Tuesday, June 07, 2011

Am I The Only One



To notice the incongruity in this ad, which starts out talking about "my husband, uncle, son," and ends with "Remember Building 7"?

195 Comments:

At 07 June, 2011 12:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation.

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Pat Cowardly & Brian,

What you two turds don't understand is that this isn't your blog. Pat has every right to ban the both of you if he so wishes it. All it takes is just one click and your asses are history. Stop hijacking the God damn threads with your idiotic obsessive bullshit.

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:13, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

What's the incongruity?
----------
What's with you obsessive behavior with people who don't agree with you?

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation.
----------
Brian, the only blatant dishonesty is coming for you, not anyone else. Please grow the fuck up and move on with life.

Back on topic: Truthers have a way of manipulating what people say. It's their way of saying: "I'm an idiot and an asshole!"

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:23, Blogger James B. said...

Uhh, yeah. Because the important thing isn't the victims, but pointless questions about a building collapse that nobody cares about and even the conspiracy theorists can't explain how it fits into their theory, except for the fact that they desperately need it to.

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Building 7 fell because it got hit by WTC1's collapse, which caused fires on multiple floors and also when both towers collasped they caused the lines for the fire hydrants to burst. Thus the firefighters couldn't do anything except watch it burn.

Truthers, like Pat Cowardly and especially Brian Good haven't figured out that WTC7 was only 400 feet from a 1,300 foot structure. Clearly both of them can't do the math

1,300 - 400 = (Do the math)

There's nothing "secret" about WTC7.

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

James and Pat,

It's obvious that "Pat Cowardly" and "snug.bug" are the same person (ie., Brian "goat fucker" Good). Notice the time stamp on the posts:

Pat Cowardly--12:00

snug.but--12:08

And you'll also notice that "Pat Cowardly" didn't reappear until Brian "goat fucker" Good was threatened with a ban. If you'll do a simple IP address check on both "Pat Cowardly" and "snug.bug," I'm 99.9% certain that you'll find both have the same source IP address.

If nothing else, you should remove their post's on sight. In other words, you should enforce a "zero tolerance" policy against them. The never ending thread hijacking has gone on LONG ENOUGH.

Have a little respect for the rest of us and get rid of them.

 
At 07 June, 2011 12:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm with GB on this one! Ban both accounts on the grounds of constant harassment.

 
At 07 June, 2011 13:24, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"What you two turds don't understand is that this isn't your blog. Pat has every right to ban the both of you if he so wishes it. All it takes is just one click and your asses are history. Stop hijacking the God damn threads with your idiotic obsessive bullshit." -AfraidOfTheAnswers

Try to stay on topic, asshole.

 
At 07 June, 2011 13:25, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Well building 7 kind of looks like a controlled demolition, and to people who don't know any better like truthers that equals a controlled demolition. To the informed and people who can think the comparison is silly. no one died in 7, 7 burned for hours and had this big gash in its one side. Stuff the average Joe would not know making them easier to sell tr1 snake oil.

Creationist do the same thing, they look for a wedge issue to sell to the public who done really understand the science. It use to be free-fall until debunkers proved they were wrong. The less you know about the facts of WTC7 the easier it is to make it look suspicious.

 
At 07 June, 2011 13:26, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"If you'll do a simple IP address check on both "Pat Cowardly" and "snug.bug," I'm 99.9% certain that you'll find both have the same source IP address." -GoiterBulge

Yeah, Pat. 8 minutes means EVERYTHING. Hurry up and do as GutterFuck says, so he can be proven wrong (again), and maybe that'll inspire him to stay on topic.

Hurry!

 
At 07 June, 2011 13:29, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's obvious that "Pat Cowardly" and "snug.bug" are the same person (ie., Brian "goat fucker" Good).

I've also noticed that their comments often arrive within a few minutes of each other. Plus both habitually use pet names and use consistent spelling and punctuation.

But back on topic: yes, the ad is asinine. Remember when 9/11 Truth was about justice for the victims? Now it's about a friggin' empty building.

 
At 07 June, 2011 13:32, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

It's remarkable how like creationist truthers really are, same religious fervor. Same tactics that involve asking questions but never providing verifiable proof, or ever solid logical arguments.

 
At 07 June, 2011 13:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

I have had people ask me about WTC7, and they often recite the conspiracy theorist talking points. "An airplane never hit it" When I educate them to the fact there were these huge fires with no water of firemen to fight them and the fact it was hit by something far bigger than a jet (WTC1) they say "Oh, I didn't know that" and accept the truth. Unless they have a conspiratorial agenda, then no amount of facts or logic can sway them from their truther religion.

