Monday, March 14, 2011

Hug a Truther

Rolling Stone journalist Matt Taibbi has another humorous, but sad, observation of the truthers.

I look back now and I’m actually a little embarrassed that Truthers used to get under my skin so much. Now I really just feel badly for them; the whole phenomenon is really sad. One of my friends has a really sweet dog that was a completely normal, healthy puppy until this past summer, at which point it suddenly started getting obsessed with its shadow – it sits there studying it and then every ten seconds or so it’ll jump on it with both paws. Then it backs up, waits another ten seconds, and tries again. This goes on for hours and hours. The dog is only a couple of years old, and this brain-freeze situation is only getting worse. Every time I see her, it makes me want to cry. That’s kind of how I feel about Truthers now. I used to get upset whenever they sent me those 14,000-word letters, but now I just wish someone would give them a hug or something.

141 Comments:

At 14 March, 2011 20:26, Blogger Ian said...

Taibbi is a better man than I am, since he has pity for the truthers. Me, I still get amusement out of watching a middle-aged unemployed insane man call people "girls" on this blog. I guess I shouldn't be proud of it, but that's the way I am.

 
At 14 March, 2011 20:38, Blogger 911truthinator said...

hug a truther? are you kidding?
these idiots want to hang us.
they want to believe 1000s of innocent people are guilty of murdering their fellow ctizens without a shred of evidence.
hug them and they will stab you in the back.

 
At 14 March, 2011 21:38, Blogger Greg said...

Truthers today are either:

1.) Mentally unstable, mentally impaired and sometimes criminally insane.

2.) American hating assholes who need a subject to latch on to to spew their vitriol.

or

3.) Con-men taking advantage of the other two types.

I'm not willing to hug any of the three types for fear of my safety.

It's not 2007 anymore, all the sane people came to their senses and left the cult.

 
At 14 March, 2011 23:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

My what a mutually reinforcing circular-reasoning jerk y'all have here. You can't mount a convincing argument to save your hides.

 
At 15 March, 2011 04:36, Blogger Ian said...

My what a mutually reinforcing circular-reasoning jerk y'all have here. You can't mount a convincing argument to save your hides.

See what I mean?

 
At 15 March, 2011 04:58, Blogger Triterope said...

I can see what Taibbi's getting at here. Deep down, most Truthers are people who need help. But they don't want help, and they're obnoxious Stalinist thugs about it, which makes them as huggable as a cactus with the clap.

 
At 15 March, 2011 08:14, Blogger Greg said...

Don't worry Brian, you have your own category of stupid. You don't have to categorize yourself with all the other truthers who hate you as much as we do.

 
At 15 March, 2011 09:01, Blogger Nonspiracy said...

You're mostly wrong here...

Truthers are 90% Jew haters, and find it near impossible to believe OTHER Jew haters are guilty.

 
At 15 March, 2011 09:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Truthers today are either:

I think there's another category -- "intelligent but naive". Let me explain.

Consider that a 25 year old Truther today was 15 when 9/11 happened. Virtually all individuals will mature drastically and learn many, many things between 15 and 25. Depending on how sheltered one is, however, one may not gain a proportionate amount of real-world perspective in that period. Intelligence plus creativity minus perspective are a perfect breeding ground for 9/11 Truth-styled beliefs -- you know many many dots, and you freely connect them, but you can't judge which dots shouldn't be connected. It's called "having lots of information but little knowledge."

I suspect that as today's crop of young Truthers gets older and gets mortgages and gets real jobs, most of them will begin to realize that they were chasing shadows and quietly lose interest in 9/11 Troof. It's natural for young, smart people to have half-baked ideas and grow out of them.

Of course, many prominent Troofers are simply bat-shit crazy. No argument there.

 
At 15 March, 2011 10:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's nice to see you guys have a sandbox thread here where you can return to your favorite theme--the stupidity of truthers--and avoid the threads where you might have to comment on any actual issues and reveal how woefully misinformed you are.

If y'all were stuck on a desert island you'd be sitting around gossiping about each other instead of discussing the building of fires, the construction of roofs, getting food, and finding water.

 
At 15 March, 2011 11:13, Blogger Greg said...

Brain,

If this is our sandbox, you're the sand.

 
At 15 March, 2011 11:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

If y'all were stuck on a desert island you'd be sitting around gossiping about each other instead of discussing the building of fires, the construction of roofs, getting food, and finding water.

Nah. You'd be talking to a severed pig's head and blacking out, right before me and my warriors stomp you into a pulp.

 
At 15 March, 2011 14:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator scribbles, "...If y'all were stuck on a desert island you'd be sitting around gossiping about each other instead of discussing the building of fires, the construction of roofs, getting food, and finding water."

Irony is never lost on you. Right, goat molester?

After all, the sex predator uses a plethora of pseudonyms to stalk, sexually harass, and gossip about his perceived enemies in the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Obviously, your mouth is getting too big for your muzzle, goat molester.

 
At 15 March, 2011 14:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Hug a troofer???????

Jeeeeeezus Christ! I'd rather hug a jar of diseased peanut butter.

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

Which you do frequently, no doubt. How a jar of peanut butter gets AIDS I hate to speculate, but I bet you know exactly how.

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian needs more than a hug. More like a kick in the nutsack by Carrol. Or pummeled to a beaten shell of himself by the FDNY for placing blame on them.

Brian needs a good beat down. The way things are going, I predict that he'll go to jail for something as stupid as molesting a child. And he knows what they do to child molestors in prison. (evil grin)

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

Yo Goat molester!

If I was a limp wrist sex predator who posted his name and address from one end of the internet to the other, I wouldn't shoot my mouth off.

After all, you never know when someone may decide to pay you a [cough] "visit."

 
At 15 March, 2011 15:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I got Brian's name, address & phone number on my blog:

http://911truthersexposed.blogspot.com/2009/10/911-truthers-exposed.html

 
At 15 March, 2011 16:19, Blogger James B. said...

The title wasn't a suggestion, just thought it was a humorous article.

 
At 15 March, 2011 16:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Matt Taibbi wrote, "...I used to get upset whenever they sent me those 14,000-word letters, but now I just wish someone would give them a hug or something."

No doubt, "or something" can be defined broadly.

%^)

I'll go for the "or something" option.

 
At 15 March, 2011 16:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

My oh my! Look at the anonymous stalkers talking like they're tuffstuff.

I'll be biting my nails until the other shoe drops, ladies!

 
At 15 March, 2011 16:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ah, listen to the neo-Nazi sex predator whine, while he accuses others of the crimes he commits.

Did you read Mein Kampf "before you learned to walk", sex predator?

Slit your wrists, sex predator--it'll lower your blood pressure.

 
At 15 March, 2011 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Listen to the anonymous bullshitter
whupp whupp whupping his own fat ass.

The record is quite clear. Keep dishing up those steaming heaps of FAIL, ButtGoil.

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:05, Blogger paul w said...

Hug Brian?
Er, no.....

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:24, Blogger Ian said...

It's nice to see you guys have a sandbox thread here where you can return to your favorite theme--the stupidity of truthers--and avoid the threads where you might have to comment on any actual issues and reveal how woefully misinformed you are.

What issues? All I see is babbling dumbspam from a liar who was thrown out of the truth movement for sexually harassing one of its members.

Instead of babbling here, maybe you could try getting answers to the widows questions? Or maybe you can ask yourself if the widows want a liar and failed janitor who is known for sexually harassing people to speak for them?

