That Magical Thermite Stuff
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth posted an article promoting the recent debate between Richard Gage and Chris Mohr, which Pat and I both covered. One thing stuck out in the article which I missed though. Oddly enough, they consider this a selling point for their whacky theories.
Further along in the debate, after Gage showed the WTC 7 collapse video adjacent to a known controlled demolition Chris Mohr, ignored the visual similarity and noted that “they sound completely different”.
Gage: Well, of course they do. One is using high-energy explosives, and the other thermate, an incendiary. This is, after all, a deceptive, controlled demolition.
Of course Gage fails to mention that he has repeatedly, including in this very debate, referred to massive explosions and explosives at World Trade Center 7. In fact a Google Search for World Trade Center 7 explosives on their site returns an astounding 12,300 hits, including their homepage. Including, but certainly not limited to:
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
AE911Truth points in particular to the destruction of the third skyscraper, World Trade Center 7, a 47-story building which was not hit by an aircraft, yet came down in pure free-fall acceleration for at least 100 feet according to the official government engineering investigation (NIST), and in the exact manner of a classic controlled demolition. The implications are startling. The group bases its conclusions solely on forensic evidence and does not speculate as to who may have planted the explosives.
David Ray Griffin has provided a comprehensive dismantling of NIST's theory about WTC 7, according to which it suffered global collapse because of ordinary building fires. Besides showing that NIST committed massive scientific fraud, Griffin also points out that NIST was able to complete its theory only by affirming a miracle: a steel-framed high-rise building coming down in free fall even though explosives had not been used to remove its columns.
So the inescapable and disturbing conclusion is that the most scientific theory available for the WTC 7 collapse is that it was a controlled demolition, brought down with explosives.
In yet another key eyewitness testimonial, right before the building [WTC 7] fell, former Air Force medic Kevin McPadden reports hearing one end of a conversation, on a radio being held by a Red Cross worker, that has serious implications: “At the last few seconds he took his hand off [the radio] and you heard, ‘three, two, one…,’”
Do fires bring buildings down to countdowns? Soon after, McPadden described tremendous explosions boomed. He made it clear that these were explosions, that he was not confusing them with other loud sounds such as floors falling.
Of course, when asked about the lack of sounds, Gage always denies this and says that they used silent incendiaries, not explosives. Once again, trutherism is a mythology, not a science.
Labels: Richard Gage
posted by James B. @ 6:29 PM
168 comments
168 Comments:
The 9/11 truth movement; where changing the truth only makes the truth more true!
It's a particle! It's a wave! No, it needs further investigation.
I like how the twoofers have the red cross countdown of the silent demolition of WTC 7,it just makes it so believable.
they are so stupid.
LMAO.
can any truther speculate why the red cross was broadcasting the countdown?
come on twoofers!!!
It's a particle! It's a wave! No, it needs further investigation.
Failed janitors babbling about quantum physics doesn't mean we need a new investigation.
Get some normal people to endorse a new investigation first.
"The 9/11 truth movement; where changing the truth only makes the truth more true!" -Dregs
"It was cutting torches! (and you're 'retarded' for not believing me)" -Fat Cur
"No, it was fly ash!, I mean it was both! Yeah, and they look exactly the same! No Really!" -GarterBelt
"We have all of the forensic evidence" -James B.
"I'm a family member!"--Cosmos, lying through his teeth.
"Who the fuck is Cosmos?"
-Pat Cowardly, exposing Pat's piss-poor research skills (yet again).
It's okay, Pat: You must have left the sources for this claim next to the ones about torches 'easily' causing 6% of the dust to be melted iron. Remember that stupidity? Sure you do.
James forgives you, though, because you're just 'building a narrative' (whether it's factual or not).
Next time, say something substantive, and stop wasting everyone's time, you fat old baldy.
And James: Remember your asinine ranting about people 'anomaly hunting'? What EXACTLY is your definition of 'anomaly'? Is it merely a fact that is inconvenient to your perception?
Why do you avoid those facts by calling them 'anomalies'?
OT: After burning through thousands of dollars in donations with nothing to show for it, the fraudsters of Building What? are once again whoring for money.
OT2: Janette "The Hutt" MacKinlay is still dead.
Why do you avoid those facts by calling them 'anomalies'?
Most anomalies, even factual ones, aren't important or relevant. 9/11 Truthers spend a lot of time staring at anomalies because they're shiny and interesting, but that's because 9/11 Truthers tend to be simple-minded folks without reasoning skills.
A good example of an anomaly-obsessed fellow is Jon Gold. I wonder if he was like that before syphilis destroyed half of his brain.
The cowards employ censorship on there Facebook page is you ask too many inconvenient questions AE911truth Facebook page.
http://www.facebook.com/ae911truth
Looks like 3 or 4 of us sceptics were blocked from making comments. I have a different identity on FB and the others created new identities and have been able to confront them on this censorship.
Yep there a re "truth seekers" all right.
Why would Red Cross broadcast the countdown? Well, I suppose because they had already experienced two building collapses and the havoc all the dust could wreak, and they wanted to be prepared to get their people out of the way and the get ready to clean up the people who were caught in the WTC7 dust. Doesn't that sound reasonable?
Now DID the Red Cross broadcast a countdown? I don't know. Kevin McPadden says so. Personally, I try to avoid uncorroborated accounts, but until we get a full and honest investigation I'll consider his claims to be something worth investigating even if I'm somewhat skeptical. I don't call people liars unless I can prove it. Shyam Sunder, Condi Rice, Kevin Barrett, William Rodroguez, Guitar Bill and Ian are liars. McPadden I must give the benefit of the doubt.
Dave Kyte is another liar. Blocking liars is perfectly reasonable to protect the integrity of the site.
Most anomalies, even factual ones, aren't important or relevant.
Not to mention that most of what these idiots call "anomalies" really aren't.
Doesn't that sound reasonable?
Not really. Part of the Truther folklore is that WTC7 was standing at full strength with only minor fires before falling abruptly. In light of that it's illogical to suggest the Red Cross was also preparing for 7's collapse.
But more to the point, isn't it more likely that McPadden's recollection just isn't quite accurate? This is precisely where Truther judgment consistently breaks down. They are unable to discern when they are looking at bad data. There's no logical reason to believe that a reinvestigation will make these anomalies suddenly fit somewhere.
This comment has been removed by the author.
RGT, Indira Singh said she was told to move away from WTC7 about noon because the building was going to come down.
Who does she say told her that?
RGT, Indira Singh said she was told to move away from WTC7 about noon because the building was going to come down.
Foreknowledge that it was coming down was widespread.
http://www.wtc7.net/warnings.html
Certainly it's appropriate to speculate that McPadden's recollection is not accurate, but unless one is prepared to undertake an investigation, why bother? To assume it's not accurate would not be scientific.
