Sunday, March 06, 2011

Stupid Troofers



In the wake of a controlled demolition, a couple of the dolts ask the Georgia Tech president to sanction a debate between Box Boy and a member of the engineering faculty at Tech.

But what gets me about this video is that the Troofers never seem to notice the ear-splitting explosions that precede the demolition. The explosions are so loud that had they been present on 9-11 they would have been mentioned by every newscaster and heard by every TV viewer. Yes, the firemen heard explosions, but had they heard these types of explosions in a confined area, they would be deaf.

88 Comments:

At 06 March, 2011 09:42, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

What i love about CD truthers is that they parade around the firemen quotes of "secondary explosions" which indicates they weren't explosives.

 
At 06 March, 2011 11:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, I guess you missed Chief Turci's statement about "secondary devices" and Chief Ray Downey's statement that he believed there had been bombs in the top of WTC2 because the collapse was too even.

 
At 06 March, 2011 11:33, Blogger Gost said...

Instead of handing out packets of papers and "compilation DVDs" to engineering faculty and asking them to review it for free (Box Boy himself has done the same thing), why don't the truthers pool together their allowances and HIRE a structural engineering firm to assess the "evidence" and issue a technical report?

Here's one of many companies they can contact:
http://www.appliedscienceint.com/Services.aspx

Looking at its list of services, you can see that the company has expertise in the relevant areas: progressive collapse, demolition, structural vulnerability, computer modeling, forensic engineering analysis ("where it is required to determine the cause and/or party responsible for a specific structural collapse or failure.")

If the WTC "controlled demolition" is as obvious as Gage and his flock claim it is, surely it would be even more obvious to a firm of experts, right?

So what are they waiting for? I have a very strong suspicion that truther bigwigs like Gage and Jones HAVE secretly commissioned independent reviews, dust tests, etc., but didn't get the results they wanted and so have kept mum about it.

 
At 06 March, 2011 12:18, Blogger Triterope said...

Another overly long YouTube video of a Truthsquadding. Yawn.

 
At 06 March, 2011 12:51, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

Did Cheif Downey make his statement before or after he died in the collapses, you ignorant, heartless idiot!

Go do some research before you make stupid comments!

 
At 06 March, 2011 13:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg, obviously Chief Downey made his statement before he died. After he saw the first tower come down, he died in the collapse of the second.

The statement was reported by that paranoid conspiracy theorist Father John Delendick, and is recorded in the FDNY oral histories.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CBQQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2Fpackages%2Fhtml%2Fnyregion%2F20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC%2F9110230.PDF&rct=j&q=delendick&ei=vP9zTcf7DJKksQOD8d3YCw&usg=AFQjCNG9zG3w_OWJUf4jQ3ib81_d7xdRyQ&sig2=vfiXgj9b4yoWyyA3fQYZVA&cad=rja

Chief Downey was widely recognized as one of the premier building collapse experts in the country. He knew what makes buildings fall and what doesn't, and what a natural collapse should look like. He told Father Delendick that he thought explosives were used because the collapse was too even.

 
At 06 March, 2011 13:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Brian doesn't need to do research, he doesn't care about the truth let alone basic facts.

 
At 06 March, 2011 14:31, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

You are a tool. A jackass. A buffoon. A joke.

Downey died IN the tower. He did not see the collapse, nor do I think he would have made time to provide a quote about the collapse while it was collapsing.

This is the most retarded argument I have ever seen any truther make.

 
At 06 March, 2011 14:34, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

I don't know what tower Downey was in, but is your argument that while he was saving people he took a moment to comment about the collapse?

You are a piece of work.

You're link didn't work, fyi, what a shock.

 
At 06 March, 2011 15:24, Blogger Triterope said...

Here's the entire exchange Brian refers to:

Q. Let me interrupt you for a second. Were you there when the second plane hit?

A. No. When the second plane hit, I was still in Brooklyn. I was trying to get through the tunnel on Hamilton Avenue. We saw the plane, but I never saw it hit. I remember saying tomyself, boy, that guy is awful low in the pattern. I remember saying something really stupid like, you know, did he come down to see what happened with the first one? It never dawned on me that he was heading for the other tower, but that's where it was headed.

We heard a rumbling noise, and it appeared that that first tower, the south tower, had exploded, the top of it. That's what I saw, what a lot of us saw. We ran down underneath the Financial Center.

Q. The garages behind you?

A. The garages.

We were followed by that cloud, that dark black cloud. It was very difficult to breathe, very difficult to see.

I stopped running or I stopped going down when it leveled off. There was like a ramp that went down, and I stopped at the bottom ramp where it leveled off. Bill Feehan was next tome. Ray Downey was over there too, because they both started talking -- I knew it was them because they were talking, so I knew.

I remember asking Ray Downey was it the jet fuel that blew up. He said at that point he thought there were bombs up there because it was too even. As we've since learned, it was the jetfuel that was dropping down that caused all this. But he said it was too even.

Q. Symmetrical?

A. So his original thought was that he thought it was a bomb up there as well.

We then started walking up, back up. I was with Bill Feehan. I'm not sure where Ray Downey went. I understand Pete Ganci found a stairwell, went up a stairwell and went back to the lobby, back to the command post where wewere.

Bill and I stopped a few times on the ramp going up. There were some firefighters who had fallen there. I don't know who they were. I didn't really get to see their faces. You couldn't really see much. You trip over them is how --

Q. You found them.

A. We would grab other firefighters to help them down further. They had apparently minor injuries. They were okay, but they had fallen or whatever. We got people to assist them to go down further into the building.


So Brian is not only presenting the firsthand fog-of-war observations of someone who died at the scene as expert architectural testimony, but has no problem twisting the story of someone who risked to try and help people at the scene.

You're a sick, sick, sick, sick person, Brian Good, AND YOU NEED TO GET HELP.

 
At 06 March, 2011 15:26, Blogger Triterope said...

