Friday, April 22, 2011

How Stupid Is....

Steven Jones? He comments on this Eggsperiment:

A great demonstration of Newton's Third Law, and the total inadequacy of the Bazant/NIST official explanation.

May I suggest -- show the Bazant diagram from their paper (which we are challenging) which shows this upper block of floors supposedly acting as a tamper -- due to gravity alone -- and you might also point out that NIST states that the fall is accelerating at "near" free-fall even for the Towers.

They must really think we're stupid or naive...

I can narrow those choices down, Steven. We don't think you're naive.

The Federal government? They're requiring that the first responders who submit health claims under the Zadroga bill be checked against the FBI's terrorist database.
“This amendment was adopted in the full Energy and Commerce Committee without opposition and it merely requires that the names of those receiving health benefits be cross-checked with the terrorist watch list to ensure that no terrorists get these benefits,” Stearns said.

“These benefits are not just for our first responders; nearly anyone who was in the vicinity or worked on a cleanup crew afterward is eligible,” he noted.

126 Comments:

At 23 April, 2011 06:08, Blogger Ian said...

A great demonstration of Newton's Third Law, and the total inadequacy of the Bazant/NIST official explanation.

Wow, this sounds familiar. It's pretty much exactly what Brian babbles about every time we make fun of the eggs, or Richard Gage's boxes, or Brian's own "meatball on a fork" model.

I knew Brian was too stupid to understand what he was talking about whenever he babbled about Newton's laws and I figured he was just parroting something he had heard somewhere else. Now we know: it's a senile old nut he's parroting.

 
At 23 April, 2011 09:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, would you care to explain why the egg-drop demonstration is not a valid demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law?

Would you care to discuss Dr. Bazant's claim that his theorized piledriver is exempt from Newton's 3rd Law?

If you spent half as much time trying to understand as you spend cracking half-wise, you might learn something.

 
At 23 April, 2011 09:41, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, why should I waste my time discussing Newton's laws with a failed janitor and liar who thinks "meatball on a fork" represents an accurate portrayal of the WTC collapse?

If you spent half as much time trying to understand as you spend cracking half-wise, you might learn something.

Brian, I'm the one who understands Newton's laws. You're the one who is totally confused, given how you just mindlessly repeat what Dr. Jones says. No wonder you don't understand what happened on 9/11

 
At 23 April, 2011 09:42, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, you're far more entertaining when you're babbling about imaginary widows, so let's talk about them.

 
At 23 April, 2011 11:08, Blogger Ian said...

OT, but Charlie Sheen is apparently now a birther:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/20/charlie-sheen-a-birther-obama-birth-certificate_n_851346.html

More evidence that if you'll fall for one conspiracy theory, you'll fall for them all.

It's why I'm happy that most truthers are dateless losers who won't ever breed, given that they probably all subscribe to immunization conspiracies.

 
At 23 April, 2011 11:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ian, would you care to explain why the egg-drop demonstration is not a valid demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law?

"Your readers follow you like a child follows a slug track with his finger, and in the same tired loops of reason."

-- Thomas Harris, "Red Dragon"

 
At 23 April, 2011 12:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Would you care to explain why it is that Newton's 3rd Law is a tired track of reason?

Would you like to justify Dr. Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption for his piledriver theory from Newton's 3rd Law?

 
At 23 April, 2011 13:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh look! The homosexual psychopath and compulsive liar is back to hijack another thread.

Tell us, gay boi, what does Bazant's paper tell us?

(Dollars to donuts that the Palo Alto Pud Huffer can't tell us without completely and deliberately misinterpreting Bazant's paper).

 
At 23 April, 2011 13:12, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The demonstration is not a valid representation of Newton's 3rd Law as it applies to the collapse of the TWC. Neither tower was built like an egg. Eggs are more dense than the towers were because the eggs have yolk. The yolk acts as a cushion during the impact absorbing much of the energy. The towers were mostly air, so there was little resistance once the collapse began.

No mystery, no violation of physics.

 
At 23 April, 2011 13:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Would you care to explain why it is that Newton's 3rd Law is a tired track of reason?

Because you consistently misapply it.

Would you like to justify Dr. Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption for his piledriver theory from Newton's 3rd Law?

He makes no such claim. It's your delusion, you justify it.

 
At 23 April, 2011 13:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer prevaricates, "...Would you like to justify Dr. Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption for his piledriver theory from Newton's 3rd Law?"

Logical fallacy: Evidence of absence, ie, prove a negative.

This is a perfect example of how the Palo Alto Pud Huffer deliberately lies and misinterprets the available data.

Bazant never proposed a so-called "piledriver [SIC] theory"--you moron. Bazant proposed that the collapse progressed in two phases--crush up and crush down--and described each phase by means of a non-linear second order differential equation.

You're such a fuck up and a liar that you can't get past the basics of the paper without completely misinterpreting the propositions found therein.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 23 April, 2011 19:06, Blogger Ian said...

Would you care to explain why it is that Newton's 3rd Law is a tired track of reason?

Would you like to justify Dr. Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption for his piledriver theory from Newton's 3rd Law?


Wow Brian, you continuously post dumbspam and everyone laughs at you!

You still haven't told us why you believe in imaginary widows, however.

 
At 24 April, 2011 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your substance-free naymongering does not merit a response. Dr. Bazant's piledriver paper speaks for iteself and an intelligent person can read it in ten minutes.

MGF, the fact that the twin towers were not eggs does not change the fact that Newton's third law applies to eggs and to the twin towers. The putative density of the top "block" of the towers is essential to Dr. Bazant's argument, which pretends that the "block" is a monolithic weight which in reality more resembles a basket built of springs. The fact that the towers were mostly air defeats your own argument, since air is more a cushion than a yolk is.

The destruction of the towers in symmetry, totality, and near-freefall acceleration violates the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law.

 
At 24 April, 2011 11:30, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

MGF, the fact that the twin towers were not eggs does not change the fact that Newton's third law applies to eggs and to the twin towers.

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

The putative density of the top "block" of the towers is essential to Dr. Bazant's argument, which pretends that the "block" is a monolithic weight which in reality more resembles a basket built of springs.

There's no reason the top would need to be a "monolithic weight" in order to initiate a collapse by simply weighing what it weighs. Fifty tons of Jello still weighs fifty tons.

The fact that the towers were mostly air defeats your own argument, since air is more a cushion than a yolk is.

Don't gases both compress and escape more readily than liquids? Wouldn't that make liquids a better cushion?

The destruction of the towers in symmetry, totality, and near-freefall acceleration violates the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law.

That might seem true when one restricts their analysis to a simplistic recital of those laws. When scale and material composition are also considered, the collapses are consistent with all physical principles.

 
At 24 April, 2011 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody has suggested otherwise.

In characterizing the demonstration as an "eggsperiment" Pat has suggested that eggs do not legitimately model Newton's 3rd law.

Fifty tons of Jello still weighs fifty tons.

Fifty tons of jello flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force. Thanks for proving my point. Dr. Bazant's model requires the top "block" to strike the lower columns in perfect registration, transferring all of its force to the structure directly-no shearing; no puncturing; no bending, mashing, tearing. It's absurd.

When scale and material composition are also considered, the collapses are consistent with all physical principles.

So if the tower is big enough it's exempt from the laws of thermodynamics? Wow! Maybe we can build a perpetual motion machine!