They'd probably prefer a better known, more credible advocate. Someone like Willie Rodriguez....

 
At 15 March, 2011 20:28, Blogger Ian said...

My oh my! Look at the anonymous stalkers talking like they're tuffstuff.

I think this is Brian wishing he was smart enough to remain anonymous. All those various internet IDs he has (petgoat, punxsutawneybarney, contrivance, truetruther, etc.) have all been exposed, making it utterly clear that there's only one lunatic who is an unbalanced sex stalker in love with Willie Rodriguez.

The record is quite clear. Keep dishing up those steaming heaps of FAIL, ButtGoil.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Tomorrow will bring another day of normal activities for normal people, and another day of mindless babbling from our resident failed janitor. Maybe one day he'll recognize the stupidity of his beliefs and seek professional psychiatric care....

 
At 15 March, 2011 21:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

For you guys to spend your time waxing eloquent on how stupid "troofers" are when you are so poorly-informed on the issues is like spending your time complaining about how dumb People Magazine is when you could be reading Harper's or Atlantic instead.

 
At 15 March, 2011 22:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Here's an issue, I can't believe Charlie Sheen is hitting the road doing a one man show...and it's sold out.

Christ Brian, you should get in on that, you could be the opening comedian.

 
At 15 March, 2011 22:39, Blogger Billman said...

Wait.., since when is Guitar Bill somehow "anonymous?"

 
At 15 March, 2011 22:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so somewhere there's a birth notice announcing that Guitar Bill was born to Mr. Banjo Bill and Mrs. Viola Bob Bill?

How silly of me not to get it!

 
At 15 March, 2011 22:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Charlie wouldn't want me on his tour because I'm so much better looking than he is.

 
At 15 March, 2011 23:00, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

Is OBL a lost cause?
According to this guy, he is.
Excellent news.

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

Look for:
Wednesday 09 March 2011
'Has Osama bin Laden failed?'

 
At 16 March, 2011 04:46, Blogger Ian said...

For you guys to spend your time waxing eloquent on how stupid "troofers" are when you are so poorly-informed on the issues is like spending your time complaining about how dumb People Magazine is when you could be reading Harper's or Atlantic instead.

Well, I'm convinced. A failed janitor and liar who was thrown out of the truth movement says we're poorly informed. That means 9/11 was obviously an inside job.

 
At 16 March, 2011 08:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Oh, so somewhere there's a birth notice announcing that Guitar Bill was born to Mr. Banjo Bill and Mrs. Viola Bob Bill?"

And, as we all know, somewhere in Appalachia you'll find the shotgun wedding announcement for the marriage of Opie Good and his sister Dorothy Good.

"...Did I stick it in the right hole this time, Dorothy?" -- Opie Good.

 
At 16 March, 2011 09:01, Blogger Greg said...

For you guys to spend your time waxing eloquent on how stupid "troofers" are when you are so poorly-informed on the issues is like spending your time complaining about how dumb People Magazine is when you could be reading Harper's or Atlantic instead.

Do your statements make sense in your head before you type them out or do you just wing it?

 
At 16 March, 2011 09:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 March, 2011 09:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I can trace my ancestors back to Europe in the 1600s. I would be delighted to hear the history of the Fail clan, even though it is beside the point, which is that you are an anonymous internet poster who has implicitly threatened me.

I haven't posted my address anywhere. The fraudulent con artist Willie Rodriguez and the liar, bigot, and violence-mongering lunatic Kevin Barrett have, because they (and you) think they (and you) can frighten me.

Three fat ass-pussies who want to think they're tough.

 
At 16 March, 2011 10:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 March, 2011 11:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 March, 2011 11:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 March, 2011 11:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Tell us more about failure, goat molester. After all, when I asked you what's 6% of 1.2 million, you balked--which proves you're an idiot.

Add that to your inability to read and we have the recipe for a retard. E.g, tell us how you came to the conclusion that somehow "a jar of peanut butter gets AIDS" when I never mentioned AIDS? (I guess your gay lifestyle has you justifiably worried that you may have contracted the dreaded disease. We can only hope.) You have the reading comprehension skills of third grader (and that's a generous assessment).

You do this constantly, which, in my eminent opinion, provides a strong indication that your parents are siblings.

My continued anonymity is my choice. If you're so arrogant as to believe that you should use your real name while you troll the internet and stalk your perceived enemies like a common sex predator, you have no one to blame but yourself for the consequences of that rather foolish disclosure of personal information. In fact, it's a wonder that no one has turned you in to the authorities given your disgusting history of cyber stalking and predation.

Make no mistake, sex predator, you've got your head so far up your ass you can chew your food twice.

Now, do the World a favor, sex predator, and go play in the freeway.

 
At 16 March, 2011 12:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterBilge, since it appeared that RJ Lee's 6% figure was based on particle count rather than weight, your 6% calculation was meaningless.

It is hardly "stalking" for me to post comments on Barrett's blog, or on blogs that discuss William Rodriguez's hero con. I didn't stalk anybody.

You, however, as an anonymous internet poster are making implicit threats to try to shut me up. I never published my address. A couple of cowardly cyber-bullies did.

 
At 16 March, 2011 12:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterBilge, since it appeared that RJ Lee's 6% figure was based on particle count rather than weight, your 6% calculation was meaningless."

Wrong. Once again, the opinion of high school dropout is NOT evidence.

Try again, Pinocchio.

And you still haven't answered my question.

Here's the equation for percentage.

[part]/[whole] * 100 = %

In this case, 1.2 million is defined as "whole."

Solve the equation for "part." (I won't hold my breath).

"...It is hardly "stalking" for me to post comments on Barrett's blog, or on blogs that discuss William Rodriguez's hero con. I didn't stalk anybody."

Tell that to Carol Brouillet, sex predator.

"...You, however, as an anonymous internet poster are making implicit threats to try to shut me up. I never published my address. A couple of cowardly cyber-bullies did."

Who are you calling a "cyber bully", sex predator?

Typical troofer neo-Nazi--always accuse your enemy of the crimes you commit, which is a tactic straight out of Hitler's Mein Kampf.

Loser.

 
At 16 March, 2011 12:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterBilge, you're going to get carpal tunnel syndrome typing out your tedious and repetitive tests and assigning your grades. You seem to want to be a teacher, but your bullying nature would disqualify you instantly.

I didn't stalk anybody, and those who say I did are liars lying. As near as I can tell, Carol's problem is that her family got some strange phone calls that she wrongly attributed to me. She gets a lot of strange phone calls. She got one from some creep in West Virginia who later turned out to be a child abuser.

 
At 16 March, 2011 12:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterBilge, you're going to get carpal tunnel syndrome typing out your tedious and repetitive tests and assigning your grades. You seem to want to be a teacher, but your bullying nature would disqualify you instantly."

Translation from Sex PredatorSpeak: I couldn't solve that simple equation to save my life.

Tell us more about particle count versus weight, while you substantiate the lies with nothing more than the opinion of a high school dropout.

FAIL

"...I didn't stalk anybody, and those who say I did are liars lying. As near as I can tell, Carol's problem is that her family got some strange phone calls that she wrongly attributed to me. She gets a lot of strange phone calls. She got one from some creep in West Virginia who later turned out to be a child abuser."

Not according to Carol Brouillet. And I'm quite certain there's a very good reason why Brouillet's husband won't let you within a mile of his wife.

It's a good thing you're dealing with Brouillet's husband, because if you tried that crap on my wife, you'd be six feet under.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Loser.