Here's the link to the whole interview with Father John Delendick:

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/nyregion/20050812_WTC_GRAPHIC/9110230.PDF

 
At 06 March, 2011 16:05, Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 March, 2011 16:08, Blogger Len said...

In this case he is correct I don’t see how the quote can be considered out of context it was however a 1st impression based on no data. However it was not the only account of what he said that day

MR. ROEMER:...Commissioner Von Essen, you had, according to the interview you conducted with the 9/11 staff, one of the last conversations with Ray Downey, an expert--very, very respected expert on building collapse and he says something to you along the lines of ,"Boss, I think these buildings could collapse." How does that inform your decision-making or your communication with other people and what is the context of this remark?

MR. VON ESSEN: He said that to me, it was right after the second tower was hit. We were still in the lobby. We all heard a rumbling. We didn't know what it was, then it was confirmed that it was the second tower. It was also confirmed that the Sears Tower was hit, that the Mall of America was hit, that the Pentagon was hit and that there was another plane that wasn't accounted for.

So you couldn't really go by confirmations. You know, misinformation in the heat of battle like that is very--is common. But we knew that the South Tower had been hit. And Ray said to me just--and what always gave me strength afterwards was that he was so knowledgeable, and if there was a person in the country that you would go to to ask for advice in a situation like this, it would be him. Of all the hundreds of phenomenal fire chiefs in the country, Ray was top of the line when it came to special operations and collapses and things like that. So for him to say to me so matter-of-factly, just looking at me and saying, "Boss, these buildings can collapse"--and it wasn't, you know, like he would say to me in a different situation, "Tommy, get everybody out of here, make sure that the mayor knows, make sure Ganci knows," you know, it wasn't like that. It was, "These buildings can collapse," which gave me the sense that there was a lot of time that we had to do what he wanted to do and that was to get everybody out. And he knew we had guys that were way up and he knew we had to get them all out.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing11/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-05-18.htm

According to John Farmer, “…The best estimate of one senior chief, provided to the chief of the department sometime between 9:25 and 9:45, was that there might be a danger of collapse in a few hours, and therefore units probably should not ascend above floors in the sixties…”

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing11/9-11Commission_Hearing_2004-05-19.htm

I have no idea if that was Downey or a 2nd senior chief, IIRC a few said they expected at least localized collapses just as the Philly FD did during the Meridian Plaza fire.

 
At 06 March, 2011 16:20, Blogger Ian said...

GMS, I guess you missed Chief Turci's statement about "secondary devices" and Chief Ray Downey's statement that he believed there had been bombs in the top of WTC2 because the collapse was too even.

Brian is conveniently quoting dead people again.

The statement was reported by that paranoid conspiracy theorist Father John Delendick, and is recorded in the FDNY oral histories.

Objection, your honor. Relevance?

Chief Downey was widely recognized as one of the premier building collapse experts in the country. He knew what makes buildings fall and what doesn't, and what a natural collapse should look like. He told Father Delendick that he thought explosives were used because the collapse was too even.

Yup, that's why he's quoting dead people: so he can hide behind their "expertise" when we point out that he's full of shit and that the above lines are mindless speculation.

It's the same with his "widows": he uses them as a rhetorical shield because he thinks no one would be willing to attack grieving widows.

Which is why it's so hilarious when he squeals and babbles and carries on when I mock his obsession with them.

 
At 06 March, 2011 17:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Greg 14:31,

Chief Downey died when the second tower came down. He had watched the first tower come down. I'm sorry that's too complicated for you to understand. The link goes to a pdf. You need the Adobe reader to read it.

TR, Chief Downey was widely recognized as one of the premier collapse experts in the country. There aren't very many of them, because collapses are so rare. His observation of the tower was a simple technical observation "too even" that can be verified by simply watching the videos. I'm not twisting his story at all. You are. You seem to think that Father Delindick's opinions about jet fuel are relevant to Chief Downey's opinion. They are not.

Ian, Chief Downey's observations of the collapse are the same as a controlled demolitions expert, Dr. Van Romero, who observed that the collapses were "too methodical" to result from fire. Later he changed his mind and decided fire could have done it, but he never changed his mind about the fact that it was methodical.

 
At 06 March, 2011 17:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

And of course $56 million of federal funding that Dr. Romero later brought to his college had nothing to do with his decision to change his opinion.

 
At 06 March, 2011 17:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I see SLC's resident psychopath is babbling about controlled demolition scenarios. Never mind it's well established that pulling off such a blast scenario is nearly impossible at best, and downright impossible at worst.

The NIST Report wrote--and I quote: "...Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC7...Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario. This scenario involved preliminary cutting of column 79 and the use of 4 kg (9 lbs) of RDX explosives in linear shaped charges. The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to accomplish without detection...Preparations for the blast scenario would have been impossible to carry out on any floor in the building without detection. Preparations would have included removal of column enclosures or walls, weld torches to cut column sections, and the placement of wires for detonation. Occupants, support staff, and visitors would have noticed such activities, particularly since they likely would have occurred around more than one column...Figure 3-1 shows the results for the two shaped charges applied to column 79 on a tenant floor that was highly partitioned, such as floor 12. Nearly all the windows on the northeast section of the floor subjected to the blast would have been broken, even by a smaller charge. Simulations for a floor that was not highly partitioned led to more extensive window breakage...The window breakage would have allowed the sound of the blast to propagate outward from the building. NLAWS, a validated acoustic wave propagation software program, was used to predict the propagation of the sound of the hypothetical blast. The calculations showed that all the hypothetical blast scenarios and charge sizes would have broadcast significant sound levels from all the building faces. For instance, if propagation were unobstructed by other buildings, the sound level emanating from the WTC 7 perimeter openings would have been approximately 130 dB to 140 dB at a distance of 1 km (0.6 mile) from WTC 7. This sound level is consistent with standing next to a jet plane engine and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert. The sound from such a blast in an urban setting would have been reflected and channeled down streets with minimum attenuation. The hard building exteriors would have acted as nearly perfect reflectors, with little to no absorption. These echoes could have extended the time period over which the sound could have been detected and could possibly have had an additive effect if multiple in-phase reflections met. However, soundtracks from videos being recorded at the time of the collapse did not contain any sound as intense as would have accompanied such a blast (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Chapter 5). Therefore, the Investigation Team concluded that there was no demolition-type blast that would have been intense enough to lead to the collapse of WTC 7 on September 11, 2001." -- NCSTAR 1A, Sec. 3.3, pages 26-28.