I just told you I avoid uncorroborated data. I know when I'm looking at bad data--and that's why I've been going around trying with some considerable success to chase liars like Craig Ranke, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez off the internet.
I also know when I'm looking at bad data in the NIST report. Here's an example: When they ran their fire sims for WTC7 they had three levels of severity for the fire intensity. They chose the most severe not because there was evidence for it, but because it would generate a collapse the quickest and shorten the computer time to six months. That is thumb-on-the-scale bad data.
The problem with debunkers is they can only recognize bad data on the truther side; they're blind to it on the official side.
The list of things you guys sneer at is quite telling:
selective quotation (scholarship)
facts
the victims of 9/11
curiosity about anomalies
I knew Janette MacKinlay very well, RGT, and you are a scumbag
Foreknowledge that it was coming down was widespread.
Starting about 4PM or so, that's true. Assuming Singh's recollection is accurate, why do you think it points to foreknowledge at noon? Who told her to get away? Didn't that person tell anybody else?
You need to learn to think things through a little bit, rather than demanding some authority figure to "reinvestigate" and give you absolutes so you don't have to use your head anymore.
I just told you I avoid uncorroborated data.
You seem to avoid explicitly endorsing the uncorroborated. But you sure do invoke it with great frequency.
I also know when I'm looking at bad data in the NIST report.
Why do you think NIST was motivated by dishonesty? Can't the speed of collapse inform the intensity of fire damage as easily as vice-versa?
I knew Janette MacKinlay very well, RGT, and you are a scumbag.
Yeah, well, you can thank your Truther friends Cosmos and Cowardly for that. They're the ones who brought pissing on the dead into this conversation.
BTW -- I've seen your photo, and I've seen Carol Brouillet's photo, and I think you really ought to set your standards higher. She looks like a burn victim.
RGT, in an atmosphere of data suppression, uncorroborated data is often all we have. That's why we need an honest and open inquiry, so that we can determine which presently-uncorroborated data can be corroborated and which we can't. If there was a count-down on the Red Cross radio, then other people know it--people who are for one reason or another not talking about it. An investigation with subpoena power can create an environment where people can tell what they know.
The issue with the sims was the speed of the computation, not the speed of collapse. They chose severe fire conditions not for scientific reasons but to shorten the simulation time necessary to reach collapse conditions, and thus reduce the computation time for the simulation to six months.
Again with the magical subpoena power.
Brian,
How often do you need to be told? You are not special, and you do not need to know anything.
This is precisely where Truther judgment consistently breaks down. They are unable to discern when they are looking at bad data. There's no logical reason to believe that a reinvestigation will make these anomalies suddenly fit somewhere.
Exactly. All these DURR ANOMALIES have reasonable explanations, or are irrelevant, or aren't anomalies at all, but rather ignorance borne of their own misconceptions.
Which the Truthtards can't deal with, because it destroys their sick little fantasies. Their only option is to support the anecdote in any way they can, through ridiculously convoluted theories and/or reality-denying statements about the event.
Again, this is a movement that still has planer and no-planer subgroups. You'd think after 10 years of research, they'd have at least settled that issue by now.
Greg, the widows are special. They deserve to know why their husbands died.
Ron Brookman is special, he deserves the information he needs to rigorously critique the NIST reports after putting his professional reputation on the line by questioning them.
NCE's "leading structural and fire engineers" are special and they deserve to see the visualizations from the sims so they can satisfy themselves of the NIST report's competence and honesty.
TR, there's nothing magical about subpoena power. It's a standard tool of legal and legislative proceedings.
Let's add that to the list of things you guys sneer at:
selective quotation (scholarship)
facts
the victims of 9/11
curiosity about anomalies
the laws of physics
subpoena power
TR, why should we take your word for it that all the anomalies have explanations when the official reports don't address them? Or do you just assume that since the report doesn't address something, it must not be important?
The planer/no planer issue has been settled. The No Planers are people like Ian who get some kind of perverse thrill out of lying blatantly.
TR, there's nothing magical about subpoena power.
Then why do you act like it is? Why do bring it into every fucking thread? Do you really think anyone forced to testify couldn't just lie and obfuscate if they still had anything to cover up? And do you think the subpoena power ought to be handed to these losers?
TR, why should we take your word for it that all the anomalies have explanations when the official reports don't address them?
It's not the job of official reports to explain every goddamn thing you sickos come up with. And I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it; the information is out there for anyone who cares to look.
The planer/no planer issue has been settled.
No, it has not, Brian.
And no, they are not disinfo agents, and no, they are not COINTELPRO, and no, they are not false Truthers. They are real people with real beliefs, using the same faulty thought process as you do, but arriving at a slightly different conclusion.
Poor James. Has to have other people answer questions (badly) for him. Asking him to defend his idiocy is a good way to get him to shut the fuck up, though, just like Pat.
Dude, unlike you I have a job. My boss doesn't pay me good money to hang out in the comments section all day.
Greg, the widows are special. They deserve to know why their husbands died.
But not the men whose wives died in the WTC towers, apparently. It's always the women you're trying to comfort. Pervert.
TR, there's nothing magical about subpoena power.
Then why do you act like it is? Do you really think if there was still something to hide, people couldn't just obfuscate, lie, or refuse to appear in the face of your mighty DURR SUBPOENA POWER?
TR, why should we take your word for it that all the anomalies have explanations when the official reports don't address them?
Because it isn't the report's job to answer every goddamn DURR ANOMALY some crackpot can think up.
I'm not asking you to take my word for it. The information is there for anyone who cares to look. And as I said before, many of your "anomalies" are just functions of your own ignorance.
The planer/no planer issue has been settled.
No, it hasn't.
And no, they're not disinfo, and no, they're not provocateurs, and no, they're not COINTELPRO, and no, they're not false Truthers.
They're people with the same beliefs, same flawed thought process and same mental problems as you. They just arrive at a slightly different conclusion.
And holographic planes aren't any more stupid than the things you suggest.
The list of things you guys sneer at is quite telling:
selective quotation (scholarship)
facts
the victims of 9/11
curiosity about anomalies
Wrong. We sneer at you. We do this because you're an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents and was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking other members of the group.
You're the most pathetic person alive, Brian, and your endless posts just make you that much more amusing.
Greg, the widows are special. They deserve to know why their husbands died.
Airplanes flown into the WTC by al Qaeda.
There, now that we've cleared up why their husbands died, let's talk about something else.
The planer/no planer issue has been settled.
Yes. All issues related to 9/11 have been settled. Just because you, a failed janitor and sex stalker and liar, don't like it doesn't mean sane people have to waste their time on your endless demands.