 
At 16 March, 2011 13:31, Blogger Triterope said...

complaining about how dumb People Magazine is when you could be reading Harper's instead.

Who says I can't read both?

 
At 16 March, 2011 13:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the RJ Lee Report "Final" 12/03 version says on p. 3 that "more than 1.2 million tons of building materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos."

You have cited this quote as proof that the RJ Lee study was based on weight.

300 tons out of 1.2 million is 1/40th of one percent.

Table 3 of the Report (p. 24) shows the "Composition (%)" of the dust. The figure for Chrysotile (asbestos) is 1.84 percent.

If the 1.84 percent was weight, we would have 22,000 tons, not 400 tons, of asbestos in the WTC dust.

P. 13 of the Report says: "Gypsum and other calcium sulfate phases were found to comprise up to 30%
of the WTC Dust by mass."

Table 3 says Gypsum is 2.72 percent of the dust. Do you know what an "order of magnitude" is, Mr. Applied Mathematician?

The Summary on p. 19 and 20 says the differences between the WTC dust and the background dust include "frequency of occurrence of spherical particles". It says nothing about weight.

P. 23 describes the purpose of the statistical analysis for Table 3: "to compare the distribution of particle types".

Distribution, UtterFail. Not mass.

 
At 16 March, 2011 14:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Distribution, UtterFail. Not mass."

LOL!

Who do you think you're fooling, sex predator?

Table 3 concerns itself with the dust that accumulated INSIDE THE BUILDING. The statistics compiled therein have nothing whatsoever to do with the dust that covered lower Manhattan. And you can not extrapolate values from the table and apply those values to any observable phenomenon OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, unless, of course, you're willing to claim the distribution of the dust OUTSIDE the building was equivalent to the dust that accumulated INSIDE the building, which is preposterous. Furthermore, the data can only be used to demostrate that the WTC dust and the background dust have different origins.

You're comparing apples-to-oranges.

Thus, we can see, once again, why you're a failed janitor--not to mention an habitual liar.

Back to the drawing board, Wiley.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 March, 2011 15:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And, as usual, you didn't do your homework and read The Natural Resources Defense Council's report, titled, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS.

Had you done so, you'd have noticed that my estimated value for iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres is quite accurate. And I quote:

"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th.37 At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history. -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf

Oh goat molester. Tell us, what's 16% of 424,000 TONS?

The answer is 67,840 TONS.

Check and mate

Have a nice day, sex predator.

 
At 16 March, 2011 15:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, in the "Proof of Voice-Morphing BS by Ventura" thread you were claiming that RJ Lee's citing of the 1.2 million ton figure was an indication that their report was calibrated by weight. You repeatedly asked "What's 6% of 1.2 million"?

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/02/proof-of-voice-morphing-bs-by-ventura.html

You also asked "What's 6% of 180,000 tons?"

You claimed 2/25 15:00 in that thread that

"the RJ Lee Report claims that "56,000 tons" of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan."

That was a lie. And when I pointed out that RJ Lee's composition was by particle numbers and not by weight, you called me a liar.

If the 6% collected inside has nothing to do with the 1.2 million outside, how come you were spamming those figures? Please explain why you expect the WTC dust collected inside the BT building to be different from the WTC dust outside the BT building.

You make up your facts and then obfuscate the issue, sowing cynical confusion. Why? Why are you compelled to lie about 9/11?

 
At 16 March, 2011 15:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I can always count on your to squirt ink (or your pragmatic alternative) on the issue.

Asked about the microspheres in the RJ Lee Report you change to a completely different subject--the NRDC estimate for concrete, then make a meaningless calculation. What does 16% of 424,000 tons have to do with anything? All this time you've been braying about 6% of 1.2 million and 6% of 180,000.

What's diameter times pi, GutterBall? And what's the frequemcy, Kenneth?

You're babbling.

 
At 16 March, 2011 15:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...If the 6% collected inside has nothing to do with the 1.2 million outside, how come you were spamming those figures? Please explain why you expect the WTC dust collected inside the BT building to be different from the WTC dust outside the BT building."

I told you from the outset that I don't accept the figures supplied by the RJ Lee Report. And as usual, you conveniently omit that portion of my commentary.

But that's neither here nor there, because, as everyone knows, you're an habitual liar. The Natural Resources Defense Council's report, titled, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS confirms that approximately 67,000 tons iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered Lower Manhattan. (see my comment at 15:14).

"...You make up your facts and then obfuscate the issue, sowing cynical confusion. Why? Why are you compelled to lie about 9/11?"

On the contrary, you twist my words, lie, omit critical information and lie again.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 16 March, 2011 15:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...What does 16% of 424,000 tons have to do with anything?"

Lightweight concrete--you stupid fool--is 16% fly ash by weight.

Check and mate

 
At 16 March, 2011 15:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Where does the "more than 1.2 million tons of building materials collapsed during the WTC Event containing an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos" quote come from, genius?

It comes from the Natural Resources Defense Council's report, titled, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS.

Too bad you didn't do your homework and read the report.

FAIL

Grade: F-

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

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

Concerning my comment at 15:41.

Here's the proof that I believe the RJ Lee Report's figures for the amount of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres are erroneous.

And that's another perfect example of why you can't be trusted, sex predator: You twist my words, lie, omit critical information and lie again.

FAIL

Grade: F-

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

"...Please explain why you expect the WTC dust collected inside the BT building to be different from the WTC dust outside the BT building."

Do I really have to answer that question, sex predator? After all, the answer is simple.

I've never stepped into a commercial building in my life that didn't have a positive pressure.

Must I always explain the obvious?

 
At 16 March, 2011 16:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

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

Well, it's good to see that while I was at work, Brian, the unemployed janitor who lives with his parents, spent another day babbling his nonsense here.

Keep up the good work, Brian. In another decade, we won't have a new investigation.

 
At 16 March, 2011 20:06, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Keep up the good work, Brian. In another decade, we won't have a new investigation.

Well, never say never. It could happen. If it does it will probably be a messy failure like this one was.

 
At 17 March, 2011 01:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, unlike you, I tend to leave irrelevancies out of my posts--while you lard your posts with them to cover over the substanceless and specious nature of your arguments.

Where in the NRDC report does it say 67,000 tons of iron and aluminosilicate spheres? And obviously your conflation of iron and aluminosilicate (which can range from 25% to 95% of the content of fly ash) is to cover up the fact that you have no basis whatsoever for estimating the iron content.

So you seem to believe all 424,000 tons of concrete was lightweight concrete containing fly ash and iron spheres, and that all 424,000 tons of it was pulverized to dust.
There was only 180,000 tons of concrete in the twin towers above the floors!

GutterBall, the BT building didn't have positive pressure after WTC debris slit it open like someone cleaning a fish. You really are an idiot.

You have provided no evidence that all the concrete was lightweight, that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete, or that all the concrete was pulverized.

You have provided no evidence that the iron particles are a necessary component of any chemical reaction in the concrete, and no explanation as to why they would not be consumed by the reaction if they were.

You provide no credible explanation for why the supplier of the fly ash would leave almost 11 million dollars (27,000 tons) of iron spheres in the 3 million dollars worth of fly ash when the spheres could be simply extracted with a magnet.

 
At 17 March, 2011 11:59, Blogger Triterope said...

I tend to leave irrelevancies out of my posts

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

 
At 17 March, 2011 12:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's why I can say twice as much in one post as UtterFool says in four. Because I strive to clarify, and she strives to obscure.