Parenthetically, babbling about "nanothermite" demolition scenarios doesn't pass the sniff test, because there is no evidence that "nanothermite" can be used to cut a 70 ksi structural steel column.

 
At 06 March, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, what difference does it make whether a column is 70 ksi or 50 ksi with respect to its vulnerability to incendiaries? You're just throwing around red herrings again.

Are you going to admit you were wrong when you claimed USGS found 1800 F temps in the WTC before collapse?

 
At 06 March, 2011 18:23, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS, I guess you missed Chief Turci's statement about "secondary devices" and Chief Ray Downey's statement that he believed there had been bombs in the top of WTC2 because the collapse was too even.

I guess you missed the fact that they were talking about the FOIA req quotes of firefighters talking about "secondary explosions". What I was talking about.

Curious, did they say they saw them? Or were they speculating?

 
At 06 March, 2011 18:25, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Sadly Brian, Downey didn't live long enough to see the footage that showed the collapse wasn't even. Yah know...the facts you pretend don't exist.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images/superimp.spire.wtc1.jpg

 
At 06 March, 2011 18:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, I don't know what Chief Turi saw. His statements to the news media about secondary devices were reported in mainstream news coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5Nw7paLdSY

GMS what makes you think the collapse wasn't even? Dr. Bazant even has to suppose that the top block of tower 2 rotated around a centroid to maintain summetry, because that's the only way he can defeat the law of conservation of angular momentum that dictates that the tipping top block should have continued to rotate until it fell off the building.

 
At 06 March, 2011 18:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Are you going to admit you were wrong when you claimed USGS found 1800 F temps in the WTC before collapse?"

Still lying, goat molester? Of course you're lying.

Again, NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers 15 minutes after impact(e.g., see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36, page 127).

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

FAIL

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

 
At 06 March, 2011 18:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, what difference does it make whether a column is 70 ksi or 50 ksi with respect to its vulnerability to incendiaries? You're just throwing around red herrings again."

Babbling about a subject you know nothing about, goat molester?

Your idiotic "controlled demolition" scenario is about as likely as you telling the truth--nil.

 
At 06 March, 2011 19:01, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

GMS what makes you think the collapse wasn't even?

Reality. Which you seem at odds with.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQBJ3qeeEPBZOoDkSjrRiiolPDhl99QubMPiZsOW-VyYM7fpiFh

 
At 06 March, 2011 19:29, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

So again, explain the narrative you are defending. Downey sees the first collapse, then watches news replays of the first collapse (he would have to have watched several replays to make the comment you assume he made), makes a comment about how it looks funny to him, and then goes back into the still standing tower to meet his maker. All within a half hour.

You don't see the idiocy of defending such a story? No, I guess you wouldn't.

 
At 06 March, 2011 19:33, Blogger Triterope said...

And of course $56 million of federal funding that Dr. Romero later brought to his college had nothing to do with his decision to change his opinion.

Sick.

 
At 06 March, 2011 19:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Chief Downey's erroneous observation isn't supported by the evidence. All the investigative bodies discarded the "controlled demolition" scenarios. There's simply no evidence to support the "controlled demolition" hypotheses promoted by the 9/11 "truth" movement.

"...NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC tower were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001. NIST also did not find evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly showed that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward, until the dust clouds obscured the view." -- NIST NCSTAR1, Sec. E.3, Summary of Findings, page xxxviii.

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

 
At 06 March, 2011 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, NIST invented temps of 1800 degrees. You claimed that USGS observed temps of 1800 degrees. You don't know the difference between inventing data and observing it, and don't know the difference between USGS and NIST.

Greg, you don't know what you're talking about. What makes you think Chief Downey saw news reports of the collapse?

GutterBall, Chief Downey's observation is entirely consistent with what we see on the videos. The collapse is even. Fires can't do that.

And how about that "weasel" language in NIST's denial, huh?

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC tower were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

So are they saying that explosives were planted in the wee hours of 9/11? Are they saying thermite was used? It's a really strange denial.

 
At 06 March, 2011 20:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, NIST invented temps of 1800 degrees."

False. Your worthless opinion isn't evidence.

"...You claimed that USGS observed temps of 1800 degrees. You don't know the difference between inventing data and observing it, and don't know the difference between USGS and NIST."

False. The data is the product of validated fire simulation software. Until the data is falsified by a credible source, the data remains the best available explanation of the events of 11 September 2001. And your inability to grasp the concept of fire simulation software does NOT invalidate the data derived from the fire trajectory model.

FAIL.

"...GutterBall, Chief Downey's observation is entirely consistent with what we see on the videos. The collapse is even. Fires can't do that."

False. Your worthless opinion isn't evidence.

"...So are they saying that explosives were planted in the wee hours of 9/11? Are they saying thermite was used? It's a really strange denial."

No, NIST is saying that you're a delusional, lying git.

 
At 06 March, 2011 20:22, Blogger Greg said...

Brian,

In order for Downey to make a statement saying that he the the -evenness- of the collapse concerned him, he would have to have a vantage point level with the collapse, not from the ground looking up at the building falling down on him. Therefore, he would have to have seen the news footage to make such a claim. OR he saw the building from far far off, but then traveled all the way to the north tower, entered it, and met his demise in a half hour.

You're a fruitloop!

You didn't answer my question: How do you know what building he was in?

 
At 06 March, 2011 20:24, Blogger Triterope said...

"NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC tower were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to September 11, 2001."

So are they saying that explosives were planted in the wee hours of 9/11? Are they saying thermite was used? It's a really strange denial.


GET. HELP. NOW.