 
At 24 April, 2011 12:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Umm...if both towers had been filled with yolk in equal proportion to those eggs the planes would have essentually bounced off, or they would have just been absorbed into the mass of the building.

That's why only morons would think eggs are a good model for the world trade center. You do understand that we are talking about the WTC, don't you Brian? This video is a wonderful depiction of Newton's 3rd Law as it applies to eggs in a glass. However it has zero application to the collapse of ANY structure, especially the twin towers.

This is why I can't power my Honda Civic with a rubber band. It works great with a milk carton, but not so much with an actua; car because the physics and materials are all different.

This is why we can't launch satellite using a rocket filled with water and a big air-pump. It works great in the backyard with a 10'inch plastic tube, not so much with a Saturn V. Why? The physics and materials are different.

Now if you need further information you can google "Egg" and then "World Trade Center" and figure it out for yourself.

 
At 24 April, 2011 12:34, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

In characterizing the demonstration as an "eggsperiment" Pat has suggested that eggs do not legitimately model Newton's 3rd law.

I don't see him saying that. I see him suggesting that the eggs do not legitimately model the collapse of the World Trade Center. Newton's 3rd law was not the only factor at play in the collapses.

Fifty tons of jello flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force. Thanks for proving my point.

Eight ounces of Jello in your bowl might do that. Fifty tons of anything, Jello included, dropping ten feet is going to crush whatever's beneath it. Even under Newton's 3rd law, little things still behave differently from big things.

Dr. Bazant's model requires the top "block" to strike the lower columns in perfect registration, transferring all of its force to the structure directly-no shearing; no puncturing; no bending, mashing, tearing. It's absurd.

Where does his model require that? I see no such thing in there.

 
At 24 April, 2011 13:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

the planes would have essentially bounced off

Nobody is suggesting that flying airplanes into eggs is a good model. If you want to demonstrate Newton's 3rd vis a vis eggs, you need to fly an egg into an egg.

only morons would think eggs are a good model for the world trade center.

Nobody said they were a good model for the WTC. They'r a good model for Newton's 3rd Law which, by the way, applies to the WTC as much as it does to eggs.

Your Honda Civic is no more immune to the laws of physics than the WTC is. You can power your Civic from a rubber band if it's big enough.

You really should take some science courses at Cabrillo or Hartnell.

Fifty tons of anything, Jello included, dropping ten feet is going to crush whatever's beneath it.

Baloney. It's not going to crush 80,000 tons of structural steel designed to support 50 tons with a considerable safety factor.

Where does his model require that?

It requires that when in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics it transfers ALL of the dynamic force to one poor lonesome little floor, with no allowance for inefficiencies in energy transfer due to shearing, crushing, crumpling, pulverizing, penetration, dismembering, debris expulsion, and vibration throughout both the lower 200,000 ton structure and the upper top block.

 
At 24 April, 2011 16:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Real engineers know that even after 100 years of tweaking, automobiles can only deliver about 25% of their fuel energy to the rubber on the road.

Dr. Bazant's claim of 100% energy transfer is a joke. Which is why he refuses to debate.

 
At 24 April, 2011 17:55, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dr. Bazant's claim of 100% energy transfer is a joke.

On which page of which of his papers does he claim 100% energy transfer? Sorry to keep nitpicking, but you have a history of misrepresenting what others have said.

Which is why he refuses to debate.

Exactly. He makes claims that he knows are bogus, and he knows that we know that they're bogus, and he won't debate them because we might find out they're bogus. Makes perfect sense.

 
At 24 April, 2011 18:10, Blogger Ian said...

Fifty tons of jello flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force.

Yup, this is the kind of idiocy one would expect from a failed janitor who doesn't understand physics.

Thanks for proving my point.

Is your point that you don't understand physics and that's why you're dumb enough to fall for 9/11 truth nonsense? Because that's the only point I'm seeing you make.

So if the tower is big enough it's exempt from the laws of thermodynamics? Wow! Maybe we can build a perpetual motion machine!

See what I mean?

 
At 24 April, 2011 18:10, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Which is why he refuses to debate.

Yeah, instead he gets subjects his research to scrutiny in the most reputable engineering journals on the planet. But, yeah he should address the concerns of some fringe hacks.

 
At 24 April, 2011 18:14, Blogger Ian said...

Baloney. It's not going to crush 80,000 tons of structural steel designed to support 50 tons with a considerable safety factor.

Aaaaand we're back to Brian simply not believing it. This is the basis of every "argument" he makes. He doesn't believe it.

Brian, you don't believe it because you're extremely naive, ignorant, and very unintelligent. It's what one expects from a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

This is why we have experts in the field of physics and engineering who investigate these things instead of people like you.

 
At 24 April, 2011 18:18, Blogger Ian said...

Fifty tons of jello flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force.

Brian, you might be aware that a tsunami recently devastated the coast of northern Japan. How did that happen? Water flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force. How did the tsunami cause such damage?

 
At 24 April, 2011 18:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer prevaricates, "...UtterFail, your substance-free naymongering [SIC] does not merit a response. Dr. Bazant's piledriver [SIC] paper speaks for iteself [SIC] and an intelligent person can read it in ten minutes."

I guess that explains why you don't understand, and lie about, the content found therein. Right, pud huffer?

You can't spell; you can't think; you have all the intellectual honesty of a street walking whore and an "education" to match.

And who are you to talk about "substance-free" debate, gay boi? After all, you never substantiate your argument. All you provide is your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion--that is, when you're not lying outright.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 24 April, 2011 18:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gay boi, if you're looking for "Fifty tons of jello", look no further than between your ears.

Hell, if you doubled your IQ, you'd still be stupid.

 
At 24 April, 2011 19:37, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Brian, you might be aware that a tsunami recently devastated the coast of northern Japan. How did that happen? Water flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force. How did the tsunami cause such damage?

Oh God. Now watch Egg Boy get in the bathtub with his camcorder.

 
At 24 April, 2011 20:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I love this, the WTC collapse is a complex example of Newton's 3rd law...except when it's not.

The eggs fail because they are structurally different. Eggs are actually stronger in proportion than the towers where.

I'm in my 4th year of Marine Geology at CSUMB, and no they're not looking for a janitor.

 
At 24 April, 2011 23:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, on page 4 of Dr. Bazant's "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis" paper (the third page) he claims that within a few floors of collapse propagation "the percentage of the kinetic energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%." He justifies this assumption by working backward from the belief that "the collapse of the tower must be an almost free fall."

Ian, for you to compare 50 tons of jello dropping ten feet to a tsunami wave is silly. Office floors are rated for 50 psf live load (or more)--in the WTC that's over 1000 tons per floor right there. Water in a tsunami wave can not flow around impediments because it is constrained by the water around it.

GMS, if you would bother to read Dr. Bazant's paper, you would see that it claims that "the duration of the collapse of each tower, reported as roughly 10 s, was about the same as the duration of a free fall in a vacuum from the tower top" and it claims that less than 1% of the tower's potential energy was consumed in dismembering, pulverizing, and deforming the structure.

Having concerns about the apparent violation of the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law is hardly the position of "fringe hacks".

MGF, the fact that the eggs are structurally different from the towers is irrelevant to their validity as a demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law. If you want to go beyond your BS in Geology you'd better brush up on thermodynamics before you take the GRE. You'd also do well to do some practicing in logical reasoning.