The No Planers are people like Ian who get some kind of perverse thrill out of lying blatantly.
No, they're just people who pwn3d you, had you banned from the truth movement, and laughed at you when you squealed about it.
The sex predator continues to lie, "...I don't call people liars unless I can prove it. Shyam Sunder, Condi Rice, Kevin Barrett, William Rodroguez, Guitar Bill and Ian are liars. McPadden I must give the benefit of the doubt."
Really, sex predator?
How come I caught you lying again?
The sex predator lies about the total weight of the towers lightweight concrete.
The sex predator lies about the presence of lightweight concrete in the towers floor assemblies.
The sex predator contiues to lie about the presence of lightweight concrete in the towers floor assemblies.
Thus, we can see, once again, that the sex predator is a compulsive liar, con artist and psychopath.
FAIL
Grade: F-
Nobody died in WTC7, so there are no widows who need answers.
Not that you care, Brian, widows are just something to hide behind to deflect your asshole-ish behavior.
No thermite was used, no thermite was found. If it was a controlled demo you need explosives, thermite is not an explosive, and you cannot rely on thermite to react in concert over multiple floors.
As for anomalies I can tell you that there are none. To assume that there are anomalies 9/11-style attacks would have to occur frequently enough to apply standards to the damage. The problem is that the Twin Towers and WTC7 are unique structures both in design and contruction so you can only compare them with attacks - by jet liners - on similar buildings. That is imposible because they were unique. Therefore there just is not enough historical data that can be applied to 9/11 so that anybody can start talking about anomalies.
TR, the men whose wives died at the towers deserve to have their questions answered too.
The reports' jobs were set out quite clearly, and they failed. The 9/11 Commission failed to provide a complete accounting of the events of that day as it was charged, and NIST failed to explain the collapse as it was charged.
Holographic planes are stupid conspiracy theories. I don't propose stupid conspiracy theories. I point out the dishonesty, incompleteness, and inadequacy of the official reports.
You sneer at me because you have neither the factual knowledge about 9/11, nor the logical skill to refute me, and sneering at a fantasy straw man Ian has created in his pointy little head is all you can do.
The No Planers have no standing in the truth movement. The only reason you know anything about them is because James and Pat like to seek them out and laugh at them.
Oh, listen to the compulsive liar and sex predator babble, while he pats himself on the back without justification.
What a delusional scumbag.
So tell us, sex predator, when did they diagnose you as a deranged psychopath?
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!.
What's the matter, goat fucker? Cat got your lying tongue?
How about E: None of the above?
Dr. Kevin Barrett is a bigot, a liar, and a lunatic.
And you claim him as an authority. How smart is that?
Putting words in my mouth again, sex predator?
When did I use the word "authority" in reference to Kevin Barrett?
Now, go slither back into your mother's apartment, sex predator.
RGT, in an atmosphere of data suppression, uncorroborated data is often all we have.
That's the case in any atmosphere, suppression or not. But "uncorroborated data" is just a fancy name for "rumor". Doubting the government's honesty can be important and useful, but it's no justification for believing everything else you hear.
An investigation with subpoena power can create an environment where people can tell what they know.
I don't see what's stopping anybody from telling what they know now. A federal civil action would create all the subpoena power you need, and virtually anybody can file one.
They chose severe fire conditions not for scientific reasons but to shorten the simulation time necessary to reach collapse conditions, and thus reduce the computation time for the simulation to six months.
Could you point me to a source please? I'd like to read more about that.
Asking him to defend his idiocy is a good way to get him to shut the fuck up, though, just like Pat.
Yawn.... come up with some fresh material or shut the fuck up, mongoloid. You're beginning to bore me.
Could you point me to a source please? I'd like to read more about that.
I can.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/10/fruitcakes-seize-on-one-sentence.html
Here's the letter from NIST explaining why they rejected the "less severe" damage model (because it was the best match for observable reality):
http://www.911proof.com/NIST.pdf
By the way, note the date.
TR, the men whose wives died at the towers deserve to have their questions answered too.
Whatever. We all know who you're really interested in. And why.
I don't propose stupid conspiracy theories.
Whatever you say, Mr. They Could Have Applied Spray On Thermite To The Elevator Shaft And Willie Rodriguez Hired Norwegian Hackers To Crash My Computer.
I point out the dishonesty, incompleteness, and inadequacy of the official reports.
No, you don't. You just keep saying they're inadequate, and betraying your colossal ignorance as you fumble around Google looking for reasons why.
You sneer at me because you have neither the factual knowledge about 9/11, nor the logical skill to refute me
If I don't refute you, Brian, it's for one of the following reasons:
1. I don't have nearly as much free time as you.
2. You're made the same claim a hundred fucking times already and I've already answered it. DURR WIDOWS DURRRRRR UNANSWERED QUESTIONS DURRRRRRRR.
3. The things you say make so little sense that they can't be refuted. You're what physicists call "not even wrong."
4. The things you say are so self-evidently stupid that I feel no response is required.
5. I think you're severely mentally ill, and any attempt to converse with you is just driving you closer to shooting up a Safeway.
"Dude, unlike you I have a job. My boss doesn't pay me good money to hang out in the comments section all day." LamesB
and yet you just happen to be the next person to comment in the thread. Let me guess: anomalous coincidence, right?
As Jesus said: 'Laughable, man.'
That's right, LamesB. Defend your idiocy or SHUT THE FUCK UP. AGAIN.
That's right, LamesB. Defend your idiocy or SHUT THE FUCK UP. AGAIN.
Why should anybody defend themselves against you? You're a fucktard, not a threat.
Your material is played out too.
GutterBall, oh so you're citing someone who is NOT an authority when you libel me. Thanks for establishing your standards of evidence for us.
RGT, "uncorroborated" is not just rumor. Uncorroborated is a report from a single source.
Obviously something was stopping the firefighters from talking. 118 of them mentioned sounds or sights of explosions in their oral histories, but they didn't come forward with that either before the oral histories were made public or after.
No, not anyone can file a civil action. You have to be able to show standing to sue. Most of the family members had to sign away their rights to sue when they accepted the payments from the Victims Compensation Fund.
The information about NIST's unscientific use of exaggerated fire inputs in order to reduce the computational time for their LS-DYNA simulation appears on p. 6 of NCSTAR 1-9.
TR, your cites have nothing to do with the WTC7 report. They're about the towers.
Do you deny that coatings containing nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum can be applied using compressed air and spray guns? If so, please explain why this impossible. If not, then it is a fact that such coatings can be applied. I was discussing a fact, not a theory.
You can't refute the fact that 91% of the widows' 300 questions were unanswered. You can't refute any of the facts. All you can do is ridicule and jest.