 
At 06 March, 2011 20:40, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Chief Downey's observations of the collapse are the same as a controlled demolitions expert, Dr. Van Romero, who observed that the collapses were "too methodical" to result from fire. Later he changed his mind and decided fire could have done it, but he never changed his mind about the fact that it was methodical.

Nobody cares.

GMS, I don't know what Chief Turi saw.

Brian, you don't know anything. That's why you're stupid enough to believe in an inside job and controlled demolition.

Anyway, Brian, Chief Downey also said that there were attacks on the Mall of America and the Sears Tower, and yet the 9/11 commission never investigated these attacks. Don't you think there should have been an investigation?

 
At 06 March, 2011 21:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, here's what you wrote 3/1 14:19:

"The USGS confirms that the fires in the WTC were burning at 1800 degrees F prior to the collapse of the towers; thus, the towers reached a temperature well in excess of the temperature required to make the aluminum glow orange."

How did USGS confirm NIST's sims? You won't say where you got this information from USGS. Why not? Because you made it up?

Greg, the "We're gonna have to get out of the way!" video shows that even very close to the towers the evenness and symmetry of the collapse was quite evident.

I don't know that Chief Downey was in either building. What's your point?

Ian, learn to read. Chief Downey didn't say anything about Sears or the Mall.

 
At 06 March, 2011 23:09, Blogger Greg said...

Greg, the "We're gonna have to get out of the way!" video shows that even very close to the towers the evenness and symmetry of the collapse was quite evident.

Your posts show that you are utterly insane.

 
At 06 March, 2011 23:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Care to provide a specific example of insanity?

After all, I'm not the one claiming that USGS found 1800 F temps in the towers before collapse, that the widows are invisible, or that the presence of air in the towers exempts them from the laws of physics. I have backed up my claims.

 
At 06 March, 2011 23:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Here's the "get out of the way" video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCLRfxv6DWc

 
At 07 March, 2011 04:28, Blogger Triterope said...

Care to provide a specific example of insanity?

Use the Search Page feature in your browser, search for the text "snug.bug said...", then read what appears directly below it.

 
At 07 March, 2011 06:17, Blogger dumdiedeldum said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 March, 2011 06:19, Blogger dumdiedeldum said...

Again, arguments mixed with insults.
Oh well. Brian: You state that the collapses were "too symmetrical", and link to one specific video to prove it. But look for example at this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dCIndlUHxQ&feature=related

Notice the antenna. Clearly, it is moving not only downwards but also sidewards, and when you look at other footage you can see quite clearly that the collapse first began on one side, and then the other side followed. Wouldn't you see clear signs of explosions in these videos? I can't find the right one at the moment but I guess you've already seen it all.

It appears that the metal on the impact initiation side is simply giving away, with no signs of explosions. The only scenario allowing this would be the presence of thermite that "melted" the steel at the locations, but no one in the "movement" has found such a thing - Even the infamous "nanothermite" is described as exploding, not melting, which would make it visible like any other explosive, and even Steven Jones has yet to show an experiment where a certain composition of thermite really "melts" a solid, steel beam that would explain a symmetrical collapse.

What exactly are you stating happened in these towers?
How was the CD planned and realized?

And: What is your take on inward buckling? It seems no demolition scenario takes that into account, but it makes perfect sense in the "fire demolition" scenario. It proves the fire did have a significant effect on the towers, and couldn't have been produced by explosions or thermite; unless it was planted on the experior steel facade and burned very slowly, which you would undoubtedly see in the videos.

 
At 07 March, 2011 12:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

By all means, note the antenna. Note also the smoke, blowing to the SE in a strong wind.

The antenna tilts in the direction of the wind, which is what you would expect it to do if the hat truss supporting it was severed in perfect symmetry around the antenna's base.

Why would you expect to see clear signs of explosions? The elevator hoistways were closed off. All doors leading from the core would be closed and sealed with cloth to try to keep the smoke in the core.

There is much evidence of melted steel--testimony of Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, FDNY Captain Ruvolo, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl and a dozen others. A 40-pound ingot of the stuff was recovered. There are also the FEMA Appendix C samples that exhibit the vaporization of steel. Are you denying that thermite can melt steel?

I am not stating that anything happened in the towers. I am not an expert in the behavior of 100-story buildings when they collapse. I want to know what happened. I do know junk science when I see it. The NIST report is dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable, and we need new investigations we can trust.

Rather than theorize about what pulled the external columns to pull in let's look at NIST's failure to rigorously examine how a collapse at one side of the tower could propagate across the robust, cross-braced core at the speed of sound to result in a symmetrical progressive collapse.

Thermite placed inside the perimeter columns could have softened them without any visible flames or explosions.

 
At 07 March, 2011 12:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Hurry goat molester, bury the proof that you're lying under an avalanche of SPAM.

Again, NIST reported maximum upper layer air temperatures of about 1,000 degrees Celsius (1,800 degrees Fahrenheit) in the WTC towers 15 minutes after impact(e.g., see NCSTAR 1, Figure 6-36, page 127).

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

FAIL

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

 
At 07 March, 2011 12:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Hurry goat molester, lie and claim "no scientific investigation was allowed," while you quote the RJ Lee Report.

And that nincompoop "dumdiedeldum" wonders why you're the subject of ridicule.

 
At 07 March, 2011 13:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, both of your posts are lies. The first one lies in implying that I denied that NIST said what they said. I asked you to back up your claim that USGS confirmed temps of 1800 F in the towers. You have refused to support this claim, instead spamming the NIST statement.

Your second post lies by misquoting me. I did not say "no scientific investigation was allowed." I said "no scientific investigation of the wreckage was allowed." The RJ Lee report was not an examination of the wreckage.

Squirm, lying maggot.

 
At 07 March, 2011 14:04, Blogger dumdiedeldum said...

So the wind made the top section of the tower "tilt"? This sounds implausible at best. I would like to have that verified by an expert.

