such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives of and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact." -- NIST Report, NCSTAR1, Sec. 5.3.2, page 55.

You're almost as pathetic as you are dishonest.

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

 
At 13 March, 2011 21:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you have provided no evidence that NIST even looked for the calculations for the 1963-4 study. Their failure to find them is about as meaningful as a college student's failure to pass an exam after failing to attend classes all semester.

I said there was a study, you said I was a liar, NIST confirmed there was a study, and you're a liar.

 
At 13 March, 2011 23:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

You do realize, don't you, that you are accusing the renowned engineers of the Skilling firm of fudging their safety studies in 1963, and also accusing NIST of complicity in insurance fraud in failing to follow up on investigating the design defects you allege?

You have proof of this I suppose?

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

crickets....

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:20, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, you've been pwn3d. That's why nobody is responding anymore. We're all embarrassed for you.

Did you get the new investigation you wanted today? It's been almost 10 years? Do you ever plan on getting that new investigation?

 
At 15 March, 2011 22:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Typical Ianane Ianinsanity. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 16 March, 2011 04:37, Blogger Ian said...

Typical Ianane Ianinsanity. You live in a fantasy world.

I'll take it this means you didn't get the new investigation.

Well, maybe after another decade of nonsensical babbling on this blog, you'll get it. Don't give up, Brian!

 
At 16 March, 2011 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your farcical goalposts of an investigation tomorrow are meaningless.

New investigations are inevitable. As computing power grows, modeling of the collapses will be done. NIST even admitted in NCSTAR 1-9 that they used the most severe fire damage estimates as inputs for their LS-DYNA analysis "since the damage occurred in the least computational time (about 6 months)"--see page 6.

NIST's wimpy computers severely warped the investigation. It's just a matter of time before computers capable of modeling the collapses are developed, and then it's inevitable that people will revisit the issues.

 
At 16 March, 2011 16:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your farcical goalposts of an investigation tomorrow are meaningless.

No investigation, huh Brian? Maybe you should try a different cause than an insane conspiracy theory like 9/11 truth?

New investigations are inevitable.

Yup, and Jesus will return on a cloud, the 12th imam will return, and the Jewish messiah will enter Jerusalem through the golden gate.

All religious nuts cling to the promise of the future. You're no different Brian.

NIST's wimpy computers severely warped the investigation. It's just a matter of time before computers capable of modeling the collapses are developed, and then it's inevitable that people will revisit the issues.

Yes, inevitable. Just as it's inevitable that your "meatball on a fork" scribbles will be published in an engineering journal, right?

Brian, please see a psychiatrist. He/she will be able to help you find meaning in your life beyond the loony prophecies of 9/11 "truth".

 
At 16 March, 2011 17:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said anybody's scribbles would be published in an engineering journal, Ian.

For you to compare the proposition that developing technology will be employed to surmount challenges that are currently unfeasible to religious faith is absurd.

The religious faith is yours--the faith that nobody, ever, anywhere will ever run computer simulations to study the WTC collapses.

You live in a fantasy world. A boring and cynical fantasy world of no possibilities, no progress, no honesty, no curiosity.

 
At 16 March, 2011 18:48, Blogger Ian said...

I never said anybody's scribbles would be published in an engineering journal, Ian.

False. You said your scribbles would appear someday in a journal. Everyone at Democratic Underground laughed at you, just as everyone here laughs at you.

For you to compare the proposition that developing technology will be employed to surmount challenges that are currently unfeasible to religious faith is absurd.

Oh, I imagine someday there will technologies that will get us off of fossil fuels. What I don't imagine is that anyone is going to waste their time and money on questions that have already been answered just because a failed janitor and liar who babbles on the internet all day demands it.

The religious faith is yours--the faith that nobody, ever, anywhere will ever run computer simulations to study the WTC collapses.

False. Nobody will ever run these simulations, Brian. I guarantee it.

You live in a fantasy world. A boring and cynical fantasy world of no possibilities, no progress, no honesty, no curiosity.

Brian, you realize that your endless squealing is not going to get the widows answers to their questions, right?

 
At 16 March, 2011 19:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're a liar, Ian.

The questions have not been answered. Neither the 273 questions from the widows nor the Ground Zero questions of symmetry, totality, speed, pulverized concrete or molten metal have been answered.

It's YOUR squealing that's going to help get the widows' questions answered, Ian. When curious people come to this forum and they see you sneering at the widows, they will be inspired to help them get answers.

 
At 16 March, 2011 20:02, Blogger Ian said...

The questions have not been answered. Neither the 273 questions from the widows nor the Ground Zero questions of symmetry, totality, speed, pulverized concrete or molten metal have been answered.

Oh, you mean THOSE questions. Well, nobody cares about them. They're irrelevant nonsense that only insane failed janitors like you still care about.

It's YOUR squealing that's going to help get the widows' questions answered, Ian. When curious people come to this forum and they see you sneering at the widows, they will be inspired to help them get answers.

Brian, your belief that the widows questions will be answered is amusing. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 16 March, 2011 21:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

The widows care about the questions, and they may be nobody to you, but they're not.

Almost 1500 architects and engineers care about the unanswered questions of the NIST report, and they're not nobody either.

You can win any argument in your mind if you make up your facts.

 
At 17 March, 2011 04:38, Blogger Ian said...

The widows care about the questions, and they may be nobody to you, but they're not.

See what I mean? Nobody cares.

Almost 1500 architects and engineers care about the unanswered questions of the NIST report, and they're not nobody either.

Actually, they're the definition of nobody.

You can win any argument in your mind if you make up your facts.

Yup, that's why you continue to post your squealspam all over the internet 10 years after 9/11. You make up all of your facts.

Thanks for proving my points, Brian!

 
At 17 March, 2011 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the most dangerous thing about lying is that after a while you start to think lying doesn't matter, that it's okay, and then you start to actually believe your own lies, and then you no longer believe in truth at all.

What you think is clever is actually depraved. It's too bad your life is so impoverished that you just stoop to these depths for thrills.

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:31, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the most dangerous thing about lying is that after a while you start to think lying doesn't matter, that it's okay, and then you start to actually believe your own lies, and then you no longer believe in truth at all.

Yup, that's why I'm telling you to see a psychiatrist, Brian. You've been lying to yourself for a decade and your lies are so laughably obvious to everyone around you.

What you think is clever is actually depraved. It's too bad your life is so impoverished that you just stoop to these depths for thrills.

Brian, what did I just say about your nonsensical squealspam?

 
At 18 March, 2011 16:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know. Something Ianane I'm sure.

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:30, OpenID psikeyhackr said...

Chris Mohr talks about material coming down at 100 mph. But what has to happen for falling material to reach that velocity?

In Earth’s gravitational field near the surface it takes a mass a little more than 4.5 seconds to reach 100 mph. But that is assuming no air resistance to significantly affect the speed. In that time the mass would travel 324 feet. That would be 27 stories of height of the WTC. Now how much mass, in steel and concrete, would there be in 27 stories of the WTC? I didn’t notice any mention of the conservation of momentum in that so called DEBATE.

Wouldn’t any mass trying to accelerate through 27 stories of steel and concrete encounter just a little bit of resistance even if it was 90% air? So if the top of the north tower fell one story how did it ever get up to 100 mph? Mohr is shooting himself in the foot and depending on the audience not thinking.

You have to waste time listening to this so called debate and think about it just a little bit to figure out that it is a stupid waste of time.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home