 
At 17 March, 2011 14:51, Blogger Triterope said...

That's why I can say twice as much in one post as UtterFool says in four. Because I strive to clarify, and she strives to obscure.

These little asides of Brian's are insightful. He can't just argue, he has to congratulate himself every five posts or so. In his sick little mind, he's Perry Mason, effortlessly crushing the prosecutor's case.

GET HELP, BRIAN. I AM NOT KIDDING.

 
At 17 March, 2011 15:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail crushes his own case. It only takes listing its elements in a coherent way to show that it doesn't hold up. That's not self-congratulatory, but only objectively descriptive.

 
At 17 March, 2011 15:03, Blogger Triterope said...

UtterFail crushes his own case.

There is no case, Brian.

Get help. Please.

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator lies, "...There was only 180,000 tons of concrete in the twin towers above the floors!"

That's a bald-faced lie.

There was 180,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is a total of 360,000 tons. You're also conveniently omitting the pulverized concrete from the remaining buildings that made up the World Trade Center. They were crushed, too. Thus, 424,000 tons is NOT an unreasonable estimation of the amount of concrete that was pulverized on 11 September 2001.

Thus, you're caught lying again, sex predator.

The sex predator continues to lie, "...You have provided no evidence that all the concrete was lightweight, that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete, or that all the concrete was pulverized."

Lying again, sex predator?

Here's the conclusive proof that the World Trade Center Tower's floor assemblies were made of lightweight concrete.

Wikipedia writes, "....The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck."

Source: WTC--Structural Design.

Here's the proof that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete:

The World Trade Centers' lightweight concrete, which employed fly ash and pumice as aggregate.

Thus, we can see that you're lying again, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator lies, "...There was only 180,000 tons of concrete in the twin towers above the floors!"

That's a bald-faced lie.

There was 180,000 tons of concrete per tower, which is a total of 360,000 tons. You're also conveniently omitting the pulverized concrete from the remaining buildings that made up the World Trade Center. They were crushed, too. Thus, 424,000 tons is NOT an unreasonable estimation of the amount of concrete that was pulverized on 11 September 2001.

Thus, you're caught lying again, sex predator.

Continued...

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to lie, "...You have provided no evidence that all the concrete was lightweight, that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete, or that all the concrete was pulverized."

Lying again, sex predator?

Here's the conclusive proof that the World Trade Center Tower's floor assemblies were made of lightweight concrete.

Wikipedia writes, "....The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck."

Source: WTC--Structural Design.

Here's the proof that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete:

The World Trade Centers' lightweight concrete, which employed fly ash and pumice as aggregate.

Thus, we can see that you're lying again, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to lie, "...You have provided no evidence that all the concrete was lightweight, that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete, or that all the concrete was pulverized."

Lying again, sex predator?

Here's the conclusive proof that the World Trade Center Tower's floor assemblies were made of lightweight concrete.

Wikipedia writes, "....The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck."

Source: WTC--Structural Design.

Here's the proof that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete:

Wikipedia wrote, "...Concrete is a composite construction material, composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) and other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate made of gravels or crushed rocks such as limestone, or granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures."

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

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

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

Thus, we can see that you're lying again, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to lie, "...You have provided no evidence that all the concrete was lightweight, that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete, or that all the concrete was pulverized."

Lying again, sex predator?

Here's the conclusive proof that the World Trade Center Tower's floor assemblies were made of lightweight concrete.

Wikipedia writes, "....The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center#Structural_design

Here's the proof that fly ash is used as aggregate in lightweight concrete:

Wikipedia wrote, "...Concrete is a composite construction material, composed of cement (commonly Portland cement) and other cementitious materials such as fly ash and slag cement, aggregate (generally a coarse aggregate made of gravels or crushed rocks such as limestone, or granite, plus a fine aggregate such as sand), water, and chemical admixtures."

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

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

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

Thus, we can see that you're lying again, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to tell the same lies week-after-week, and scribbles, "...You provide no credible explanation for why the supplier of the fly ash would leave almost 11 million dollars (27,000 tons) of iron spheres in the 3 million dollars worth of fly ash when the spheres could be simply extracted with a magnet."

Babbling again, sex predator?

Fly ash isn't structural steel--you fucking idiot.

Fly ash is the by product of a coal burning power plant.

Lightweight concrete is ALWAYS manufactured with fly ash--your continued lies to the contrary notwithstanding.

PROPERTIES OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE MANUFACTURED WITH FLY ASH

http://www.cptechcenter.org/publications/sustainable/bailightweight.pdf

High Carbon Fly Ash / Mixed Thermoplastic Aggregate for Use in Lightweight Concrete

http://flyashbricksinfo.com/construction/high-carbon-fly-ash-mixed-thermoplastic-aggregate-for-use-in-lightweight-concrete.html

Fly Ash Aggregate Lightweight Concrete

http://www.concrete.org/PUBS/JOURNALS/OLJDetails.asp?Home=JP&ID=11322

Thus, we can see that you're lying again, sex predator.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 16:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to lie, "...UtterFail crushes his own case. It only takes listing its elements in a coherent way to show that it doesn't hold up. That's not self-congratulatory, but only objectively descriptive."

Since when is "listing its elements in a coherent way" defined as bald-faced lies?

Have you no shame, sex predator?

I have proven over-and-over again that you're wrong; yet, you return the very next day and continue to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

You're mentally ill--a psychopath.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

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

GutterBall, there was only 90,000 tons of concrete in each tower above ground.

Your belief that all of the concrete at the WTC was pulverized is unreasonable. There is no plausible mechanism for it.

The fact that 180,000 pounds of above-grade floors were built of lightweight concrete does not mean that ALL the concrete was lightweight. If would be unreasonable to expect that below-grade concrete was lightweight if there was any financial or performance cost from using it.

Fly ash is used in some recipes for lightweight concrete. You have provided no information on the composition of the WTC concrete.
Your claim that because it is lightweight concrete therefore it contains iron spheres is as irrational as claiming that because it is spaghetti sauce therefore it contains rum.

You also have no explained why the supplier of the fly ash would not extract the 11 million dollars worth of iron spheres that might populate 3 million dollars worth of fly ash, or why the WTC concrete formulators would not remove 10,000 tons of useless weight from the floors--45 tons per floor!

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, you're right, GutterBall makes no case.

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, sex predator?

I don't see any links to substantiate your claims.

Why?

I'll tell you why you refuse to substantiate your claims. Because you're a liar.

And your lying, worthless opinion isn't evidence.

Care to refute the Natural Resources Defense Council?

Go for it.

And remember, your opinion is not evidence.

"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th. At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14."

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf

Let's see if the sex predator can offer anything more than his lying, worthless opinion to substantiate his argument.

Don't hold your breath.

Notice that I always provide links to substantiate my argument; yet, the sex predator steadfastly refuses to substantiate his argument.

Coincidence? I think not.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bay Area 9/11 Truth Trivia Quiz:

Q: Who is Brian Good?

A: A sexually-frustrated wacko who, in his late 50s, still lives in his parents' basement in Palo Alto.

B. A bisexual stalker who targets famous 9/11 activists of both the female and male persuasions.

C. A coward who spends 18 hours a day hiding behind a keyboard and cyber-stalking the targets of his obsessions under a long list of pseudonyms, but is afraid to debate them live or on the radio.

D. All of the above.

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, sex predator?