Your theory seems to be that the towers core was severely damaged, "perfectly symetrical". How would you be able to do that without explosives? And yes, I am not sure at all if thermite is capable of melting or even weakening all of the steel in symmetry, unless someone shows me the opposite - From what I have seen on videos for the last years it seems to be very difficult to handle and not really as effective as has been claimed for years.
But let's assume it can for the sake of argument - Than we have one possible, alternative scenario.

You claim that molten metal was found under the towers - And how is that an argument for CD or thermite? A thermite reaction would certainly not cause it to REMAIN molten like it is suggested by many truthers. Also, there are a lot of possibilities how it was molten, like underground fires that are well known to have burned underneath the towers debris for months.

In regard to the FEMA Appendix C samples: Are these the ones with "holes" in the steel? Wasn't that in the BBC documentary that actually provided another answer for that effect which is consistent with the "official theory"?

Symmetry could also have been caused by the already weakened structure - The collapse started on one side, and then the other side almost instantly had too much to bear and began to disintegrate, too.
But I am no expert, as I remember there is an explanation for this behavior by people that are, so I leave this open for discussion -
Although for the other tower, this one clearly tilted heavily before collapsing, at least there it is pretty obvious to me that the fire is doing this. Watch 911 Mysteries Viewer Guide / Screw 911 Mysteries video for a more detailed analysis of this.

As for inward buckling, it makes sense in the scenario of a fire weakening the floors. In fact it seems to be a clear indication that this DID happen, and does not in the thermite scenario, unless the thermite burned for a very long time. Why ignore that?
If fire clearly had a huge effect on the towers, isn't it very well possible, not to say probable, that it was also the cause for the total collapse?

 
At 07 March, 2011 14:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

 
At 07 March, 2011 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

dddd, the video shows the antenna tilting. You asked me about the antenna. I suggested that it blew over as it fell.

According to NIST, the towers' cores were damaged by fire and aircraft impact. The thermite experiments you have seen, MythBusters and National Geographic, have been deliberately set up to fail. See Jonathan Cole's video for effective use of thermite.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qamecech9m4

If you have some explanation other than thermite for the molten steel in the basements, I'd like to hear it. Molten steel buried under several feet of insulating dust might stay molten.

I don't know what BBC said about the Appendix C samples. I'm not aware that the sulfidation attack has ever been explained except through the use of sulfidated thermite. Drywall gypsum is not an option, because it's in the form of Calcium Sulfate, so it's inert.

Any assymetry in timing of the failure leads to tipping forces. If you want a table to fall straight down, you must remove all the legs simultaneously. Any delay on any leg will cause tipping.

I don't understand why thermite has to burn a long time to weaken the perimeter columns from within.

We don't know that fire had a huge effect. In the south tower the fires were going out. NIST has no core steel samples showing heating above 480 F.

NIST's assumption that because there were fires, that means they brought the building down is the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy.

 
At 07 March, 2011 15:34, Blogger dumdiedeldum said...

Brian,

I asked about the antenna because it is and seemingly remained attached to the upper part of the building. Therefore, if it moves sidewards, this suggests the building part did the same, which I don't think could be produced by the wind.
So, it seems there actually was tilting, which makes it at least not completely symmetrical.

The molten steel / metal could have simply been molten afterwards, due to the reported fires underground. Which seems to be much more probable than it getting molten by thermite (how much would you need for that effect? Tons!).

As for exibit C: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250 , go to ~48:00
Is this what you spoke about?

As for inward buckling, it was observed about a long time, buckling more and more as the fire burned longer and longer, arguably showing the fire did have an effect. This cannot be explained by thermite, at least fire sounds like a much more probable scenario to explain this phenomenon.
This is why I like to point it out - the only attempt to explain it that I know off is from Jim Hoffman who claimed it is an optical illusion caused by heat flaring - Doesn't sound right to me.

As for your video about the use of thermite, I'll take a look at it the next days.

 
At 07 March, 2011 17:02, Blogger Ian said...

Another Monday, another day that our failed janitor spent the whole day babbling about magic thermite elves rather than doing something useful with his life.

Well, at least Brian brought out his lunatic "wind did it" arguments again. You see, Brian once claimed at Democratic Underground that the WTC were built with explosives in place so that they could be demolished in case of a hurricane. It doesn't surprise me that he thinks wind knocked over the antenna. You know, an antenna that stood for 20 years, and survived Hurricane Gloria, among other things.

Smoldering carpets, wind, spray-on thermite, and remote-controlled airplanes. This is what Brian believes brought the WTC down. The funniest part is that he expects us to take him seriously.

 
At 07 March, 2011 17:26, Blogger Ian said...

http://gawker.com/#!5778149/an-nypd-helicopters-view-of-911

More images of Brian's small fires that were going out and the smoldering carpets.

 
At 07 March, 2011 18:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"After all, I'm not the one claiming that USGS found 1800 F temps in the towers before collapse, that the widows are invisible, or that the presence of air in the towers exempts them from the laws of physics. I have backed up my claims."

No.

You have posted links that all contridict whatever point you're trying to make.

Nothing happened outside of the laws of physics, you are just applying them incorrectly.

Not that you care.

 
At 07 March, 2011 19:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

dddd, if you frame-step the video you'll see the antenna tilts but the sides of the building don't.

To melt steel takes a blast furnace. Do you have evidence of a blast furnace underground? Doesn't NIST's refusal to address the molten steel suggest that they can't explain it?

Dr. Sisson's belief that powdered gypsum corroded the steel is a complete blue sky theory supported by no experimental evidence whatsoever. It is interesting that neither of his colleagues, the PhD fire scientist Jonathan Barnett and the PhD metallurgist Ronald Biedermann seem to support his assessment. If gypsum-based evaporation of steel were common in fires, it should have been noted before. It hadn't. Hence the NYT article characterizing the sulfidation attack as "perhaps the deepest mystery" of the investigation.

Jonathan Cole ran an experiment to test the effects of gypsum on steel. His results here:

http://youtube.cf/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU

Inward buckling can be explained by thermite, as I explained: perimeter columns weakened by internal thermite charges and/or pulled inward by an outer section of core left unsupported and pulling on the floors.