The "I already answered that" ploy is one used by bullshitters everywhere.
"Conspiracy theory is about anomaly hunting, where ‘well this happened and this happened! this happened! and this happened! this just was weird! and this is really weird too, and then this happened! what a coincidence! But none of it—- it doesn’t MEAN anything! [giggles]"
-LamesB, debating JasonB.
Which 7 anomalies are you covering with this statement, and why don't those facts 'mean anything'? You weren't just talking out of your ass here, were you, Jimmy? Is that how you debate? Pat, help him out here.
Hmmm...
And James and Pat continue to shut the fuck up. Why is that? Fear? Cowardice? Inability to answer simple questions?
"...it doesn't MEAN anything... [giggle]"
-JamesB, on the evidence he ignores (while giggling about 9/11).
"...GutterBall, oh so you're citing someone who is NOT an authority when you libel me. Thanks for establishing your standards of evidence for us."
I don't need to cite Barrett as an authority.
On the other hand, I DO believe Carol Brouillet. And she's quite clear in her accusations against you, sex predator.
You're revolting--beneath contempt.
This comment has been removed by the author.
"we’ve got confessions of at least 7 of the 9/11 terrorists ... plus Osama Bin Laden, we have all the forensic evidence…" -LamesB.
Can you point to a source for these 8 (at least) confessions, Lames? Don't forget to cite which translation you used. C'mon Jimmy. Put your research where your lies are.
And James and Pat continue to shut the fuck up. Why is that? Fear? Cowardice? Inability to answer simple questions?
I already told you, fucknoodle. Come up with some new material and maybe you'll get the attention you crave. Who knows, maybe you could even be the first Truther to make sense in public.
This comment has been removed by the author.
GutterBall, when WAQo solicited Carol Brouillet's statement, she did not confirm any of the charges that you and Kevin and Willie make.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2010/12/what-are-odds.html
This is what WAQo claims she wrote:
"Sadly, Brian used to be a friend. I ended the friendship when it was apparent to me that he would have liked to harmed my marriage."
She says nothing about any actions, any stalking, any harassment. She expressed an opinion about what she believed to be my attitude--and she was wrong about my attitude. I did not want to harm her marriage, nor did I try to harm her marriage.
You want to libel me, GutterBall,
for the same reason Barrett and Rodriguez and Ranke want to libel me: because none of you can defend your ridiculous arguments.
"I already told you, fucknoodle."
-Lack of Testicles
I love it when Pat and James discuss actual evidence and data, instead of spouting nonsense and letting people answer (incorrectly) for them.
...
Ooops! Nevermind!!
The sex predator whines, "...You want to libel me, GutterBall, for the same reason Barrett and Rodriguez and Ranke want to libel me: because none of you can defend your ridiculous arguments."
Not only are you sex predator, you're delusional.
Sticks and stones, UtterFool. Namecalling is all you've got.
You can't support your claim that 424,000 tons of concrete was pulverized, that RJ Lee and NRDC quantified iron spheres found in the dust, that the WTC concrete was all light weight concrete, that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete, that iron spheres were a component of the WTC concrete, or that iron spheres are essential to the concrete reaction process.
You also can't support any of your claims about my alleged transgressions. Ms. Brouillet said that she thought I had an attitude. She did not say I did anything, and she was mistaken about the attitude.
You're pathetic, UtterFail.
The opinion of a delusional sex predator doesn't have the force of credibility.
In fact, I substantiated every word of my argument.
And it doesn't bother me in the least that a delusional sex predator and compulsive liar takes issue with my argument.
After all, you've never substantiated your argument. In fact, all you've ever offered in response is your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.
Knock yourself out, nut bag. Because in the end, you're nothing more than sex predator, high school dropout, unemployed janitor, habitual liar and a psychopath.
GutterBall, you lie. Where did you substantiate your claims? I'm not trying to make an argument. I merely point out the fact that you have not substantiated your claims.
Your claim that you have substantiated them is a lie.
Where is your evidence that I am a high school dropout? Did Dr. Harris tell you that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
You go away, and return to find it's Brian repeating the same shit he blathered on about a year ago.
And yet, Brian is exactly like any other 'serious' truther.
It's easy to think he's one of the fringe, but they all think the same way.
Check out any of the comments in any truther site, or any of the truther replies to something in the media, and it's a mirror image of Brian.
The only real difference is his stalking. The rest is a carbon-copy of truter nuttery.
Let's see now, I include myriad hyperlinks that substantiate my argument, and you offer nothing more than your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.
In fact, your method of argumentation is, by definition, dishonest, as I'll prove below.
I have an extensive scientific background, and I have the education, career and work experience to prove it. In fact, I was extensively trained to spot a specious argument. Thus, here's how I judge the validity of your claims:
[1] How reliable is the source of the claim?
In your case, you have no credibility, as your history of habitual lying clearly demonstrates. Thus, your reliability can be measured in negative engineering units.
[2] Does the source make similar claims?
In your case, your claims are always contrary to widely accepted interpreations of events, Thus, the answer to the question is no.
[3] Have the claims been verified by someone else?
In your case, the answer is a resounding "no." All you offer is your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.
[4] Do the claims fit with how the World works?
In your case, the answer is always no. All you offer is your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless contrarian opinion.
[5] Has anyone tried to falsify or disprove the claim.
In your case, I've falsified your argument on so many occasions that to engage you in further discussion is a waste of time. Again, the answer is no.
[6] Where does the preponderance of the evidence point?
In your case, the evidence never supports your argument, which explains why you must ALWAYS rely on your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion. Thus, the answer, once again, is no.
[7] Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
In your case, the answer, once again, is no. Opinion isn't science, and it never will be science.
[8] Is the claimant providing POSITIVE evidence?
In other words, can you provide a theory of your own to explain events or an observable phenomenon? In your case, the answer, once again, is no. All you offer is your contrarian opinion to "disprove the official story." This is proof postive of your boundless intellectual dishonesty (not to mention your inability to truly think). Thus, the answer, once again, is no.
[9] Does the new theory account for as many phenomenon as the old theory?
In your case, you've NEVER offered a theory. See number 8.
[10] Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
In your case, everything you write is based on your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion. Thus, personal beliefs ALWAYS drive your claims.
Now we can see that you're a charlatan, and a fraud, because you fail to meet even ONE of the standards of evidence. And your constant resort to contrarian argumentation (see number 8) proves my point.
FAIL
Grade: F-
Have a nice day, sex predator.
What stalking, paul?
Kevin Barrett thinks that for me to post comments on his blog is stalking. Willie Rodroguez thinks that for me to post comments on news articles about him is stalking.
Is that what you mean by stalking?