I don't see any links to substantiate your claims.

Why?

I'll tell you why you refuse to substantiate your claims. Because you're a liar.

And your lying, worthless opinion isn't evidence.

Care to refute the Natural Resources Defense Council?

Go for it.

And remember, your opinion is not evidence.

"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th. At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14."

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf

Let's see if the sex predator can offer anything more than his lying, worthless opinion to substantiate his argument.

Don't hold your breath.

Notice that I always provide links to substantiate my argument; yet, the sex predator steadfastly refuses to substantiate his argument.

Coincidence? I think not.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, sex predator?

I don't see any links to substantiate your claims.

Why?

I'll tell you why you refuse to substantiate your claims. Because you're a liar.

And your lying, worthless opinion isn't evidence.

Care to refute the Natural Resources Defense Council?

Go for it.

And remember, your opinion is not evidence.

Continued...

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th. At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14."

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf

Let's see if the sex predator can offer anything more than his lying, worthless opinion to substantiate his argument.

Don't hold your breath.

Notice that I always provide links to substantiate my argument; yet, the sex predator steadfastly refuses to substantiate his argument.

Coincidence? I think not.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...September 11th created an unparalleled, high-intensity pollution discharge. As discussed more fully in Chapter I, there were hundreds, if not thousands, of types of contaminants thrown into the air when the towers collapsed. It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete and an additional 485,000 tons of “miscellaneous” building contents (computers, office furniture, lighting, mechanical and electrical units, floor finishes etc.) were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th. At Ground Zero, fires continued to burn for months, spewing additional contaminants into the air. One respected environmental commentator concluded that the Trade Center’s destruction probably had greater short-term environmental impacts than any other event in the city’s history." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14."

http://www.nrdc.org/air/pollution/wtc/wtc.pdf

Continued...

 
At 17 March, 2011 17:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let's see if the sex predator can offer anything more than his lying, worthless opinion to substantiate his argument.

Don't hold your breath.

Notice that I always provide links to substantiate my argument; yet, the sex predator steadfastly refuses to substantiate his argument.

Coincidence? I think not.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 18:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The New York Times wrote, "...Christie Whitman, when she led the Environmental Protection Agency, made "misleading statements of safety" about the air quality near the World Trade Center in the days after the Sept. 11 attack and may have put the public in danger, a federal judge found yesterday...About 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the towers, and when they came crashing down they released dust laden with toxins. After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning of apartments in downtown Manhattan below Canal Street."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/nyregion/03suit.html

THAT MEANS THE 424,000 TON FIGURE WAS USED IN A FEDERAL TRIAL. THUS, THE FLOORS WERE NOT THE ONLY COMPONENTS OF THE TOWERS THAT WERE MADE OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE.

WERE THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS LYING, TOO, SEX PREDATOR?

Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 18:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The New York Times wrote, "...Christie Whitman, when she led the Environmental Protection Agency, made "misleading statements of safety" about the air quality near the World Trade Center in the days after the Sept. 11 attack and may have put the public in danger, a federal judge found yesterday...About 2,000 tons of asbestos and 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the towers, and when they came crashing down they released dust laden with toxins. After an expert panel failed last year to settle on a method for organizing an E.P.A. cleanup, the agency said it would proceed anyway with limited testing and cleaning of apartments in downtown Manhattan below Canal Street."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/03/nyregion/03suit.html

Continued...

 
At 17 March, 2011 18:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

THAT MEANS THE 424,000 TON FIGURE WAS USED IN A FEDERAL TRIAL. THUS, THE FLOORS WERE NOT THE ONLY COMPONENTS OF THE TOWERS THAT WERE MADE OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE.

WERE THE FEDERAL PROSECUTORS LYING, TOO, SEX PREDATOR?

Face it, you don't have a leg to stand on.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 17 March, 2011 22:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I'm not making any claims. I'm just pointing out your inability to substantiate YOUR claims. Neither RJ Lee nor NRDC support your claims about iron spheres.

Thanks for citing the NY Times. Yes, 424,000 tons of concrete were used to build the WTC. 180,000 tons of it was lightweight concrete used to build the above-ground floors of the towers.

You have not shown that 424,000 tons was pulverized, you have not shown that is reasonable (it's not), you have not shown that it was all light weight concrete, and you have not shown that iron spheres were present in any of it.

The 424,000 ton figure is a figure of all the concrete used. Not a figure of all the concrete pulverized.

You don't have a case, UtterFail. You're an UtterFool.

 
At 18 March, 2011 14:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Once again, all the sex predator can offer is his unsubstantiated, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 18 March, 2011 14:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 March, 2011 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

You have not demonstrated any of your points, UtterFail, except one. If you had, you should be able to easily prove that you had.

 
At 18 March, 2011 15:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Are you so delusional that you believe people can't see the links and the documentation I provide?

You're truly pathetic.

Who do you think you're fooling, sex predator?

 
At 18 March, 2011 16:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 March, 2011 16:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your links only demonstrated one of your points--and it didn't prove it, it only asserted it erroneously.

It takes more than a link to substantiate the case.

You have not shown that fly ash was used in the WTC lightweight concrete. You have not shown that all the concrete was lightweight concrete. You have not shown iron to be essential to the concrete reaction. You have not shown that all of the concrete was pulverized. You have not shown that iron was present in the lightweight concrete.

 
At 18 March, 2011 16:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Also, your inability to recognize the absurdity of the claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete were pulverized shows you to be both inexperienced in practical physics and terribly misinformed about the construction and destruction of the World Trade Center.

 
At 18 March, 2011 20:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo sex predator,

What's this?

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/archconcreteschedwtc.jpg

I'll tell you what it is, sex predator.

That's the World Trade Center's Concrete Schedule from Skilling, Helle, Christiansen, Robertson dated 1 March 1968.

Notice, only 20 of the floors had hard rock aggregate, (stone concrete) the rest was lightweight concrete (pumice, fly ash and vermiculite).

Thus, it is proven BEYOND A DOUBT, that I'm telling the truth.

Check and mate

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

 
At 18 March, 2011 21:47, Blogger Ian said...

Another day, another stream of mindless spam from our resident failed janitor, trying desperately to make something, anything out of his life.

Brian, please find something more constructive to do with your life.

 
At 19 March, 2011 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Check and mate? UtterFail, you're trying to play chess with marbles!

That concrete schedule proves my point. Full-strength, non-lightweight concrete was used on lower floors and utility floors on the towers, and in the basement. Which shows that less that 180,000 tons of the concrete was lightweight, not more.

Thus your claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete was lightweight is shown to be absurd by your own exhibit, and you're such a confirmation-biased incompetent you can't even see that.

Your exhibit says nothing about the aggregate, and it certainly doesn't say anything about fly ash.

 
At 19 March, 2011 10:56, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, why don't you try to do something else today? Read a book, go for a bike ride, teach yourself a new language.

This constant babbling about your 9/11 delusions and your "I win!" squealing can't be good for your mental health.

 
At 19 March, 2011 12:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator bald-faced lies, "...Thus your claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete was lightweight is shown to be absurd by your own exhibit, and you're such a confirmation-biased incompetent you can't even see that."

You're lying again, sex predator.

Show me were I claimed that all 424,000 tons of concrete "was lightweight"?

And I want a link and a direct quote.

Produce the quote and the link, or stand exposed as a liar.

The sex predator continues to bald-faced lie, "...Your exhibit says nothing about the aggregate, and it certainly doesn't say anything about fly ash."