 
At 25 April, 2011 00:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pud Huffer the Pathetic scribbles, "...Ian, for you to compare 50 tons of jello dropping ten feet to a tsunami wave is silly."

Says the jackass who believes his "meatball on a fork" nonsense is "scientific."

By the way, gay boi, your mother called and left a message. She said the sperm bank called and informed her that you can have your job back if you promise never to drink the samples again.

 
At 25 April, 2011 00:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said anything about a meatball being scientific, though one could make the case that a meatball on a fork better resembles the interaction between collapse debris and the core than Bazant's pile-driver does.

Bazant needs to imagine that the entire top part of the building is a monolith because it's only by marrying the upper core to the upper floors that he's able to bring enough mass to bear on the core to knock it down. A disorganized mass of core debris (meatball) won't be able to tear down the lower core.



You sure do have a lot of gay hangups, dudette. Whassamatta, problems at work?

 
At 25 April, 2011 00:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 April, 2011 00:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, gay boi, are you still chomping at the bit because I have a family and career, while all you have is bluster and bullshit?

Furthermore, Bazant doesn't need to imagine anything, gay boi.

You're an unemployed janitor, with an IQ that barely exceeds your shoe size. All you have is opinion. And those of us who are fluent in Newtonian mechanics and calculus aren't fooled for one second by the lies and bullshit you try to pass off as "science."

Are you trying to surpass Rob Balsamo in the incompetence department? You're certainly giving him a run for the title.

 
At 25 April, 2011 01:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pud Huffer the Pathetic whines, "...Having concerns about the apparent violation of the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd law is hardly the position of 'fringe hacks'."

The aforementioned statement is proof positive that you have no idea what you're talking about. No doubt, you're a fringe hack, gay boi.

Clearly, you know nothing about conservation of energy and even less about entropy.

Shouldn't you spend the time you waste posting mindless, idiotic babble to SLC on something more productive? For example, why not make an effort to make up with Willie the Rod? After all, how else will you start a family and have gaybies?

 
At 25 April, 2011 02:22, Blogger scottuga44 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 25 April, 2011 02:24, Blogger scottuga44 said...

This stuff is very interesting. Where would be a good place to find out more info?
Scott www.isitonkayaks.com

 
At 25 April, 2011 04:38, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, for you to compare 50 tons of jello dropping ten feet to a tsunami wave is silly. Office floors are rated for 50 psf live load (or more)--in the WTC that's over 1000 tons per floor right there. Water in a tsunami wave can not flow around impediments because it is constrained by the water around it.

Brian, is now babbling about 50 tons of jell-o. You really can't make this stuff up.

Anyway, Brian, why isn't the jell-o constrained by the jell-o around it?

I never said anything about a meatball being scientific, though one could make the case that a meatball on a fork better resembles the interaction between collapse debris and the core than Bazant's pile-driver does.

You could make that case, but that's because you're an ignorant lunatic who can't even hold down a job mopping floors.

 
At 25 April, 2011 04:41, Blogger Ian said...

Bazant needs to imagine that the entire top part of the building is a monolith because it's only by marrying the upper core to the upper floors that he's able to bring enough mass to bear on the core to knock it down. A disorganized mass of core debris (meatball) won't be able to tear down the lower core.

On planet petgoat, 3 steel beams connected exert more force than 3 separate steel beam.

Yup, this kind of ignorant silliness is what one would expect from someone who doesn't know the first thing about physics. This explains a lot about why you're so confused about 9/11, Brian. It's also why nobody asks you for your input on 9/11.

 
At 25 April, 2011 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Bazant needs to imagine the top "block" as a persistent monolith because, as I explained, that's the only mechanism he can offer for taking down the core: the weight of the floors married to the piledriving upper core section. In actuality, as the video shows, the top block of WTC1 came apart before the impact zone began to fail, so Bazant's theory has no resemblance to reality.

Ian, the 50 tons of jello was RGT's formulation. It's unconstrained because there's only 50 tons of it. If you spread out 50 tons of jello over one floor of the WTC it would be less than half an inch thick.

No, Ian, connected beams don't exert more force. What Bazant needs for more force is the connection of the core to the heavy concrete floors. Force equals mass times acceleration, remember? More mass is more force.

And GutterBall, if you are fluent in Newtonian mechanics and calculus, why is it necessary for you to resort to lying ad hominems?

Why can't you mount an engineering argument--for instance to refute the fact that Bazant assumes, based on his belief that the collapse developed in free-fall, that the top block strikes with energy transfer of 99% efficiency?
Don't you see the conflict with the 1st law of thermodynamics there? Don't you see the conflict with the second law in the collapse's symmetry?

Don't you see the conflict with Newton's 3rd in Dr. Bazant's belief that the top block can erode the lower structure while maintaining an immunity to reaction forces? Gosh, if that's true you could batter down a concrete wall with your fists because the striking object does not get damaged by the stricken object!

 
At 25 April, 2011 11:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

First of all, gay boi, stop pretending that you understand Bazant's paper; you don't understand the content found therein and you never will.

And there's no "if" as concerns my fluency in Newtonian mechanics and calculus. It's a fact, whether a compulsive liar and psychopath of your ilk believes it or not. That I'm fed up with you and the intellectual dishonesty, lies and stupidity that drips from every word you write should surprise no one.

You can lie about the accreting mass that crushed the twin towers until you're blue in the face; the fact remains that Bazant formulated expressions for consistent energy potentials and produced an exact solution that elegantly describes the collapse in two phases--crush down and crush up. Bazant explained that progressive collapse will ensue if the total internal energy loss exceeds the kinetic energy of the impact; the load capacity of the columns is wholly irrelevant, because gravity alone will suffice as long as the aforementioned conditions are met; and in the case of the twin towers, the conditions were exceeded by an order of magnitude.

Newton's third law, the law of conservation of energy, to say nothing of entropy, are irrelevant, and serve as nothing more than a distraction and a desperate attempt on your part to put lipstick on a pig--and you're the pig.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and thus, you babble like an idiot, while those of us with an education scoff at the ignorance and dishonesty you wear like a badge of honor.

Now stop wasting our time with this crap. You're a fool who prances around the Bay Area in an all-black costume and an Andalusian hat like some washed-up thespian from a bad Hollywood "thriller." If you had one ounce of self-awareness you'd be ashamed of yourself.

Now go play in the freeway, cretin.

 
At 25 April, 2011 13:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bazant has no evidence whatsoever for his "crush-up" theory, which is in violation of the video evidence and of Newton's 3rd law. If a monolithic top block piledriver was crushing the towers down, how did "the spire" in the north tower escape its punishment?

You don't know what you're talking about, and your empty and undemonstrated claims of mathematical competence only show your epistemic incompetence. The claimed credentials of an anonymous internet poster are meaningless--but his conspicuous inability to mount an actual argument should be noted.

Gravity does not exempt the structure from the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics. Bazant's claim that the transfer of energy was 99% efficient is contradicted by his claim that there was an insulating mat of debris between the piledriver and the lower structure. No piledriver can hammer with 99% efficiency through a disorganized mat of pick-up sticks.

Your attempt to declare the laws of physics irrelevant is amusing. How's your perpetual motion machine coming along, genius? Got your batteries running an electric motor running a generator patented yet? Hurry up before somebody thinks of it first!