Ian, I never claimed that the WTC was built with explosives were planted in place. You are a liar.

Where in your video does it show big fires? Smoky fires, yes, such as might be produced by smoldering carpets. Big fire, no.

MGF, a collapse taking place at the acceleration of free fall is impossible according to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics. I take it you never had freshman physics.

If you wish to claim that my links contradict my claims, you might do well to favor us with specifics.

And if you wish to claim that I am applying the laws of physics incorrectly, specifics might aid your credibility.

As it is, you're merely muttering in such a way as to make it appear that you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 07 March, 2011 20:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

dddd, if you step through the video you will see the antenna tilts while the external walls seem not to.

It takes a blast furnace and coke fuel to melt steel. Underground fires are not a realistic option. If NIST could have explained the molten steel, they couldn't have dodged the issue.

Dr. Sisson's belief that pulverized gypsum sulfidated the steel is not reasonable, is apparently not supported by either of his colleagues (Dr. Barnett, a fire scientist, and Dr. Biedermann, a metallurgist), and has no experimental conformation. Sulfur in gypsum is calcium sulfate, and it is inert. That's why gypsum is used as fireproofing.
Jonathan Cole tried to corrode steel with drywall, and failed.

http://youtube.cf/watch?v=3YuDKUCALtU

Inward buckling can be explained by heat weakening from internal thermite charges and/or cutting loose a portion of the core so that it pulls down on the floors and buckles the perimeter. I agree that the refraction theory is not convincing.

Ian, I never claimed that the WTC was built with explosives in place. You are a liar.

If you think part of the 17 minute video shows large fires, please specify where. I see a lot of smoke, as from smoldering carpets, but not much fire.

MGF, if you think my links contradict my claims and/or that I am incorrectly applying the laws of physics, kindly provide specifics.

 
At 07 March, 2011 21:01, Blogger Ian said...

dddd, if you step through the video you will see the antenna tilts while the external walls seem not to.

"Seem not to". Wow, you can't get much more ironclad proof than that! INSIDE JOB!!!!11

It takes a blast furnace and coke fuel to melt steel. Underground fires are not a realistic option. If NIST could have explained the molten steel, they couldn't have dodged the issue.

Objection, your honor. Speculation.

Inward buckling can be explained by heat weakening from internal thermite charges and/or cutting loose a portion of the core so that it pulls down on the floors and buckles the perimeter. I agree that the refraction theory is not convincing.

Inward buckling can also be explained by thousands of modified attack baboons pulling on the structure all at once.

Ian, I never claimed that the WTC was built with explosives in place. You are a liar.

False. You said so at Democratic Underground. It got a laugh out of everyone there.

If you think part of the 17 minute video shows large fires, please specify where. I see a lot of smoke, as from smoldering carpets, but not much fire.

What about the possibility of smoke bombs planted by modified attack baboons, as per Deagle's theory?

MGF, if you think my links contradict my claims and/or that I am incorrectly applying the laws of physics, kindly provide specifics.

Brian, nobody cares what you're skeptical of. You're the liar and failed janitor who gets laughed at everywhere, and we're the sane ones, remember?

 
At 08 March, 2011 01:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I notice that you still are not providing support for your claim that the fires were large. Why is that? Must be that all the pictures you can find show that the fires were small.

 
At 08 March, 2011 01:36, Blogger dumdiedeldum said...

Brian,

so your guess would be that indeed they let the thermite burn over a long period of time to produce the inward buckling. What I wonder is why so many experts on the field of structural engineering seemingly agree that the fire actually hot enough to weaken steel.
On what base exactly do you state that this cannot be the case?
And, if there was fire and it was capable of producing the buckling effect, isn't it also probable that it ws capable of bringing the towers down - Meaning, leading to even MORE buckling which caused the fassade to snap, as it is claimed here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpfDkL-vFdk

Underground fires: It was actually truthers that repeatedly remind us that there were heavy, high-temperature fires in the debris. How could thermite create such an effect - Wouldn't they use amounts just enough to cut the supporting columns instead of tons upon tons of it that burned for months? How can the underground fires be an argument for the use of thermite? How many tons of it would be needed to produce such an effect?
And how do we know that the fire itself cannot be hot enough to melt metal or even steel?

As for exibit C: I have no explanation for this as it goes way beyond my knowledge of chemistry.

In the video I pointed to it is difficult to see if the antenna remained attached or not, however from other angles I've seen it never looked like it detached from the upper part. I admit this is just speculation.

 
At 08 March, 2011 11:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Small fires...right.

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtcfires5.html

Brian still cling to the collapses being symmetrical?

 
At 08 March, 2011 13:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, the jet fuel made for some impressive flames, but it burned off in less than ten minutes.

I bet you can't show a picture of a big fire after the jet fuel burned off. Ian can't.

No, dddd, I would not guess that thermite produced the inward buckling. I would simply state that the assumption that the fires weakened the steel sufficiently to permit NIST's buckling mechanism is not justified, because NIST's steel samples do not support that view.

Obviously the experts believe the fire was hot enough to weaken the steel because the building fell down.

I don't say the fire could not have weakened the steel. I say that NIST's steel samples do not show that it did and their refusal to provide specifics about their simulation visualizations and their structural analysis justifies considerable suspicion that their studies were not honest. We thus need a transparent investigation we can believe.

I don't know if it is possible for impossible for a local failure to propagate across the robust steel core to the other side of the building at the speed of sound. I know that NIST has failed to demonstrate that it is possible, and structural engineers at AE911Truth say it is not.

Kevin Ryan thinks that unignited thermite buried in the rubble pile could have kept burning for weeks.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/

The melting of steel is not easy. It requires a blast furnace and coke fuel. If NIST could explain the molten iron in the debris pile with simple underground fires, don't you think they would do so?