Really? No kidding?

Well, when I finish proving that you misrepresented my statement, I'm going to use USGS data to prove you're lying again (because we've already been over this point).

But first I want a link and a direct quote to substantiate your claim that I said all 424,000 tons of concrete was lightweight.

Now, produce the quote and a direct link, or stand exposed as a liar.

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

"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th." -- THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS, February 2002, Natural Resources Defense Council, Chapter 3, page 14.

In addition, the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that 424,000 tons of concrete was "destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan."

Again, it's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your cockamamie argument, sex predator.

Thus, the burden of proof is yours and your alone. I want you to prove that the official source, the Natural Resources Defense Council, is lying about the amount of concrete that was destroyed on 11 September 2001.

If you fail to provide proof of the Natural Resources Defense Council's alleged error, we can assume, once again, that you're trying to elevate your unsubstantiated, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion to the realm of "fact."

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

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Your exhibit says nothing about the aggregate, and it certainly doesn't say anything about fly ash."

According to John Moehring, fly ash has been "used in the United States for over fifty years for everything from lightweight concrete sound walls to a lightweight concrete structural roof."

Moehring continues, "...Lightweight aggregates can consist of naturally occurring gas expanded materials such as vermiculite, pumice, certain volcanic rocks, and some diatomaceous earths. They can also be manufactured by heating some types of clay, shale, slate, and obsidian in a rotary kiln, or by using air quenched cinders and blast-furnace slag (fly ash)."

Headwater Resources, "America's largest manager and marketer of coal combustion products" writes--and I quote:

"...Headwaters Resources is the undisputed leader in supplying fly ash to the concrete industry. Derived from burning coal, fly ash is a valuable additive that makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with. Fly ash sources in 30 states are linked to a nationwide network of terminals and transportation equipment - ensuring customers receive quality material when they need it. With nearly 20 million tons of ash products under management annually, Headwaters Resources offers concrete producers the support they need to make ash a part of their every day production."

Face it, sex predator, you have no idea what you're talking about. Fly ash's Number One application is lightweight concrete. And fly ash has been used as aggregate for lightweight concrete for over 50 years.

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Your exhibit says nothing about the aggregate, and it certainly doesn't say anything about fly ash."

According to John Moehring, fly ash has been "used in the United States for over fifty years for everything from lightweight concrete sound walls to a lightweight concrete structural roof."

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Moehring continues, "...Lightweight aggregates can consist of naturally occurring gas expanded materials such as vermiculite, pumice, certain volcanic rocks, and some diatomaceous earths. They can also be manufactured by heating some types of clay, shale, slate, and obsidian in a rotary kiln, or by using air quenched cinders and blast-furnace slag (fly ash)."

Headwater Resources, "America's largest manager and marketer of coal combustion products" writes--and I quote:

"...Headwaters Resources is the undisputed leader in supplying fly ash to the concrete industry. Derived from burning coal, fly ash is a valuable additive that makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with. Fly ash sources in 30 states are linked to a nationwide network of terminals and transportation equipment - ensuring customers receive quality material when they need it. With nearly 20 million tons of ash products under management annually, Headwaters Resources offers concrete producers the support they need to make ash a part of their every day production."

Face it, sex predator, you have no idea what you're talking about. Fly ash's Number One application is lightweight concrete. And fly ash has been used as aggregate for lightweight concrete for over 50 years.

http://www.civilengineergroup.com/lightweight-concrete-carries-load.html

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Moehring continues, "...Lightweight aggregates can consist of naturally occurring gas expanded materials such as vermiculite, pumice, certain volcanic rocks, and some diatomaceous earths. They can also be manufactured by heating some types of clay, shale, slate, and obsidian in a rotary kiln, or by using air quenched cinders and blast-furnace slag (fly ash)."

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Headwater Resources, "America's largest manager and marketer of coal combustion products" writes--and I quote:

"...Headwaters Resources is the undisputed leader in supplying fly ash to the concrete industry. Derived from burning coal, fly ash is a valuable additive that makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with. Fly ash sources in 30 states are linked to a nationwide network of terminals and transportation equipment - ensuring customers receive quality material when they need it. With nearly 20 million tons of ash products under management annually, Headwaters Resources offers concrete producers the support they need to make ash a part of their every day production."

Face it, sex predator, you have no idea what you're talking about. Fly ash's Number One application is lightweight concrete. And fly ash has been used as aggregate for lightweight concrete for over 50 years.

http://www.civilengineergroup.com/lightweight-concrete-carries-load.html

http://www.flyash.com/flyashconcrete.asp

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Headwater Resources, "America's largest manager and marketer of coal combustion products" writes--and I quote:

"...Headwaters Resources is the undisputed leader in supplying fly ash to the concrete industry. Derived from burning coal, fly ash is a valuable additive that makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with. Fly ash sources in 30 states are linked to a nationwide network of terminals and transportation equipment - ensuring customers receive quality material when they need it. With nearly 20 million tons of ash products under management annually, Headwaters Resources offers concrete producers the support they need to make ash a part of their every day production."

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Headwater Resources, "America's largest manager and marketer of coal combustion products" writes--and I quote:

"...Headwaters Resources is the undisputed leader in supplying fly ash to the concrete industry. Derived from burning coal, fly ash is a valuable additive that makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with. Fly ash sources in 30 states are linked to a nationwide network of terminals and transportation equipment - ensuring customers receive quality material when they need it. With nearly 20 million tons of ash products under management annually, Headwaters Resources offers concrete producers the support they need to make ash a part of their every day production."

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Headwater Resources, "America's largest manager and marketer of coal combustion products" writes--and I quote:

"...Headwaters Resources is the undisputed leader in supplying fly ash to the concrete industry. Derived from burning coal, fly ash is a valuable additive that makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with. Fly ash sources in 30 states are linked to a nationwide network of terminals and transportation equipment - ensuring customers receive quality material when they need it. With nearly 20 million tons of ash products under management annually, Headwaters Resources offers concrete producers the support they need to make ash a part of their every day production."

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Face it, sex predator, you have no idea what you're talking about. Fly ash's Number One application is lightweight concrete. And fly ash has been used as aggregate for lightweight concrete for over 50 years.

http://www.civilengineergroup.com/lightweight-concrete-carries-load.html

http://www.flyash.com/flyashconcrete.asp

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to babble, "...You have provided no evidence that the iron particles are a necessary component of any chemical reaction in the concrete, and no explanation as to why they would not be consumed by the reaction if they were."

Fly ash--you jackass--is an aggregate, not a reactant.

aggregate n. Composed of a mixture of minerals separable by mechanical means : The mineral materials, such as sand or stone, used in making concrete.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aggregate

Fly ash "makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with."

http://www.flyash.com/flyashconcrete.asp

Thus, we can see, once again, that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're simply throwing up contrarian flack, nonsense and bullshit because you know I'm telling the truth.

Seek psychiatric intervention, freak.

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to babble, "...You have provided no evidence that the iron particles are a necessary component of any chemical reaction in the concrete, and no explanation as to why they would not be consumed by the reaction if they were."

Fly ash--you jackass--is an aggregate, not a reactant.

aggregate n. Composed of a mixture of minerals separable by mechanical means : The mineral materials, such as sand or stone, used in making concrete.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/aggregate

Fly ash "makes concrete stronger, more durable and easier to work with."

http://www.flyash.com/flyashconcrete.asp

Thus, we can see, once again, that you have no idea what you're talking about. You're simply throwing up contrarian flack, nonsense and bullshit because you know I'm telling the truth.