Let's see now, I include myriad hyperlinks that substantiate my argument, and you offer nothing more than your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.
In fact, your method of argumentation is, by definition, dishonest, as I'll prove below.
I have an extensive scientific background, and I have the education, career and work experience to prove it. In fact, I was extensively trained to spot a specious argument. Thus, here's how I judge the validity of your claims:
[1] How reliable is the source of the claim?
In your case, you have no credibility, as your history of habitual lying clearly demonstrates. Thus, your reliability can be measured in negative engineering units.
[2] Does the source make similar claims?
In your case, your claims are always contrary to widely accepted interpreations of events, Thus, the answer to the question is no.
[3] Have the claims been verified by someone else?
In your case, the answer is a resounding "no." All you offer is your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.
[4] Do the claims fit with how the World works?
In your case, the answer is always no. All you offer is your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless contrarian opinion.
[5] Has anyone tried to falsify or disprove the claim.
In your case, I've falsified your argument on so many occasions that to engage you in further discussion is a waste of time. Again, the answer is no.
Continued...
[6] Where does the preponderance of the evidence point?
In your case, the evidence never supports your argument, which explains why you must ALWAYS rely on your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion. Thus, the answer, once again, is no.
[7] Is the claimant playing by the rules of science?
In your case, the answer, once again, is no. Opinion isn't science, and it never will be science.
[8] Is the claimant providing POSITIVE evidence?
In other words, can you provide a theory of your own to explain events or an observable phenomenon? In your case, the answer, once again, is no. All you offer is your contrarian opinion to "disprove the official story." This is proof postive of your boundless intellectual dishonesty (not to mention your inability to truly think). Thus, the answer, once again, is no.
[9] Does the new theory account for as many phenomenon as the old theory?
In your case, you've NEVER offered a theory. See number 8.
[10] Are personal beliefs driving the claim?
In your case, everything you write is based on your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion. Thus, personal beliefs ALWAYS drive your claims.
Now we can see that you're a charlatan, and a fraud, because you fail to meet even ONE of the standards of evidence. And your constant resort to contrarian argumentation (see number 8) proves my point.
FAIL
Grade: F-
Have a nice day, sex predator.
Nice job of proving my point, UtterFail. Instead of demonstrating that you've substantiated your points, like maybe providing some of the links, you attack me. And you plagiarize Michael Shermer in doing it!
That's right, sex predator, continue to lie and make unfounded accusations. My points are based on elementary scientific philosophy, not Michael Shermer. And if you had an education you'd know the method of analysis I employ is part of the curriculum of ever university in World.
The fact remains that you're stuck on point number [8] because you don't have a theory.
We don't need to prove jack shit. We have the facts on our side, and even when we cite sources or post links you morons ignore them.
Why?
You don't care, you are both psychopaths who are all about a con-job. 9/11 Truth is nothing but a scam to take money away from morons. That's fine with me, any idiot who thinks 9/11 was an inside job deserves to be broke.
What I do care about are the lies that continue to be woven into the 9/11 narrative by con-artists. Like the "Protocols of Zion" years before, these lies can become inspiration for stupid people to do bad things using 9/11 as justification for their acts. So I log in here and counter the bullshit.
The issue with Brian and Pat-Off-My Lithium is that they are both mentally ill. It is not about the truth for either of them, it is about the scam, the con, and the lies that they need to spread to play their game.
Yo sex predator! Impress us again with another correlation proves causation fallacy.
By all means, I can use another laugh at your expense.
Idiot.
Here's the goat molester's method of determining causation summed up in 8 words:
"Empirically observed covariation is sufficient condition for causality."
So GutterBall doesn't even have the honesty to admit he plagiarized his points, not even when he repeats the ignorant error "Does the new theory account for as many phenomenon as the old theory?" from another website.
MGF, what facts do you have no your side? I have the fact that 91% of the widows' questions were not answered, and that NIST does not even try to explain the collapse of the towers.
The "I already answered that" ploy is one used by bullshitters everywhere.
You know, Brian, if this was my blog, that'd be your final post here.
Because that's an insult to Pat and James.
Pat and James let you post here. They let you hijack every one of their articles with the same shit you've said a hundred times already. They redact your personal information when people post it. They have accommodated you. And judging from your posting history around the Internet, they're the only ones who have.
The least you could do is have the decency to acknowledge that Pat and James, and their readers, have TRIED to answer your questions.
I, and others, have written pages and pages and pages explaining why your widow questions are irrelevant. (Short version: They're outdated, redundant, and none of them would change our understanding of 9/11. When I asked you multiple times to cite an example of one that would, you couldn't. And there's still that little "did not answer our questions but reforms we could endorse" bit on their webpage.)
I, and others, have written pages and pages explaining why your spray-on thermite in the elevator shaft theory is a non-starter. (That's not how explosive charges work, anything thin enough to be sprayed on wouldn't have enough power to blow your nose, no substance with the necessary properties exists, and so on.)
Don't you even REALIZE these things we say are attempts to answer you? Really, don't you?
I bet you don't. Because you just keep coming back with rejoinders that prove you don't understand the first thing about what we're trying to tell you:
Do you deny that coatings containing nanoparticles of iron oxide and aluminum can be applied using compressed air and spray guns?
You can't refute the fact that 91% of the widows' 300 questions were unanswered.
Whether it's because you're stupid or insane or rude, I won't guess. But if you're not even going to acknowledge that I've TRIED to debate you fairly, well, then you can just go fuck yourself.
That's right, sex predator, keep telling the same lies over-and-over-and-over-and-over again.
Typical troofer neo-Nazi who lives by the Big Lie.
Do you honestly believe people haven't read the links I provide that prove you're full-of-shit?
The game you play is old and worn out.
Your method is simple: When proven wrong, you simply ignore the evidence and return the next day to tell the same lies as though you were never debunked. When asked to offer a theory of your own, you balk, and continue to play the contrarian argument as evidence fallacy card.
You're a charlatan, sex predator.
And Triterope is right, YOU SHOULD BE BANNED, permanently.
TR, I don't see how it's an insult to Pat and James to call bullshit. An insult to them is the abuse that GutterBall and Ian inflict on the credibility of the forum when they lie and lie and lie.
The widows' questions are not outdated when they haven't been answered. Do you think they should accept the speculations and fabrications of anonymous bloggers as answers? They want sworn testimony from the responsible people, from credible witnesses.
What makes you think spray-on thermite would be a thin coating? What's to prevent repeated coating? Fireproofing is sprayed on too, you know, inches thick.
And incendiaries and/or explosives could be pumped inside hollow core columns through a 3/8" hole in any quantitity desired.
I understand what you're trying to tell me just fine. I understand it so that I know it's not true.