 
At 25 April, 2011 13:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer prevaricates, "...Bazant has no evidence whatsoever for his 'crush-up' theory, which is in violation of the video evidence and of Newton's 3rd law."

Another bald-faced lie. Bazant described each phase of the collapse--crush down and crush up--by means of a non-linear second order differential equation. Thus, we have more proof that you're a shameless liar.

"...If a monolithic top block piledriver [SIC] was crushing the towers down, how did 'the spire' in the north tower escape its punishment?"

Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

Your stupid questions are not evidence. Furthermore, you don't have "video evidence" because the collapse was shrouded in a cloud of pulverized concrete, as any honest observer--which excludes you, you lying prick--will readily acknowledge.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 25 April, 2011 13:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer continues to lie and scribbles, "...Gravity does not exempt the structure from the 1st and 2d laws of thermodynamics. Bazant's claim that the transfer of energy was 99% efficient is contradicted by his claim that there was an insulating mat of debris between the piledriver [SIC] and the lower structure. No piledriver [SIC] can hammer with 99% efficiency through a disorganized mat of pick-up sticks."

That's a blatant misrepresentation of Bazant's paper. Thus, we have more proof that you're a shameless liar.

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer continues to lie and scribbles, "...Your attempt to declare the laws of physics irrelevant is amusing."

Not half as amusing as your complete inability to understand Bazant's argument--not to mention your comical misrepresentation of his explanation of the events of 11 September 2001. And your inability to understand why Newton's third law, the law of conservation of energy, to say nothing of entropy, are irrelevant, is a shining badge of ignorance. You're simply incapable of understanding that the forces you constantly tout were so small in comparison to the total internal energy loss and the kinetic energy of the impact as to render them irrelevant. Thus, we have more proof that you couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary physics.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 25 April, 2011 14:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Dr. Bazant has no evidence whatsoever for his 'crush-up' theory, which is in violation of the video evidence and of Newton's 3rd law. If his equation was evidence, then you'd have to take the fact that 1 + 2 = 3 as evidence that I saw three flying saucers swoop down on roof at Sears last night.

My presentation of evidence countering Dr. Bazant's ludicrous theory is hardly an argument from ignorance. The presence of the spire is proof that Bazant's piledriver did not exist.

I understand Bazant's nonsensical, reverse-engineered, hysterical, impossible theory just fine.

Ah, the UtterFail doctrine: "If it's Big Enough, the Laws of Physics Don't Apply". You're a fool. And a verbose one at that.

 
At 25 April, 2011 14:32, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, on page 4 of Dr. Bazant's "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis" paper (the third page) he claims that within a few floors of collapse propagation "the percentage of the kinetic energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%."

He's saying there (page 7 in my copy) that something like 1% of the energy from the fall was deflected by bending and shearing. The top columns striking the bottom columns in perfect registration is not part of his model.

And why should the downward force of the top portion be something other than about 100%? You still weigh the same whether you wear clown shoes or high heels.

 
At 25 April, 2011 14:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer continues to lie and scribbles, "...UtterFail, Dr. Bazant has no evidence whatsoever for his 'crush-up' theory, which is in violation of the video evidence and of Newton's 3rd law."

There is no "video evidence"--you ass.

Furthermore, your idiotic claim that Bazant's crush up theory violates Newton's 3rd law is unsubstantiated. All you've given us is your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion. And the opinion of a failed janitor isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer continues to lie and whines, "...My presentation of evidence countering Dr. Bazant's ludicrous theory is hardly an argument from ignorance."

You haven't presented "evidence." You claim that since, in your opinion, some event didn't occur, the only explanation is "controlled demolition," which is nothing more than an argument from ignorance. You're every bit as dishonest and deceptive as the creationists who "debate" advocates of evolution armed with nothing more than logical fallacies and an infinite capacity to lie.

"...I understand Bazant's nonsensical, reverse-engineered, hysterical, impossible theory just fine."

On the contrary, Pinocchio, your ignorance and dishonesty are proven beyond a doubt by your continued insistence that Bazant's theory is unsupported--which is a lie of epic proportions.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 25 April, 2011 14:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...RGT, on page 4 of Dr. Bazant's 'Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis' paper (the third page) he claims that within a few floors of collapse propagation 'the percentage of the kinetic energy dissipated plastically is then of the order of 1%.'"

This is another demonstration of the goat molester's dishonesty.

His insistence on misquoting Bazant's first paper, titled Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis, which was written hastily soon after 11 September 2001, while he ignores the far more detailed and exacting analysis found in Bazant and Verdure's Mechanics of Progressive Collapse--Learning From the World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, is intellectually dishonest, and proves the goat molester's argument is directed at low hanging fruit. He won't touch Bazant and Verdure's second paper, because the goat molester is a liar with a boundless capacity to deceive the reader.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 25 April, 2011 15:53, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

GuitarBill, I don't see how snug.bug's sexual orientation is in any way germaine to the discussion.

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's nice, Jonn.

I'm sure that the goat molester's psychopathy is irrelevant, too.

And never mind that America's prisons are filled with homosexual psychopaths who behave in a manner that's virtually indistinguishable from SLC's mysterious revolutionary who calls himself "snug.bug."

Whatever, Jonn.

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Technically Brian's sexual orientation is listed as "Osmosis"

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, the fact that the eggs are structurally different from the towers is irrelevant to their validity as a demonstration of Newton's 3rd Law. If you want to go beyond your BS in Geology you'd better brush up on thermodynamics before you take the GRE. You'd also do well to do some practicing in logical reasoning."

I didn't say that the eggs demo wasn't a valid demostration of Newtons 3rd law, I said that it was not revevant as a demo for the law as it applied to the TWC.

I should do fine on the GRE, it's not administered, scored, or based on psychopatholigical misdirection.

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:32, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, since you're the expert, can you tell me which of the following things "flows around its impediments instead of striking them with dynamic force"?

moldy tangerines

moldy tangerines in a burlap sack

smoldering carpets

carpets that aren't smoldering but are rolled up

a cage full of modified attack baboons

a cage of ordinary colobus monkeys

Thanks, Brian.

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:36, Blogger Ian said...

If you want to go beyond your BS in Geology you'd better brush up on thermodynamics before you take the GRE. You'd also do well to do some practicing in logical reasoning.

Wouldn't you know it, there's a lot of critical reasoning on the GMAT, and I just happen to teach GMAT prep classes as a side job.

Brian, I could teach you a lot about critical reasoning, but you have to do a few things yourself: graduate high school (and try not to stalk the girls), get accepted into college, and then graduate that (try not to sniff too much glue).

Also, you'd have to admit that you're petgoat before I do any private tutoring with you.

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The nerve of people like "Jonn."

The goat molester misrepresents my argument's on a daily basis, which, in the world of debate, is akin to a low blow, and individuals like "Jonn" whine when I treat the goat molester to a heaping helping of his own medicine.

My heart bleeds purple piss for the both of you.

Bite me.

 
At 25 April, 2011 16:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"Jonn," allow me to give you and the goat molester a conservative estimate of your collective IQ:

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`?¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........\...\.......... ....?´
............\..............(
..............\.............\....

 
At 25 April, 2011 17:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I forget, which weighs more:

A ton of attack baboons or a ton of colobus monkeys?

 
At 25 April, 2011 20:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

GuitarBill, I don't see how snug.bug's sexual orientation is in any way germaine to the discussion.