Seek psychiatric intervention, freak.

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The USGS wrote--and I quote: "...Concrete is composed of aggregate, sand, and Portland cement...Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component. Portland cement particles will usually have a high Ca peak accompanied by Si and/or Al, Mg, Fe...The primary metal and metal-oxide phases in WTC dust are Fe-rich and Zn-rich particles."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

Thus, we can see that Silicon, Aluminum and Iron are all componenets of the WTC dust--which is exactly what we should find when one considers that lightweight concrete was an abundant component of the towers.

 
At 20 March, 2011 08:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ALL ABOUT LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE

STRUCTURAL CONCRETE


"...Concrete with full structural efficiency contain aggregates which fall on the other end of the scale and which are generally made with expanded shale, clay, slates, slag, and fly-ash."

http://theconstructor.org/concrete/all-about-light-weight-concrete/1670/

 
At 20 March, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, you claimed that fly ash was a component of lightweight concrete, and then you calculated that 67,000 tons of fly-ash-based aluminosilicate and iron spheres would be present in 424,000 tons of WTC concrete, thus implying that fly ash was present in all the concrete.

The 424,000 ton concrete figure includes the concrete in the bathtub and floors in the mall under the WTC. Are you claiming that the bathtub and the mall were pulverized?

The NRDC is not an "official source." It's an environmental group and the authors of its report have demonstrated no engineering expertise whatsoever.

You claimed that the reason that 11 million dollars worth of iron spheres would not be magnetically extracted from 5 million worth of fly ash was because the iron was essential to the chemical reaction.

Fly ash is not an aggregate. It replaces cement, not aggregate, in the mix. You can talk all day about fly ash in lightweight concrete, but it doesn't show that fly ash was present in the normal "stone" concrete, nor does it show that all the 424,000 tons of concrete was lightweight, nor does it show that all 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized.

 
At 20 March, 2011 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I never claimed that all the concrete was lightweight. You assumed that's what I said. In other words, you stuffed words down my throat, and attacked the caricature of my words--which is a straw man argument. Thus, we have another demonstration of your intellectual dishonesty.

The NRDC is an official source. The NRDC's data was used in a FEDERAL TRIAL, as the New York Times article I referenced proves beyond a doubt.

My post at 9:10 clearly states that fly ash is an aggregate. John Moehring, moreover, is civil engineer and an expert on the subject of lightweight concrete; thus, that's expert testimony. You're worthless opinion doesn't trump expert testimony.

The following paper proves that fly ash is an aggregate:

RESEARCH ON SINTERED FLY ASH AGGREGATE OF HIGH STRENGTH AND LOW ABSORPTION OF WATER.

http://www.cptechcenter.org/publications/sustainable/gaoaggregate.pdf

Continued...

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Thus, you're proven to be a liar, once again.

Furthermore, the NDRC clearly states that the concrete was pulverized.

"...It is estimated that 424,000 tons of concrete...were destroyed, significant amounts of which were released in a huge cloud of debris that engulfed Lower Manhattan on September 11th."

The cloud consisted of, among other substances, pulverized concrete.

As per usual, you make up your facts and lie, while attempting to elevate your opinion to the realm of "fact."

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The 424,000 ton concrete figure includes the concrete in the bathtub and floors in the mall under the WTC. Are you claiming that the bathtub and the mall were pulverized?"

More unsubstantiated nonsense, sex predator?

Pulling more "facts" out of your ass, idiot?

The WTC consisted of more than two buildings--you fool. All the WTC buildings were destroyed.

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The following photograph shows the damage to the remaining towers. Notice the gravel, sand and pulverized concrete:

http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1943.jpg

More pulverized concrete:

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/belmonte_exdown2.jpg

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, look at your 3/16 15:43 post:

"...What does 16% of 424,000 tons have to do with anything?"

Lightweight concrete--you stupid fool--is 16% fly ash by weight.

Check and mate


The implicit claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete were lightweight is obvious. Your problem, dude, is that since you don't have the character to admit when you're wrong, there's nothing to stop you from saying really stupid things.

John Moehring is not a Civil Engineer. He is a "Certified Engineering Technologist". It takes a 2-year degree.

http://alis.alberta.ca/occinfo/Content/RequestAction.asp?aspAction=GetHTMLProfile&format=html&occPro_ID=71001597

The NRDC is an environmental group, the authors of the report have no demonstrated engineering expertise, and the claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows anything about the WTC (but not to you, obviously).

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to lie, "...The NRDC is not an "official source." It's an environmental group and the authors of its report have demonstrated no engineering expertise whatsoever."

More bullcrap!

From NRDC's about web page:

"...Staff: 300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts"

http://www.nrdc.org/about/

Thus, your claim that the NRDC "demonstrated no engineering expertise whatsoever" is another pile of crap. Thus, we have another example of your worthless, lying opinion masquerading as "fact."

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More bull crap, sex predator?

"...I have broad experience summarizing information from a versitile selection of civil engineering disciplines. This includes generating reports, creating progress summaries, and recommending current best practices. As a Certified Engineering Technologist I have been engaged for over 15 years researching, testing, and supporting civil engineering practices for a variety of projects. These include pavements, building construction, storm water treatment, geo-synthetics, recycling, suburban heat island mitigation, soil stabilization, code interpretation, etc. I have practical experience in the construction industry, and in fact specified and built the house I currently live in. Finally, I enjoy writing!" -- John Moehring's Profile

http://www.brighthub.com/members/rheoman.aspx

Thus, I'll take his work experience and expertise over your opinion any day of the week.

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

There is nothing "official" about the NRDC. It is an environmental lobbying group.

Your belief that "300+ lawyers, scientists and policy experts" somehow translates to engineering expertise is peculiar.

The NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows anything about the WTC.

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator continues to quote mine and lie, "...The implicit claim that all 424,000 tons of concrete were lightweight is obvious."

Why did you conveniently omit the word "approximately" found at 15:41?

http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=8032833634354584589&page=1&token=1300653410274

Thus, we can see, once again, that you make up your "facts," while you lie like a rug.

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...The NRDC's claim that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd for reasons that are obvious to anyone who knows anything about the WTC."

No, it's only "absurd" to a lying troofer propagandist who offers nothing more than his worthless, unprofessional and unqualified opinion as "fact."

Scientists are just as capable of estimating the amount of concrete that was pulverized as an engineer. And you avoid the use of the data in a FEDERAL COURT like plague, because it lends even more credibility to their estimate. They were called as an expert witness in a FEDERAL TRIAL.

Thus, the burden proof falls on your shoulders and your shoulders alone. Prove that they're wrong. And your worthless opinion is not "fact."

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 13:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

If the NRDC's claim carries no weight, why were they cited by the RJ Lee Report? Why were they called as an expert witness at a FEDERAL TRIAL?

Face it. You don't have a leg to stand on. As usual, I substantiate my argument with facts, and you offer your worthless, unprofessional and unqualified opinion as "fact."

Humbag!

You're a charlatan, who can't substantiate his argument.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 14:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I did not omit anything. I quoted your 15:43 post in its entirety. Your attempt to shift the issue to your 15:41 post is dishonest.

But as long as we're talking about the 15:41 and "approximately" and dishonesty, let's deal with that:
Your claim that "The Natural Resources Defense Council's report, titled, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE WORLD TRADE CENTER ATTACKS confirms that approximately 67,000 tons iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered Lower Manhattan" is a lie. The NRDC report does not say that.