I don't deny that you've tried to debate me. But you don't seem able to recognize that your points are very weak.
GutterBall, your links don't show that I'm full of shit. They show that you're full of shit. You don't seem to recognize that the fact that fly ash is used in some forms of lightweight concrete does not mean it's used in all forms of lightweight concrete, and you have offered zero evidence that it was used at the WTC.
"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly--it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over" -- Joseph Goebbels
Wrong again, sex predator. Skyscrapers require fly ash aggregates which produce high-strength lightweight concrete.
I've proven this over-and-over-and-over again, and all you offer in rebuttal is your unqualified, unprofessional and, ultimately, worthless opinion.
FAIL
Get it through your thick skull, sex predator, Hitler's Big Lie will no longer serve your nefarious purposes.
Go fuck yourself, Brian.
Triterope wrote, "...Go fuck yourself, Brian."
I'll second that motion.
Me too
UtterFail, you have no more proven that fly ash is required in lightweight concrete than I have proven that rum is required in spaghetti sauce.
Brian,
Go fuck yourself, stupid.
Yo sex predator,
What's this?
World Trade Center Center's Concrete Schedule, date 1 March 1968.
I'll tell you what it is, sex predator.
That's the World Trade Center 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.
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.
91% of the "widows" questions are bullshit, unrelated to 9/11.
Also most of them have been answered, not that you care.
Keep on hiding behind the skirts of the widows, Brian, it says more about your lack of character than most of the silly things you post.
The widows' questions are not outdated when they haven't been answered. Do you think they should accept the speculations and fabrications of anonymous bloggers as answers? They want sworn testimony from the responsible people, from credible witnesses.
Brian, this is all purely theoretical, since we all know the widows have no questions.
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.
MGF, pray tell, which of the 273 questions still pending have nothing to do with 9/11?
The widows say the questions have not been answered, so why should we believe your claim that they have? Where were they answered and by whom? The speculations and lies of anonymous internet posters are hardly answers. They want sworn testimony from actual witnesses.
Ian, you lie repeatedly and persistently. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were not answered.
The sex predator prevaricates, "...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.
"...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.
"...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.
"...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.
The Natural Resources Defense Council wrote, "...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.
Ian, you lie repeatedly and persistently. 273 of the widows' 300 questions were not answered.
Brian, I'll make a deal with you: I'll admit the widows have questions if you admit that you are Petgoat, OK?
The sex predator lies, "...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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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...
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.
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.
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.
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...
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-
"...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.
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
UtterFail, look at your 3/16 15:43 post at the Hug a Truther thread:
"...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).
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-
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.
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.
Your attempt to pass Mr. Moehring off as a civil engineer is like trying to pass off someone with a junior college "Computer Technology" certificate as a Computer Scientist. Would you do that?
UtterFail, I didn't omit anything.
I reproduced your 3/16 15:43 post from the "Hug a truther" thread in its entirety.
"...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
You lie to cover up your lies about your lies. I used to know a junkie who lied like you.
"...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-
"...UtterFail, I didn't omit anything."
That's right sex predator, continue to lie like a rug and pretend that I never wrote the word "approximate."
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=8032833634354584589&page=1&token=1300653410274
This is why you can't be trusted. You lie like a rug.
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-
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. That you can not see the claim is absurd shows you don't know what you're talking about.
Your use of the word "approximate" in your 15:41 has nothing to do with your claim that I quoted in your 15:43.
"Approximate" relates to your claim that the NRDC report "confirms that approximately 67,000 tons iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres covered Lower Manhattan."
The NRDC report does not confirm that. Your claim was a lie.
At 15:43 you made the clear implicit claim that all the WTC concrete was lightweight concrete.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=8032833634354584589&page=1&token=1300653410274
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.
And your citation of the RJ Lee report is hypocritical when you disagree with its conclusion that the iron spheres were created in the WTC fires.
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.
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"
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?
Knuckle head babbles, "...Where do you get the idea that thousands of tons of iron spheres blanketed lower Manhattan?"
Jeeeeeeeezzzzzzus Christ you're dense!
The RJ Lee Report states--and I quote: "...1.2 million tons of building materials were pulverized during the WTC Event...[including] cement and aggregate (concrete)..."
Keep reading it until you get it through your thick skull, Einstein.
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.
You have shown no evidence that the lightweight concrete at the WTC contained fly ash or that it contained iron spheres. Why would the unnecessary weight of the iron be tolerated in the mix?
*facepalm*
You're an idiot, sex predator.
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-
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.
So after lying and lying and lying and lying, GutterBall finally recognizes he's pwned and abandons the quest.
His belief that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is not in the realm of reality. The reasons are obvious to anyone who knows about the building.
So after lying and lying and lying and lying, GutterBall finally recognizes he's pwned and abandons the quest.
False. You lost again, Brian. Or is there a new investigation into 9/11 happening that I'm not aware of?
I mean, maybe squealing on the internet all day gives your empty life a few cheap thrills, but I'm not holding my breath that your dumbspam is going to get a new investigation.
Keep squealing, Brian. We all find it endlessly amusing.
Ian in the Gandhian maxim “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” you are stuck at stage 2. You can't operate at stage 3, you know it, and only by remaining at 2 can you deny that 4 has already been achieved.
You and Pat have already supported the concept of new investigations of the incompetence theory. That makes you truthers.
You and Pat and I all agree that the original Loose Change was not credible and that wacko truthers are stupid.
Where we disagree--about the ignoring of warnings and interference in the NORAD responses to the attack (LIHOP) and the controlled demolition material and evidence of collusion between the US and al Qaeda (MIHOP)--is simply a result of your ignorance. If you would bother to read a few books and watch a few DVDs, you would change your mind. Or at least you might be able to mount a proper argument.
Oh boy, Brian, you're really losing it now.
Ian in the Gandhian maxim “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” you are stuck at stage 2.
Right, and people have been laughing at you for a decade now. You're never getting past the laughter stage, Brian. Sorry. You're a clown dancing for the amusement of people at this blog and nothing more.
You and Pat have already supported the concept of new investigations of the incompetence theory. That makes you truthers.
Wow, Brian, you just moved the goalposts halfway around the world. If government accountability makes one a truther, you and Grover Nordquist should start a PAC together.
You and Pat and I all agree that the original Loose Change was not credible and that wacko truthers are stupid.
Yes, and you're a wacko truther, Brian. You will continue to be so as long as you reject the NIST report and the 9/11 commission findings and continue to babble about thermite and smoldering carpets and remote-control jetliners.
Where we disagree--about the ignoring of warnings and interference in the NORAD responses to the attack (LIHOP) and the controlled demolition material and evidence of collusion between the US and al Qaeda (MIHOP)--is simply a result of your ignorance. If you would bother to read a few books and watch a few DVDs, you would change your mind. Or at least you might be able to mount a proper argument.