There's no need to get hung up on the chemistry of Appendix C. Just trust the experts when they say that sulfur lowers the melting point of steel, that the Appendix C samples were "eroded" (their word) or "vaporized" (the NYT says) by sulfidation attack, that they considered this very mysterious, and that the sulfur involved was not native to the steel because native sulfur is manganese sulfides and the attack was done by sulfides of copper and iron.

Calcium sulfate, gypsum, is inert because it is already combined with oxygen (and water). That's why it's used for fireproofing. The sulfide that does the attacking is not combined with oxygen.

Jonathan Cole tried to erode steel by burning it with drywall. It didn't work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw&feature=player_embedded

 
At 08 March, 2011 16:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I don't need to provide no stinking links.

I am not the lying scumbag here, Brian, you are. You never read any links we post here anyway so I refuse to waste my time.

You are a psychopath, you don't care about the truth, you only care about the con.

The speed of the tower's collapse was due to their make-up being 70% air. That is from a link that YOU provided. The speed didn't violate any laws of physics. Again the explaination coming from a link that YOU provided.

So if you don't bother to familiaraize yourself with the links that you cite then why the fuck should I waste my time?

You have stated in the past that you don't read any of our links.

And why would you? You don't care about facts, and you sure as hell don't care about the truth.

 
At 08 March, 2011 16:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I didn't ask you for links. I asked you for specifics. Since you claimed "You have posted links that all contridict whatever point you're trying to make" I thought you might have some specific point instead of fatuous generalizing.

A collapse at free-fall acceleration violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the presence of air in the building does not change that.

 
At 08 March, 2011 17:58, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I notice that you still are not providing support for your claim that the fires were large. Why is that? Must be that all the pictures you can find show that the fires were small.

Squeal squeal squeal!!!

A collapse at free-fall acceleration violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the presence of air in the building does not change that.

Who better to explain the laws of thermodynamics than a guy who was fired from his job mopping floors?

Brian, stick to babbling endlessly about your phony "widows". You're better at that.

 
At 08 March, 2011 18:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian where did you get the idea that I was fired from a job mopping floors? Did your Uncle Steve tell you that?

 
At 08 March, 2011 19:21, Blogger Ian said...

Ian where did you get the idea that I was fired from a job mopping floors?

You told us. You said "I was a janitor", which suggests you were fired because you're too stupid to mop floors correctly.

Did your Uncle Steve tell you that?

Uncle Steve doesn't care about failed janitors who join conspiracy cults. He's a busy engineer with real work to do.

 
At 08 March, 2011 21:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"A collapse at free-fall acceleration violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics and the presence of air in the building does not change that."

First off, there is no such thing as "Free Fall Speed", the correct phrase is "Terminal Velocity".

Second, if the structure is 70% air then there is little resistance to the solid elements, so there was almost nothing to slow them in their fall until they hit the ground.

It is pretty fucking simple.

 
At 09 March, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I didn't say "free fall speed". I said "free fall acceleration".

Your belief that the air content implies little resistance to gravity implies that modern high-rise structures are houses of cards just waiting for someone to knock over a bookshelf or tip a file cabinet and the whole thing will come down.

Have you ever worked in a building taller than five stories?

Have you bothered to read wikipedia about the first law of thermodynamics? Don't bother with the quantitative part, just read the qualitiative part.

 
At 10 March, 2011 19:04, Blogger Ian said...

Have you bothered to read wikipedia about the first law of thermodynamics?

Ah yes, wikipedia. Hey, a failed janitor reading wikipedia makes him an expert on physics! Who needs all those lousy PhDs when we have Brian?

 
At 11 March, 2011 00:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I had the first law of thermodynamics when I was a freshman in college before you were born.

I suggested wikipedia to MG Ferris because the qualitative "explaination" is pretty simple, and I thought it would be suitable for him.

Those "lousy PhDs" have not even tried to explain the apparent "contriditions" between the collapses and the elementary laws of physics. Instead they employ techniques of sophistry to dodge the issues.

 
At 12 March, 2011 07:06, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I had the first law of thermodynamics when I was a freshman in college before you were born.

Brian, stop pretending you went to college. They don't have degrees in floor-mopping. Besides, the laws of thermodynamics are high school level, not college level. It shows that you didn't learn anything even in high school.

And yes, you were failing physics before I was born, as you're a burnt out fading old man with no future.

I suggested wikipedia to MG Ferris because the qualitative "explaination" is pretty simple, and I thought it would be suitable for him.

You obviously learned nothing from it.

Those "lousy PhDs" have not even tried to explain the apparent "contriditions" between the collapses and the elementary laws of physics. Instead they employ techniques of sophistry to dodge the issues.

Uh, no. They just have better things to do than explain themselves to failed janitors who are too stupid to understand them anyway.

 
At 12 March, 2011 10:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're right, I didn't learn anything in high school. I went to a lousy high school, so I didn't have thermodynamics until I went to college. I don't think the delay hurt me much. It seems that nobody here even knows what the first law is.

They don't have degrees in floor mopping. They do have degrees in chemistry, mechanical engineering, operations research, and physical education, all of which have much to do with floor mopping.

 
At 12 March, 2011 10:57, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't learn anything in high school.

...is followed by....

I didn't have thermodynamics until I went to college.

Brian, you do understand the training they gave you so you could mop the floors of the physics department at Stanford is not how normal people define "going to college", right?

They do have degrees in chemistry, mechanical engineering, operations research, and physical education.

And you have none of them. If you did, you wouldn't be unemployed and living with your parents at age 58, and you wouldn't be stupid enough to spend your life babbling about some stupid conspiracy theory.

 
At 12 March, 2011 11:32, Blogger Triterope said...

I went to a lousy high school, so I didn't have thermodynamics until I went to college.

What high school has a course in fucking thermodynamics?

And Brian's in his late 50s, so this would have been what, 1970?

The guy can't even make up a plausible lie about a subject everybody can relate to: high school.

GET HELP, BRIAN.

 
At 12 March, 2011 12:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, Ian is the one that claimed that thermodynamics is a high school subject. I guess they're advanced in Paducah.