Your belief that all the WTC concrete was pulverized is easily shown to be wrong by anybody who knows about the WTC.

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stow it, sex predator. The subject is your never ending duplicity.

Why do you cite the RJ Lee Report, and then claim then NRDC has no credibility, when the RJ Lee Report cites the NRDC as a source?

You can't have it both ways, con artist.

You talk out of both sides of your mouth first last and always.

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

When did I cite the RJ Lee report?

Why do YOU hypocritically cite the RJ Lee report even though you disagree with its conclusion that the iron microspheres were generated by the WTC fires?

Your belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is easily shown to be wrong by anybody who knows about the WTC.

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator talks out of both sides of his lying mouth, and scribbles, "...Your belief that all the WTC concrete was pulverized is easily shown to be wrong by anybody who knows about the WTC."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, sex predator?

The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos, mainly from insulation and from fireproofing. It is estimated that 50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately four pounds of lead. Additionally, tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed, releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment. Other building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include structural steel, non-asbestos containing insulating fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate (concrete)..."

So, we can see that you cite the RJ Lee Report when it suits your intellectually dishonest propaganda, but deny it's contents and reference material when it doesn't suit your lying propaganda.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The sex predator talks out of both sides of his lying mouth, and scribbles, "...Your belief that all the WTC concrete was pulverized is easily shown to be wrong by anybody who knows about the WTC."

Talking out of both sides of your mouth again, sex predator?

Continue...

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event including an estimated 300 to 400 tons of asbestos, mainly from insulation and from fireproofing. It is estimated that 50,000 personal computers were destroyed, with each containing approximately four pounds of lead. Additionally, tens of thousands of fluorescent light bulbs, switches and other mercury-containing items were destroyed, releasing thousands of grams of mercury into the surrounding environment. Other building materials from which the WTC Towers were constructed include structural steel, non-asbestos containing insulating fibrous material (mineral wool and glass fibers), cement and aggregate (concrete)..."

So, we can see that you cite the RJ Lee Report when it suits your intellectually dishonest propaganda, but deny it's contents and reference material when it doesn't suit your lying propaganda.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Why do YOU hypocritically cite the RJ Lee report even though you disagree with its conclusion that the iron microspheres were generated by the WTC fires?"

"Objection, your Honor, the question assumes 'facts' not in evidence."

I don't disagree with the RJ Lee Report's conclusions.

I disagree with your lying propaganda that says the only source of the iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres was the fire.

The RJ Lee Report doesn't argue that the only source of the spheres was the fire. That's troofer propaganda.

FACT: Fire alone cannot account for the total volume of spheres that blanketed lower Manhattan. Thus, the remainder must have come from a source other than the fires.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 15:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, when did I cite the RJ Lee report?

Your claim that you agree with RJ Lee's conclusions is contrary to the facts. RJ Lee claims the iron spheres were a product of the WTC fires.

P. 5: "Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event."

P. 16: "Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of
the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be
expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics

• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials"

 
At 20 March, 2011 16:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You've cited the RJ Lee Report on numerous occasions--you bat shit crazy liar.

And the RJ Lee Report doesn't claim to account for all the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres. The quote you cite, moreover, doesn't tell us anything about the volume of spheres that covered lower Manhattan. The fires simply cannot account for all the spheres that blanketed lower Manhattan--period.

And anyone who thinks "nanothermite" was the source of all the spheres is equally out of his or her mind.

Steven Jones wrote, "...Scaling to the 110-story WTC towers, roughly 1300 lbs [590 kg] of explosives per tower would suffice."

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

So how did 590 kg's of "nanothermite" produce thousands of tons of microspheres?

And make sure your explanation violates the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of mass. Okay?

 
At 20 March, 2011 16:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I have not cited the RJ Lee Report except to point out that it does not say what you claim it says--for instance your claim 2/25 15:00 that "the RJ Lee Report claims that '56,000 tons' of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered lower Manhattan."

The report says nothing of the sort and that was a lie.

Where do you get the idea that thousands of tons of iron spheres blanketed lower Manhattan?

 
At 20 March, 2011 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Knuckle head babbles, "...Where do you get the idea that thousands of tons of iron spheres blanketed lower Manhattan?"

Jeeeeeeeezzzzzzus Christ you're dense!

Keep reading my post at 15:46 until you get it through your thick skull.

 
At 20 March, 2011 17:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh I see, you get the idea that thousands of tons of iron spheres blanketed lower Manhattan from your belief that 1.2 million tons of building material would necessarily contain thousands of tons of iron spheres.

 
At 20 March, 2011 17:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

*facepalm*

You're an idiot, sex predator.

 
At 20 March, 2011 17:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I have provided conclusive evidence for the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres. And the USGS Report confirms my hypothesis.

Just because you've tried to cover the evidence with squealspam won't make the evidence go away.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 20 March, 2011 21:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you have provided nothing more than speculations that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete. The USGS does not mention fly ash or aluminosilicate. It says the concrete is composed of cement, sand, and aggregate. It says the aggregate "appears to be expanded shale". Period. No fly ash.

No comment is made about two iron spheres tested. It says iron is associated with the concrete sand, rock wool (up to 12%), Portland cement, and asbestos.

Your belief that the fact that iron was found in the dust validates your belief in 56,000 tons of iron spheres in the dust is just loopy.

What you call "squealspam" is my objection when you lie about what the reports say.

You have provided no evidence that fly ash was used in the WTC. Since the makeup of fly ash is so variable I would think that the designers of the WTC concrete would be reluctant to use it unless they could blend all 29,000 tons of fly ash to make a consistent product. This would be a pain in the ass and add to the cost.

 
At 20 March, 2011 22:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you have provided nothing more than speculations that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete. The USGS does not mention fly ash or aluminosilicate. It says the concrete is composed of cement, sand, and aggregate. It says the aggregate "appears to be expanded shale". Period. No fly ash.

No comment is made about two iron spheres tested. It says iron is associated with the concrete sand, rock wool (up to 12%), Portland cement, and asbestos.

Your belief that the fact that iron was found in the dust validates your belief in 56,000 tons of iron spheres in the dust is just loopy.

What you call "squealspam" is my objection when you lie about what the reports say.

You have provided no evidence that fly ash was used in the WTC. Since the makeup of fly ash is so variable I would think that the designers of the WTC concrete would be reluctant to use it unless they could blend all 29,000 tons of fly ash to make a consistent product. This would be a pain in the ass and add to the cost.

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

UtterFail, you have provided nothing more than speculations that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete. The USGS does not mention fly ash or aluminosilicate. It says the concrete is composed of cement, sand, and aggregate. It says the aggregate "appears to be expanded shale". Period. No fly ash.

No comment is made about two iron spheres tested. It says iron is associated with the concrete sand, rock wool (up to 12%), Portland cement, and asbestos.

Your belief that the fact that iron was found in the dust validates your belief in 56,000 tons of iron spheres in the dust is just loopy.

 
At 21 March, 2011 01:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

What you call "squealspam" is my objection when you lie about what the reports say.

You have provided no evidence that fly ash was used in the WTC. Since the makeup of fly ash is so variable I would think that the designers of the WTC concrete would be reluctant to use it unless they could blend all 29,000 tons of fly ash to make a consistent product. This would be a pain in the ass and add to the cost.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home