See what I mean?
Anyway, Brian, I appreciate you waving the white flag and admitting defeat at my hands, but I will only accept your surrender under two conditions:
1, you admit you are petgoat
2, you start seeing a psychiatrist
If government accountability makes one a truther, you and Grover Nordquist should start a PAC together.
Since the widows' 273 unanswered questions are about government accountability, and since the 9/11 Commission positively refused to address accountability ("point fingers"), then if Mr. Norquist supports accountability he should support the widows' quest for answers.
Since the widows' 273 unanswered questions are about government accountability, and since the 9/11 Commission positively refused to address accountability ("point fingers"), then if Mr. Norquist supports accountability he should support the widows' quest for answers.
Uh, no. The "widows" "questions" are a bunch of nonsense. That's why nobody is going waste time answering them.
Ian, what is nonsensical about the widows' questions?
Ian, what is nonsensical about the widows' questions?
Everything.
Is it too much to ask you to cite an example, or do you want to keep your argument on the level of an 8-year-old girl's?
Is it too much to ask you to cite an example, or do you want to keep your argument on the level of an 8-year-old girl's?
And there goes Brian babbling and calling people "girls" again.
So Brian, which questions from the widows do you think makes the 9/11 story doubtful?
So you refuse to cite an example of a "nonsensical" question.
So you refuse to cite an example of a "nonsensical" question.
False. I will cite a nonsensical question when you admit that you are petgoat. Until then, no deal.
You're the one who wants these questions answered, Brian, not me. Maybe you should do as I ask?
You refuse to back up your claim that "the 'widows' 'questions' are a bunch of nonsense".
Where did you get the idea that trying to trash the victims of 9/11 is smart? Did Ann Coulter tell you that?
You refuse to back up your claim that "the 'widows' 'questions' are a bunch of nonsense".
False.
Where did you get the idea that trying to trash the victims of 9/11 is smart? Did Ann Coulter tell you that?
Brian, you're not a victim of 9/11. You're just an unemployed liar and lunatic. And trashing you is funny.
See what I mean?
I do see what you mean: you mean you're a liar and a lunatic with no job and no friends who has been thrown out the truth movement.
You and Pat and I all agree that the original Loose Change was not credible and that wacko truthers are stupid.
You and Pat have already supported the concept of new investigations of the incompetence theory. That makes you truthers.
Where we disagree--about the ignoring of warnings and interference in the NORAD responses to the attack (LIHOP) and the controlled demolition material and evidence of collusion between the US and al Qaeda (MIHOP)--is simply a result of your ignorance. If you would bother to read a few books and watch a few DVDs, you would change your mind. Or at least you might be able to mount a proper argument.
In the Gandhian maxim “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” you are stuck at stage 2. You can't operate at stage 3, you know it, and only by remaining at 2 can you deny that 4 has already been achieved.
You are the wrecking crew, coming along to save GutterBall the humiliation of overturning the checker board that he has abandoned.
You and Pat and I all agree that the original Loose Change was not credible and that wacko truthers are stupid.
Yes, and you're a wacko truther who is stupid.
You and Pat have already supported the concept of new investigations of the incompetence theory. That makes you truthers.
In the same sense that Unitarians are Christians. But when I say I'm opposed to the agenda of the religious right, I'm not talking about Unitarians. And when I talk about the insanity of the truthers, I'm not talking about those who are looking for more accountability in government. I'm talking about people who believe insane things like that the towers were brought down by spray-on nanothermite.
And the rest of your post is just more mindless squealspam of the type to be expected from fanatical true believers like you. If I only watched a few DVDs, I'd think like you? No, I'd have to be an insane, ignorant liar who has failed at everything in life in order to think like you do.
Ian, I never said that the towers were brought down with spray on nanothermite, or any kind of nanothermite.
No, I don't think a few DVDs would make you think like me, Ian. Thinking like me would clearly take you a lot more education, a lot more experience, a lot more honesty, and a lot more dedication to rational inquiry than you can muster.
I think that watching a few DVDs might provide you with a few important datapoints in a 9/11 kindergarter you haven't even begun.
Ian, I never said that the towers were brought down with spray on nanothermite, or any kind of nanothermite.
So you babble about spray-on nanothermite....why exactly? To make yourself look like paranoid lunatic?
No, I don't think a few DVDs would make you think like me, Ian. Thinking like me would clearly take you a lot more education, a lot more experience, a lot more honesty, and a lot more dedication to rational inquiry than you can muster.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? Google it.
I think that watching a few DVDs might provide you with a few important datapoints in a 9/11 kindergarter you haven't even begun.
I watched "Weird Science" the other night. Does that count?
I don't babble about nanothermite. I rarely bring it up unless somebody else does, but when somebody claims something stupid like thermite can not be sprayed on, or can not be applied without detection, or that it's been shown that it can't even burn through the roof of a car and it doesn't burn hot enough to weaken the steel I have to point out that they're wrong.
I have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I have no need to worry about it in your case, Ian, because you are a portable feast of demonstrable logical fallacies and lies--either incompetent or finding it amusing (like an 8-year-old girl) to pretend that you are.
I don't babble about nanothermite. I rarely bring it up unless somebody else does, but when somebody claims something stupid like thermite can not be sprayed on, or can not be applied without detection, or that it's been shown that it can't even burn through the roof of a car and it doesn't burn hot enough to weaken the steel I have to point out that they're wrong.
Brian, I don't know what's more likely: that you actually believe these lies, or that you expect us to believe them. Either way, it really paints a picture of someone in serious need of psychiatric care.
I have heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Yes. it explains you quite well: you're so stupid and incompetent that you don't realize your stupidity and incompetence.
I have no need to worry about it in your case, Ian, because you are a portable feast of demonstrable logical fallacies and lies--either incompetent or finding it amusing (like an 8-year-old girl) to pretend that you are.
See what I mean?
Ian, you label things as lies based on nothing but your own denial. Iron oxide is a common component of paint, as is aluminum flakes. Thus spray thermite is easily formulated.
Your kind of know-nothing lying bullying was very fashionable among Bushbots around 2004. Aren't you embarrassed to be indulging in a practice so long out of style?
Ian, you label things as lies based on nothing but your own denial. Iron oxide is a common component of paint, as is aluminum flakes. Thus spray thermite is easily formulated.
Objection, your honor. Relevance.
Your kind of know-nothing lying bullying was very fashionable among Bushbots around 2004. Aren't you embarrassed to be indulging in a practice so long out of style?
Blah blah blah. That's what this is all about: Brian's hatred of the Bush administration. Yet left-wingers from Noam Chomsky to Bill Maher have no problem calling truthers the cult of liars and lunatics that they are.