When you're dealing with 9/11 Truthers, linear thought patterns don't apply. Any subject is germane to any discussion. Stick around a while, you'll see what I mean.

You were awesome in WarGames by the way.

 
At 26 April, 2011 02:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the top columns striking the bottom columns in perfect registration is certainly a factor in the part of the sequence where he claims that the columns are subject to 2pi rotation angles in buckling.

Why would the energy transfer be less than 100%? Because all the energy of friction, heat, pulverization, expulsion of dust, crushing, tearing, shearing, dismembering, and bending must be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to bring the building down.

UtterFail, your claim that there is no video evidence is desperate and absurd.

Bazant's crush-down/crush-up theory violates Newton's 3d on its face. Bazant claims that the crush-down piledriver is immune to reaction forces. He's full of shit.

I presented the persistence of the spire as irrefutable evidence that the piledriver did not exist.

I didn't misquote Bazant. So are you now admitting that his hasty first paper was (low hanging fruit) and absurd?

Jonn, to be precise, the issue is not my sexual orientation but rather GutterBall's fantasies and projections about my sexual orientation.

MGF you have not shown that the demonstration of Newton's 3rd using eggs is not applicable to the WTC. The concept of reaction forces is rather broad, after all.

 
At 26 April, 2011 04:33, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, can you answer my questions about the above items I listed?

Thanks.

 
At 26 April, 2011 08:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I can't. You have no questions, and you're invisible.

 
At 26 April, 2011 09:45, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the top columns striking the bottom columns in perfect registration is certainly a factor in the part of the sequence where he claims that the columns are subject to 2pi rotation angles in buckling.

Nowhere does Bazant make such a claim. Why are you making it?

Why would the energy transfer be less than 100%? Because all the energy of friction, heat, pulverization, expulsion of dust, crushing, tearing, shearing, dismembering, and bending must be subtracted from the kinetic energy available to bring the building down.

As the paper explains, the energy thereby expended was negligible -- about 1%.

A brief check at Google Scholar shows that Bazant's "Simple Explanation" article is cited with approval by about 85 other papers. The scientific communicty has clearly accepted Bazant's findings, so you're gonna need more than meatballs and rakes to beat him.

 
At 26 April, 2011 13:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 April, 2011 13:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Pud Huffer prevaricates, "...UtterFail, your claim that there is no video evidence is desperate and absurd."

I don't want your worthless, lying opinion, gay boi. Provide evidence for your fallacious claims or STFU. The collapse was shrouded in a cloud of pulverized concrete, as any honest observer--which excludes you, you lying prick--will readily acknowledge.

Shit-for-brains whines, "...Bazant's crush-down/crush-up theory violates Newton's 3d on its face. Bazant claims that the crush-down piledriver [SIC] is immune to reaction forces. He's full of shit."

Again, I don't want your worthless, lying opinion, gay boi. Provide evidence for your fallacious claims or STFU.

Shit-for-brains continues to lie through his teeth, "...I presented the persistence of the spire as irrefutable evidence that the piledriver [SIC] did not exist."

False. The alleged "persistence of the spire" doesn't refute Bazant's theory. Again, you're presenting your unsubstantiated opinion as "evidence."

FAIL

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer prevaricates, "...I didn't misquote Bazant. So are you now admitting that his hasty first paper was (low hanging fruit) and absurd?"

Misrepresenting my argument again, gay boi? That's not what I said, at all. Go back to the comment at 14:59 and read it again--you illiterate, lying sack-of-shit.

The sex predator whines, "...Jonn, to be precise, the issue is not my sexual orientation but rather GutterBall's fantasies and projections about my sexual orientation."

Not according to Willie the Rod and the woman who you repeatedly sexually harassed, Carol Brouillet. You're a pathological liar and a sex predator, who belongs in a penitentiary.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 26 April, 2011 13:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Carol Brouillet wrote, "...I don't think your attacks on me, Kevin Barrett, and William Rodriguez have anything to do with Kevin Barrett or William Rodriguez or anything rational. The attacks have to do with Brian Good and Carol Brouillet and are completely emotional. You have a crush on me and erroneously hold delusions about me. You are being irrationally jealous of Kevin and William. You cannot accept the fact that I am happily married and refuse to allow you to TRY to cause trouble between my husband and I. Because of your delusions, I cannot ever feel "safe" in your presence alone, and would rather not see you again, but you are so desperate for attention that you are doing extremely negative, destructive things- attacking me and respected members of the 9/11 Truth Movement to force me to pay attention to you...Now I only see you as a threat to me, my family, the Northern California 9/11 Truth Alliance and the 9/11 Truth Movement. I have zero confidence in your judgement and rationality."

http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?s=932bca5c6f420d2c43b2984356d506cc&showtopic=1092&st=0&#entry2389508

9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!.

 
At 26 April, 2011 13:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, Bazant makes the claim in his paper on the third page: "The sum of the rotation angles ... of the hinges on one column line ... cannot exceed 2(pi). (Fig. 2(b)) This upperbound value ... is used in the present calculations since, in regard to survival, it represents the most optimistic hypothesis, maximizing the plastic energy dissipation."

The paper doesn't explain that the inefficiency was negligible. The paper assumes that the inefficiency was negligible based on the belief that the towers fell at free fall and that no explosives were involved.

Bazant's belief that the towers could fall with 99% efficient energy transfer is absurd, and his silly piledriver hypothesis is given the lie by video evidence that shows that the top "block" of the north tower came apart, telescoping before the impact zone began to fail and the persistence of the core spire shows that no piledriving block was present.

UtterFail, Bazant's claim that his non-existent piledriver is immune to reaction forces is, on its face, contrary to Newton's 3rd Law.

William Rodriguez is a liar and a fraud. I didn't harass anybody and you're lying when you say I did. You don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 26 April, 2011 13:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, Bazant's claim that his non-existent piledriver [SIC] is immune to reaction forces is, on its face, contrary to Newton's 3rd Law."

Non sequitur.

Your premise and conclusion are unrelated. Again, you're presenting your unsubstantiated opinion as "evidence", while interweaving your alleged "evidence" in non sequitur laden bullshit.

FAIL

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer prevarivates, "...William Rodriguez is a liar and a fraud."

Well then you and Willie the Rod have a lot in common. Maybe the two of you should make up so you can get on with starting your "family" and making gaybies?

And I stand by statement: You're a sex predator, who belongs in prison.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 26 April, 2011 14:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffer prevaricates, "...The paper doesn't explain that the inefficiency was negligible. The paper assumes that the inefficiency was negligible based on the belief that the towers fell at free fall and that no explosives were involved."

Non sequitur. Premise and conclusion are, once again, unrelated; this is also an argument from ignorance.

FAIL

The sex predator whines, "...Bazant's belief that the towers could fall with 99% efficient energy transfer is absurd, and his silly piledriver [SIC] hypothesis is given the lie by video evidence that shows that the top 'block' of the north tower came apart, telescoping before the impact zone began to fail and the persistence of the core spire shows that no piledriving [SIC] block was present."

False.

There's no evidence that the top block "came apart." The top block was an accreting mass. That the block tilted as it fell doesn't prove that it "came apart." Furthermore, you can't prove the top block "came apart" because the video evidence doesn't support your argument. The top block was shrouded in pulverized concrete dust as was pointed out by Dr. W. Gene Corley (or anyone else with a pair of eyes) and others who have far more credibility than you'll ever have, goat molester.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 26 April, 2011 14:09, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Bazant makes the claim in his paper on the third page: ..."