Ian, I have never mopped floors at any physics department. I did mop floors at Stanford, but that was when I was in junior high school and wanted money to buy an English racing bike that I still own. Like Ronald Reagan, you get reality mixed up with your favorite movies.

I want to talk about NIST's refusal to provide specifics about their simulation visualizations and their structural analysis, which justifies considerable suspicion that their studies were dishonest.

I want to talk about whether it is possible for impossible for a local failure to propagate across the robust steel core to the other side of the building at the speed of sound

I want to talk about Jonathan Cole's attempt to erode steel by burning it with drywall.

You want to talk about me. Where I live, what my job is. Stupid stuff.

 
At 12 March, 2011 13:40, Blogger Ian said...

TR, Ian is the one that claimed that thermodynamics is a high school subject. I guess they're advanced in Paducah.

The basics of it are. Regardless, you don't know anything about it. Also, I'm not from Paducah. I've never been there, but I imagine there are plenty of people who understand physics there. A failed janitor from Palo Alto is still a failed janitor, Brian.

Ian, I have never mopped floors at any physics department. I did mop floors at Stanford, but that was when I was in junior high school and wanted money to buy an English racing bike that I still own.

You don't mop floors anywhere, Brian. You're a failed janitor, not a successful janitor, remember?

Like Ronald Reagan, you get reality mixed up with your favorite movies.

Brian, my favorite movies do not involve failed janitors who call themselves "petgoat" and are sexually obsessed with Willie Rodriguez.

I want to talk about NIST's refusal to provide specifics about their simulation visualizations and their structural analysis, which justifies considerable suspicion that their studies were dishonest.

Nobody cares.

I want to talk about whether it is possible for impossible for a local failure to propagate across the robust steel core to the other side of the building at the speed of sound.

Nobody cares.

I want to talk about Jonathan Cole's attempt to erode steel by burning it with drywall.

Nobody cares.

You want to talk about me. Where I live, what my job is.

And your sexual desires for Willie Rodriguez. Don't forget that.

HA HA HA HA HA!!!

 
At 12 March, 2011 13:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for proving my point. Nobody cares about the substantive issues of 9/11, but only about their pathetic fantasies about me.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:03, Blogger Triterope said...

He said "the laws of thermodynamics are high school level", which is one thing. You said "I never had thermodynamics," implying a full course, and that your high school was somehow deficient in failing to offer it to you.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, Ian said "the laws of thermodynamics are high school level."

You're trying to make that my fault? I took him at his word and supposed that his high school in Mule Poop, KY was better than mine in California.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:26, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for proving my point. Nobody cares about the substantive issues of 9/11, but only about their pathetic fantasies about me.

That's because the substantive issues have been resolved, Brian. All that's left is mocking lunatics like you who continue to babble about nothing almost a decade after 9/11.

TR, Ian said "the laws of thermodynamics are high school level."

The basics are, but nobody in high school is doing physics calculations that require anything above simple algebra. You'd understand this if you had actually accomplished something in high school or college.

I took him at his word and supposed that his high school in Mule Poop, KY was better than mine in California.

I love that our failed janitor is trying to act all superior by virtue of his birth in affluent Palo Alto.

Brian, I don't come from Kentucky, but I've done work there. People can be intelligent and successful from there, just as people born into wealth in Palo Alto can turn out to be liars who can't even mop floors successfully and have to live with their parents at age 58.

Anyway, let's keep talking about high school physics. It's more fun than rehashing Brian's obsession with some floozy phony "widows" and their "questions".

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where did you get the idea that I was born in Palo Alto? You make up your facts.

By all means, let's talk about high school physics. A qualititative understanding of the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's third law are all anybody needs to know that the NIST reports have not explained the substantive issues about the destruction of the towers.

The reason you keep harping on your ad hominem fantasies is because you can not mount an argument based on rational analysis of the facts.

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:42, Blogger Ian said...

A qualititative understanding of the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's third law are all anybody needs to know that the NIST reports have not explained the substantive issues about the destruction of the towers.

"Qualititative"? I'm sure a failed janitor who doesn't know how to spell knows more about the laws of physics than scientists on the NIST.

The reason you keep harping on your ad hominem fantasies is because you can not mount an argument based on rational analysis of the facts.

Brian, your belief that you're capable of rational analysis of facts is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

 
At 12 March, 2011 14:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you type faster than you think and I think faster than I type.

I know how to spell "qualitative" and I don't need to know more than the scientists at NIST. I simply need to focus on the applicable laws--ThermoOne and Newton3--and stay honest.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:06, Blogger Ian said...

I simply need to focus on the applicable laws--ThermoOne and Newton3--and stay honest.

Well, you don't understand either law and you're a liar, so you've got a lot of work to do, Brian.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:38, Blogger Punxsutawneybarney said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 March, 2011 16:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I understand both laws just fine. It ain't rocket science. I had Newton's third in nursery school, before I could tie shoes.

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

Ian, I understand both laws just fine. It ain't rocket science. I had Newton's third in nursery school, before I could tie shoes.

And the wheels are falling off as Brian starts babbling about nursery school again.

Please, Brian, see a psychiatrist. You're in desperate need of help.

 
At 13 March, 2011 09:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

You keep saying that, but you don't demonstrate it. You can't support your case with facts, so you're reduced to the rhetorical tactics of 8-year-old girls.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:15, Blogger Ian said...

You keep saying that, but you don't demonstrate it. You can't support your case with facts, so you're reduced to the rhetorical tactics of 8-year-old girls.

And there's the "girls" comment from our failed janitor as he gears up for another day of mindless babbling instead of doing something worthwhile with his life.

 
At 13 March, 2011 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Ian, if you're not making breakfast in bed for your hot girlfriend this morning, who is?

 
At 13 March, 2011 16:55, Blogger Ian said...

So Ian, if you're not making breakfast in bed for your hot girlfriend this morning, who is?

See what I mean?

 
At 13 March, 2011 23:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's what she said.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home