My suggestion is to seek professional help, Brian.
Ian, the professional leftists are as corrupted as the college professors--dependent on foundation funding.
Metal-flake/iron-oxide paint is relevant to the question of whether spray on thermite is a lie or not.
You are willfully ignorant in the subject matter you are so opinionated about, and your psychiatric advice is worth less than a ten-year-old rubber band.
Oh, and there's no such thing as giants, so stop babbling about them.
Ian, the professional leftists are as corrupted as the college professors--dependent on foundation funding.
Brian, not everyone can be a total failure in life like you.
Metal-flake/iron-oxide paint is relevant to the question of whether spray on thermite is a lie or not.
Wait, I thought we were talking about the WTC towers? Who cares about whether spray-on thermite exists or not?
You are willfully ignorant in the subject matter you are so opinionated about, and your psychiatric advice is worth less than a ten-year-old rubber band.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Oh, and there's no such thing as giants, so stop babbling about them.
Wow Brian, I've gotten so far inside your head. I can understand. I mean, you're a complete and total failure in life while I'm a success. I can understand how that bothers you.
Who cares about whether spray-on thermite exists or not? Well, apparently you cared enough about it to declare (falsely) that it was a lie.
Who cares about whether spray-on thermite exists or not? Well, apparently you cared enough about it to declare (falsely) that it was a lie.
So nobody cares, as I said.
You're definitely nobody, and you care enough to lie about it, so yes, nobody cares.
You're definitely nobody, and you care enough to lie about it, so yes, nobody cares.
I love being called nobody by an unemployed janitor with no friends and no family who lives with his parents despite being in his late 50s. I've really pwn3d you, haven't I Brian?
Also, I don't lie.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, you don't know anything about me, and you lie constantly, claiming the widows are not widows and that Dr. Sunder did not say what he said.
The extremely emotional character of your arguments suggest you've got several bolts rattling around in your gearset. What's your problem, did a truther steal your girl?
That would explain both your irrational and vicious attacks on the truth enterprise and your misogynist attacks on the widows.
Ian, you don't know anything about me, and you lie constantly, claiming the widows are not widows and that Dr. Sunder did not say what he said.
False.
The extremely emotional character of your arguments suggest you've got several bolts rattling around in your gearset. What's your problem, did a truther steal your girl?
C'mon Brian, we all know that joining the truth movement is essentially a vow of chastity. None of you losers could steal a girl from anyone.
Also, what's on display is amusement. I get a kick out of laughing at you, Brian.
That would explain both your irrational and vicious attacks on the truth enterprise and your misogynist attacks on the widows.
I love being called a misogynist by a well-known sex stalker who, when frustrated, calls people "girls" to insult them.
Seek professional help.
Ian, you are lying about your lies. That's as bad as it gets. Those are psycho-lies, junkie-class lies.
I don't know when you became an expert on the sex lives of truthers. When do you find time to go around peeping in keyholes?
In your case, calling you an 8-year-old girl is merely a technical observation. I have never before encountered males who think obstinate willful stupidity is cute--but in my experience it's quite common in 8-year-old girls.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever of your claims that I am a sex stalker. The tale comes from Dr. Kevin Barrett, his only recourse when I was humiliating him on his own blog in much the same way I am humiliating y'all here.
Ian, you are lying about your lies. That's as bad as it gets. Those are psycho-lies, junkie-class lies.
Squeal squeal squeal!
I don't know when you became an expert on the sex lives of truthers. When do you find time to go around peeping in keyholes?
It's more anecdotal than anything. Pretty much everyone who becomes a truther has his wife/girlfriend leave him. And then there's you, a creepy sex stalker who tried to wreck Carol Brouillet's marriage...
In your case, calling you an 8-year-old girl is merely a technical observation. I have never before encountered males who think obstinate willful stupidity is cute--but in my experience it's quite common in 8-year-old girls.
Brian, I'm not being willfully stupid: I'm laughing at you because you're a crazy person who is obsessed with me. If you didn't live on the other side of the country and have no idea who I am, I'd be worried.
But since that's the case, I can poke you and make you squeal about invisible widows and magic thermite elves. And you'll never stop squealing about it because you're severely mentally ill.
That's why I tell you to seek professional help.
You have provided no evidence whatsoever of your claims that I am a sex stalker.
Oh, that's right, you're also a pathetic liar, as the above indicates.
You and Pat and I all agree that the original Loose Change was not credible and that wacko truthers are stupid.
You and Pat have already supported the concept of new investigations of the incompetence theory. That makes you truthers.
Where we disagree--about the ignoring of warnings and interference in the NORAD responses to the attack (LIHOP) and the controlled demolition material and evidence of collusion between the US and al Qaeda (MIHOP)--is simply a result of your ignorance. If you would bother to read a few books and watch a few DVDs, you would change your mind. Or at least you might be able to mount a proper argument.
In the Gandhian maxim “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win” you are stuck at stage 2. You can't operate at stage 3, you know it, and only by remaining at 2 can you deny that 4 has already been achieved.
You are the wrecking crew, coming along to save GutterBall the humiliation of overturning the checker board that he has abandoned.
You and Pat and I all agree that the original Loose Change was not credible and that wacko truthers are stupid.
Yes, and you're a wacko truther who is stupid. And insane.
And the rest of your post is the same tired dumbspam you always post. You've lost, and I've won, Brian. Deal with it. Go see a psychiatrist.
Dr. Ian, your demonstrated lousy logic skills make your psychiatric diagnoses of limited value.
The quality of my analyses v. your juvenile and unsubstantiated claims speaks for itself.
In your hysterical denial of reality and your invented fantasy "facts" you are no model of sanity.
Dr. Ian, your demonstrated lousy logic skills make your psychiatric diagnoses of limited value.
The quality of my analyses v. your juvenile and unsubstantiated claims speaks for itself.
In your hysterical denial of reality and your invented fantasy "facts" you are no model of sanity.
Poor Brian, he's babbling in desperation because he's failed at life again.
Maybe someday you'll get the psychiatric care you need, Brian.
Ian, as I've said, you're stuck in Gandhi's stage 2 because you can't function at stage 3. I suggest for you some remedial work in stage 1, because that's your Peter Principle level.
Ian, as I've said, you're stuck in Gandhi's stage 2 because you can't function at stage 3. I suggest for you some remedial work in stage 1, because that's your Peter Principle level.
Brian, we're only going to stop laughing at you when you stop posting dumbspam. Psychiatric treatment would help you to stop doing so.
Ian, I don't hear any laughing. I hear your nervous tittering, and I hear UtterFail's hysterical HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No laughter.
Post a Comment
<< Home