I'm referring to the part where he claims that the upper columns are required to strike the lower columns in perfect registration. Where is that?

Bazant's belief that the towers could fall with 99% efficient energy transfer is absurd...

Perhaps you should present some data that calls Bazant into doubt, rather than simply repeating the bare assertion that he's wrong. I'm also interested in why you believe his findings have been so widely adopted in spite of their absurdity.

 
At 26 April, 2011 14:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT wrote, "...I'm referring to the part where he claims that the upper columns are required to strike the lower columns in perfect registration. Where is that?"

I'll tell you where it came from, but I can guarantee that you won't want to look there.

The goat molester is so arrogant, dishonest and conceited that he thinks we haven't read the relevant material.

The goat molester's MO is as follows: Non sequitur. The goat molester shamelessly misrepresents his opponents argument, and then employs fallacious "reasoning" as follows: In every instance, the premise is divorced from the conclusion, while the goat molester pretends that such nonsense represents a valid argument.

The goat molester wouldn't tell the truth if his worthless life depended on it.

 
At 26 April, 2011 14:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, Bazant doesn't have to say it. The assumption of perfect registration is built into his calculations. The WTC columns are box columns. The only way you're going to get buckling rotation of 2(pi)is if the columns strike in perfect registration. If they're half an inch out of line you get shearing and telescoping with enormous frictional forces, and asymmetrical forces. Note that if the top block is rotated (on vertical axis) even 1/2 of one degree, the columns at the other end of a 209-foot wall will not strike at all.

Maybe a piledriver can transfer its kinetic energy to the pile with 99% efficiency. I doubt it. Even after a hundred years of engineering, automobiles only transfer about 25% of their fuel energy to the road.

Dr. Eagar's zipper-pancake collapse theory was conventional wisdom for three years despite its obvious absurdity. Many engineers continue to believe that the jet fuel melted the steel, despite the obvious absurdity of that. People are not paying attention.

 
At 26 April, 2011 14:50, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'll tell you where it came from, but I can guarantee that you won't want to look there.

Oh no.

"In other news, Palo Alto activist snug.bug was arrested today on public indecency charges, after demonstrating his Gerbil in the Ass theory of the 2001 WTC collapse..."

 
At 26 April, 2011 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Other reasons for the acceptance of asburd theories are:

1. People don't bother to investigate the actual facts of the matter
2. People don't bother to read the paper
3. Invoking what you imagine is said by a paper you haven't bothered to read as an excuse not to think about something you don't want to think about saves a lot of time and energy

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

4. Peer pressure and conformity. Independent-minded engineers are odd ducks and rare birds.

5. Practicality. Why make waves, buck the crowd? What purpose would be served? One must pick one's battles.

6. Fear. Nobody wants to spend the next ten years hearing tin-foil and Elvis jokes. Certain questions must not be asked.

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:02, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The only way you're going to get buckling rotation of 2πis if the columns strike in perfect registration.

You're saying that a column will only buckle when struck by another column?

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...The WTC columns are box columns. The only way you're going to get buckling rotation of 2(pi)is if the columns strike in perfect registration. If they're half an inch out of line you get shearing and telescoping with enormous frictional forces, and asymmetrical forces. Note that if the top block is rotated (on vertical axis) even 1/2 of one degree, the columns at the other end of a 209-foot wall will not strike at all."

Again, this is opinion wrapped in a non sequitur.

FAIL

Grade: F-

In fact, I can prove, with one video, that the box columns buckled.

Want to try me, goat molester?

(And when I claim there's video evidence, I can prove it, as opposed to the goat molester, who claims there's video evidence and then ignores all requests to provide the evidence).

You feeling lucky today, goat fucker?

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's the video evidence that PROVES the goat fucker is lying about the columns.

Close up of the South Tower's collapse.

(Pay particular attention to the corner perimeter column on the left-hand side of the video. Notice that the corner perimeter column twists like a piece of licorice, which is empirical evidence that proves, beyond a doubt, that the columns buckled).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR24kKaToio

Thus, you stand exposed as a liar and a con artist, once again, goat fucker.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Many engineers continue to believe that the jet fuel melted the steel, despite the obvious absurdity of that."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

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

No one claims "jet fuel melted the steel." That's the oldest troofer straw man argument in the book.

NIST claims the fires weakened the steel; there was no need for the structural steel to "melt" in order for the progressive collapse to proceed.

Thus, we can see, once again, that the goat fucker's argument always relies on logical fallacies.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 26 April, 2011 15:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the claim that jet fuel melted the steel was made by BBC, NewScientist, NBC, Fox News, CNN, NOVA, and Mathys Levy.

As usual, you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker tries another attempt at misdirection, and whines, "...UtterFail, the claim that jet fuel melted the steel was made by BBC, NewScientist, NBC, Fox News, CNN, NOVA, and Mathys Levy."

Weak.

Since when do we consult a news agency (non-experts) on matters that concern structural engineering? Answer: We don't. And only a lying psychopath/propagandist would make such a bogus claim.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

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

Pussy assed lying motherfucker, I'll kick your ass from one end of this forum to the other.

COME ON, ASS FUCKER, GIVE US ANOTHER PACK OF LIES!

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I can't. You have no questions, and you're invisible.

False. My questions are above. If you knew how to read, you'd know this.

As for me being invisible, well, I can't prove that I'm not, but what difference does it make?

So please answer my questions, Brian.

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:41, Blogger Ian said...

William Rodriguez is a liar and a fraud. I didn't harass anybody and you're lying when you say I did. You don't know what you're talking about.

False. You are a deranged sex stalker and liar who was thrown out of the truth movement for trying to break up Carol Brouillet's marriage.

Also, you stalk Willie Rodriguez because you are sexually attracted to him. You try to obscure this by posting under many different internet names: "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance", "truetruther", "truebeleaguer", etc.

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

Other reasons for the acceptance of asburd theories are:

1. People don't bother to investigate the actual facts of the matter
2. People don't bother to read the paper
3. Invoking what you imagine is said by a paper you haven't bothered to read as an excuse not to think about something you don't want to think about saves a lot of time and energy


Yes Brian. Now do you plan on reading the paper before you make false references to it? Obviously, you don't want to think about the facts of 9/11, since your truth fantasies are the only thing that gives your empty life any meaning.

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:48, Blogger Ian said...

4. Peer pressure and conformity. Independent-minded engineers are odd ducks and rare birds.

Hey, Brian knows the engineering community well, as he used to empty the trash cans and mop the floors of the engineering department at Stanford!

5. Practicality. Why make waves, buck the crowd? What purpose would be served? One must pick one's battles.

Good question. Why do you waste your time with 9/11 truth, then?

6. Fear. Nobody wants to spend the next ten years hearing tin-foil and Elvis jokes. Certain questions must not be asked.

Well, you obviously don't care about any of this, since every laughs at your pointless questions and insane beliefs.

 
At 26 April, 2011 16:49, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, can you tell me if the widows' questions have been answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

 
At 26 April, 2011 21:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the news media consulted experts. NBC and BBC consulted professors of engineering. Your buddy Eduardo Kausel told Scientific American (10/01) that heat "softened or melted the structural elements".

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat fucker! That has to be the most chickenshit rebuttal I've seen in months.

My four year-old daughter could out think you on a bad day.

 
At 27 April, 2011 16:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nothing chickenshit about facts, UtterFail. Try it some time. I guess where you come from Real Men just make stuff up.

 
At 28 April, 2011 07:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, ignore all the evidence that proves you're wrong.

You've lied repeatedly about Bazant, and then when challenged to present FACTS, all you can do is provide your worthless, unqualified and unprofessional opinion.

If that's not bad enough you fabricate "evidence," while you ignore real FACTS.

God help you if you're ever arrested, goat fucker, because you're in for a long stay if the judge employs your standards of evidence.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, when did I lie about Bazant? You can't prove it. All you offer is your dishonest and unintelligent opinion.

I didn't fabricate anything. I'm not going to put a lot of effort into providing links and stuff only to see my work buried under a lot of lying spam.

NBC had engineering professor Hyman Brown on the night of 9/11, explaining that after two hours, fire melts steel.

BBC on 9/13 quoted structural engineer Chris Wise, who said "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted" and on
10/17 quoted Professor of Structural Engineering at the University of Newcastle, John Knapton: "The 35 tonnes of aviation fuel will have melted the steel."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1540044.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/1604348.stm

And your buddy Eduardo Kausel told Scientific American (10/01) that heat "softened or melted the structural elements".

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, goat fucker?

Anyone with the ability to read can see the evidence I've presented against your bogus argument. You're deliberately ignoring the far more detailed and exacting analysis found in Bazant and Verdure's Mechanics of Progressive Collapse--Learning From the World Trade Center and Building Demolitions, while you lie through your terracotta teeth.

In fact, you're pushing the bogus "melted steel" non sequitur you wrote at 21:19 as a transparent attempt to bury the evidence against you in another avalanche of your putrid gay squeal spam.

That said, you're such a dishonest degenerate that you can't see the contradiction in the claim that reads ,"softened or melted the structural elements".

So which is it, ass face? Did the steel melt or weaken? The fact is that you're contradicting yourself once again, which is proof positive that you're an insane liar who will say anything in order to "win" the lie fest you deliberately mislabel "debate."

NIST tells us the fires weakened the steel; there was no need for the structural steel to "melt" in order for the progressive collapse to proceed. Thus, you're lying. The steel "melted" when it suits your twisted propaganda, and at the same time, the steel weakened when it suits your nefarious lies.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail we were discussing Bazant and Zhou's initial paper. I did not pretend anything about the second paper. When we have finished discussing the first one--when you admit that it works backwards from the assumption that the buildings fell at near freefall and so pretends that the collapse is immune to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, then we can discuss the second paper. You are simply trying to change the subject from the first paper because everything I said about it was true, including that fact that Bazant assumes 2(pi) degrees of rotation in column buckling.

It was MIT professor Eduardo Kausel who said the steel "softened or melted". Perhaps he said that because he was not there on the floor to see it happen, so he doesn't know.

Larding your posts with lowbrow Gongorist invective to obfuscate the irrationality of your claims impresses only people even stupider than you.

 
At 28 April, 2011 10:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to bald-faced lie, "...It was MIT professor Eduardo Kausel who said the steel "softened or melted". Perhaps he said that because he was not there on the floor to see it happen, so he doesn't know."

Liar.

WTC structural steel is stored at two locations in New York City and was examined by dozens of experts.

As the BBC points out, Professor Richard Sisson, of Worcester Polytechnic Institute near Boston, examined the piece of structural steel the goat fucker claims was described as "melted" by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl of UC Berkeley. As per standard operating procedure for the goat fucker, he takes speculation by Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl and holds up the speculation as though it was scientifically determined evidence, which it is not.

The BBC wrote--and I quote: "...Professor Richard Sisson says it did not melt, it eroded. The cause was the very hot fires in the debris after 9/11 that cooked the steel over days and weeks.

"Professor Sisson determined that the steel was attacked by a liquid slag which contained iron, sulphur and oxygen.

"However, rather than coming from thermite, the metallurgist Professor Sisson thinks the sulphur came from masses of gypsum wallboard that was pulverised and burnt in the fires. He says:

"'I don't find it very mysterious at all, that if I have steel in this sort of a high temperature atmosphere that's rich in oxygen and sulphur this would be the kind of result I would expect.'"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

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

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 12:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 April, 2011 12:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your post is incompetent and incoherent.

You provide no evidence that the steel Dr. Astaneh described was the same as that analyzed by Dr. Sisson. Molten steel was reported by many witnesses.

Dr. Astaneh's report was not speculation. He saw "melting of girders". A professor of structural engineering can be expected to know a melted steel girder when he sees it. Why are you so hysterical as to deny simple facts?

Professor Brown and Professor Knapton said the collapses happened because the steel melted. Professor Kausel and Professor Block agreed that melting was possible. Professor Sisson's remarks made in 2008 about the sulfidation attack on his own steel sample have nothing to do with the other Professors' remarks made in 2001.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, psychopath?

The piece of steel that was analyzed by Professor Richard Sisson is the same piece of steel cited in Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl's testimony, and was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

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

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The BBC wrote--and I quote:

"...People who think thermite was used to demolish Tower 7 have also claimed that the one section of steel from the building that was kept reveals that it was melted by some strange substance. The half inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved in parts...The New York Times described this as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

Thus, it's proven beyond a doubt that you're a psychopath who will tell any lie, deliberately contradict yourself, and resort to every logical fallacy in the book.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your claim that what Astaneh saw was the same as what Sisson sampled is merely an unsupported assertion. Your belief that it is proof of anything is absurd.

You must be a real loser to go to such lengths to claim a bogus victory, making an UtterFool of yourself in the process.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, psychopath, and trying to bury your latest defeat in an avalanche of gay squeal spam--you double-talking, no account felcher?

Read it again until you get it through your thick skull--you lying, two-faced, cocksucker:

"...The half inch (1.3cm) steel beam has been entirely dissolved in parts...The New York Times described this as 'perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation.'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/7434230.stm

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

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool the NYT article describes Dr. Sisson's sample.

You show no connection between that and Dr. Astaneh's observation of "melting of girders".

 
At 28 April, 2011 13:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Making another false assertion without the benefit of evidence--you lying psychopath?

I've proven that the sample was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation"; thus, the burden of proof as regards your claim that they are not the same sample of structural steel falls on your shoulder's and your shoulder's alone.

So far, all we have is your opinion. And the opinion of a proven double-talking liar isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

So where's your alleged "evidence" to support your bogus assertion--you damnable psychopath?

And remember, felcher, your opinion is NOT evidence.

FAIL

grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 14:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 April, 2011 14:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's the proof that you're lying about the unavailability of WTC steel for forensic investigation.

"...To retrieve the steel, a crew from the county’s Buildings and Grounds Division will drive today to Hangar 17 at the JFK Airport. An 80,000-square-foot warehouse, the hangar is where the Port Authority stores steel, ambulances, PATH turnstiles and other artifacts connected to 9/11 and the felled towers."

http://www.nj.com/mercer/index.ssf/2011/03/mercer_county_to_receive_its_o.html

Thus, you stand thoroughly discredited once again.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 28 April, 2011 18:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGoo, you claimed that Astaneh's "melted girders" and Sisson's eroded steel were the same. It is for you to prove it. You can't.

NIST discusses 236 samples of steel in its report. Only 3 of them show heating above 480 degrees F. The steel in the warehouse has not been shown to support NIST's claim that the steel was heat-weakened.

Thus it would appear that any steel that showed heat-weakening was destroyed before NIST could take samples.

You're not very bright, are you? I'm sure you worked very hard to get where you are, and you're so dumb you don't know it's nowhere.

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie and scribbles, "...ButtGoo, you claimed that Astaneh's "melted girders" and Sisson's eroded steel were the same. It is for you to prove it. You can't."

False. You claim there were a over a dozen samples. That's a lie. There was only one sample, which I've already proven. Thus, the burden of proof falls on your shoulder's and your shoulder's alone to prove there were over a dozen samples.

But you can't provide that evidence, can you--you scurrilous liar?

FAIL

The goat fucker continues to bald-faced lie, "...NIST discusses 236 samples of steel in its report. Only 3 of them show heating above 480 degrees F. The steel in the warehouse has not been shown to support NIST's claim that the steel was heat-weakened."

False. That's your unsubstantiated opinion. When will you learn that your opinion isn't evidence.

Once again you're misrepresenting the content of the NIST Report.

FAIL

The goat fucker continues to bald-faced lie, "...Thus it would appear that any steel that showed heat-weakening was destroyed before NIST could take samples."

False. Again, the opinion of a proven liar isn't evidence.

Once again, your attempt to bury your lies under an avalanche of gay squeal spam is an epic failure, goat fucker.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, do you deny that NIST had 236 steel samples? Can you support your claim that "There was only one sample, which I've already proven"?

It's not my opinion, it's a fact proven by the NIST report itself that NIST discusses 236 samples of steel in its report. Only 3 of them show heating above 480 degrees F.

Your inability to distinguish fact from opinion shows you to be incompetent.

Your circular argument that my statements are lies because I'm a liar is juvenile.

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another 100% fact-free non-response, goat fucker?

No facts, no cigar.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Your circular argument that my statements are lies because I'm a liar is juvenile."

Another example that proves you don't understand the concept of circular reasoning.

Proof?

You're a proven liar, as the content up thread proves beyond a doubt.

Not only are you a liar, you're a logic cesspool.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 00:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

I got facts. The NIST report has 236 steel samples and only 3 of them, none of them core steel, show heating over 480 F.

We've already been over this. I guess you don't remember because you're incompetent.

Speaking of liars, are you calling the president of Notre Dame University, Father Edward Malloy C.S.C., a liar?

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie and scribbles, "...We've already been over this. I guess you don't remember because you're incompetent."

Yes, we've been over it, and I proved that you were lying then just as you're lying now.

The goat fucker prevaricates, "...Speaking of liars, are you calling the president of Notre Dame University, Father Edward Malloy C.S.C., a liar?"

No, I'm calling YOU a liar who misrepresents data, and scientific evidence. And not only am I making the accusation, I've proven the accusation repeatedly.

For example, you claim that Drs. Biederman and Barnett contradict Dr Sisson's findings. That claim, however, is a bald-faced lie. In fact, the investigation took place at the Worcester Polytechnic Institute under the direction of Drs. Biederman and Sisson. Thus, there is no contradiction, and WE CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE LYING AGAIN.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, goat fucker?

"Presented by: Prof. Ronald Biederman, George F. Fuller Professor of Mechanical Engineering

"Abstract

"Several Steel samples from Buildings 7, 1 and 2 of the World Trade Center were collected during the Federal Emergency Management Agency forensic investigation shortly after the September 11, 2001 incident. Macroscopically the steel samples supplied had severe "erosion" with plate thickness varying from 12.7mm to a total loss of metal in many areas. Also, some localized plastic deformation was observed. A determination of the cause of this unexpected erosion and an estimate of the maximum temperature that this steel likely experienced will be present along with a perspective on the implications that this damage may pose for high rise structural steel buildings."


http://www.georgevandervoort.com/fa_lit_papers/World_Trade_Center.pdf

Thus, we can see, once again, that you're lying and misrepresenting the findings of Drs. Biederman, Barnett and Sisson.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Fuck you--you lying fascist pig. Tell us more about the difference between "did not corroborate" from "refuted"--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 01:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, tell us, how does it feel to know that your "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units--you scurrilous liar?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

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

 
At 29 April, 2011 09:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 April, 2011 11:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, you are you own straw man--not even a straw man, but a used-toilet-paper man that falls down under its own weight.

You're a special breed of incompetent to be unable to defend conventional wisdom.

It's a fact proven by the NIST report itself that NIST discusses 236 samples of steel in its report. Only 3 of them show heating above 480 degrees F.

You're babbling like an Ian. I didn't misrepresent anything.

I said Dr. Biederman and Dr. Barnett do not corroborate Dr. Sisson's claims on BBC. Your inability to distinguish among "do not corroborate", "refute", and "contradict" shows your incompetence.

The WPI investigation did not support Sisson's claim that gypsum eroded the steel. The Vander Voort paper did not support Sisson's claim that gypsum eroded the steel. Neither Biederman nor Barnett support Sisson's claim that gypsum eroded the steel.

You're silly and you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 29 April, 2011 11:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The Palo Alto Pud Huffing Pinocchio prevaricates, "...I didn't misrepresent anything."

You're BUSTED AGAIN, lair!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL

Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I see that you're reduced to making bald, false assertions, and that you've been studying at the Ian School of Rhetoric.

I didn't misrepresent anything, and it's only by dishonestly conflating 2008 statements with 2002 statements and by supplying references that nobody's going to read that don't say what you claim they say that you can give the impression that I did.

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 April, 2011 12:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, Pinocchio. When caught red handed lying on at least a DOZEN OCCASIONS, continue to lie and, above all, NEVER ADMIT WHAT EVERYONE CAN PLAINLY SEE--YOU'RE A PATHOLOGICAL LIAR.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

NOW GET OUT OF HERE--YOU GOD DAMNED LIAR. AND DON'T EVER DARKEN THIS WEBSITE WITH YOUR PUTRID, LYING PRESENCE AGAIN, PINOCCHIO.

FAIL


Grade: F-

 
At 29 April, 2011 13:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGoo, when did I lie?

I've pointed out that you dishonestly conflate 2008 opinions with 2002 reports, ascribe to your references things they don't say, and pretend to ignorance of facts (NIST's 236 steel samples) that we
already discussed.

You claim I lied 12 times. You can't show even one.

 
At 29 April, 2011 13:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's right, gay boi, attempt to cover your lies in gay squeal spam.

You fool no one, Pinocchio.

Pathetic.

 
At 29 April, 2011 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

When did I lie, ButtGoo?

You can't name one time.

And because you don't know the first thing about the construction of the WTC you can't explain why the claim that all 424,00 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized is absurd.

 
At 29 April, 2011 15:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

When do you lie? You constantly lie as anyone who reads this thread can readily determine.

Now stop squealing like a homo in heat and go play in the freeway, Pinocchio.

 
At 29 April, 2011 17:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can't name one time I lied.

 
At 30 April, 2011 01:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't have to name anything, gay boi. The truth is obvious to anyone who takes the time to read this thread. And truth is simple: You're a pathological liar who won't admit the truth even when caught red handed lying like a rug.

Conclusion: You're a psychopath.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home