 
At 07 June, 2011 14:03, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

OMG!!!1 RGT and Dave Shyte posted within 3 minutes of each other!! GutterBickle says they MUST BE THE SAME PERSON!!!

Ban them! Ban them all!!!

The horror. The horror...

 
At 07 June, 2011 14:07, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Brian, the only blatant dishonesty is coming for you, not anyone else. Please grow the fuck up and move on with life." -Chewy Defensive

Sounds like you can't respond to criticism of the NIST report either, boy.

Try to stay on topic, shitbag. This thread is about Pat's inability to understand the ad he linked to, and you're not helping him much.

 
At 07 June, 2011 15:08, Blogger Triterope said...

What's the incongruity?

Nobody died in Building 7, moron.

 
At 07 June, 2011 15:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Try to stay on topic, asshole.
-------

You want an asshole? You're the "ass" & Brian's the "hole".

 
At 07 June, 2011 15:19, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 June, 2011 15:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Sounds like you can't respond to criticism of the NIST report either, boy.
------------

Just by calling me "boy" sends a message about you. Are you a white supremist you racist prick?
----------
Try to stay on topic, shitbag. This thread is about Pat's inability to understand the ad he linked to, and you're not helping him much.
----------

What's there to understand? Oh I know what's to understand, it's people like you who love making a complete ass out of themselves and doing it on a blog so everyone can read your sad shit story of how 9/11 was an "Inside Job".

BTW douche, don't you know that your fucked up facts can't possibly match your so called evidence?

 
At 07 June, 2011 15:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Brian "goat fucker" Good wrote, "...What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation."

Says the thoroughly discredited failed janitor who wears women's underwear.

 
At 07 June, 2011 15:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Bill,

Actually Brian wears Depends while wearing womens underwear.

 
At 07 June, 2011 16:36, Blogger Ian said...

What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation.

The incongruity is that nobody cares about WTC 7. Hell, nobody had ever heard of it until 9/11, when the media told us for hours about how it was in danger of imminent collapse. I suppose that was part of the plan, too: Dick Cheney wanted the media talking about WTC 7 so that failed janitors who wear women's underwear would babble about it for a decade afterward.

 
At 07 June, 2011 16:39, Blogger Ian said...

Well building 7 kind of looks like a controlled demolition, and to people who don't know any better like truthers that equals a controlled demolition.

Right, because all the cameras were focused on it from the north, which was the undamaged side. We don't have many shots from the south, because, well, because any journalist who would put himself just south of that building...let's just say that Tim Hetherington (RIP) would have nothing on that guy.

We do have a few aerial shots of WTC from the southwest, which shows billowing smoke rising from the south side of the building. It's funny how Brian never talks about that....

 
At 07 June, 2011 16:44, Blogger Ian said...

FWIW, I don't think Brian and Pat Cowardly are the same person. They both have very particular obsessions and ways of writing. Pat Cowardly is obsessed with Pat Curley and wants to have his babies. Brian is obsessed with Willie Rodriguez and wants to have Rodriguez' babies.

 
At 07 June, 2011 16:58, Blogger paul w said...

The blatantly dishonest

Proof, please.

and unscientific investigation

Proof, please.

casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation

Only from truthers.

 
At 07 June, 2011 17:00, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"What's the incongruity? The blatantly dishonest and unscientific investigation of the destruction of Building 7 casts doubt on the validity and integrity of the entire investigation."

None of those people lost a loved one in WTC7, that's the incongruity. While sad, the fact that they lost loved ones on 9/11 doesn't mean that they know what they're talking about, nor does it justify wasting money on a new investigation that will only tell us what we already know.

If society starts catering to people with emotional or mental problems we're doomed.

 
At 07 June, 2011 17:59, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Sounds like you can't respond to criticism of the NIST report either, boy.

All criticism of the NIST report to date is based on bad science and delusion, and may be safely dismissed. There's no serious question that the report is both thorough and accurate.

 
At 07 June, 2011 18:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

FWIW, I don't think Brian and Pat Cowardly are the same person.

There are some similarities with snug, but Cowardly also sometimes resembles a guy at 911blogger named Robert Rice. For example, the oddball capitalization but otherwise good grammar.

 
At 07 June, 2011 20:01, Blogger Arcterus said...

I figured the incongruity was from the talk of victims even though nobody died at Building 7.

 
At 07 June, 2011 20:05, Blogger Triterope said...

We do have a few aerial shots of WTC from the southwest, which shows billowing smoke rising from the south side of the building.

Not to mention that whole southwest corner of the building is missing.

 
At 07 June, 2011 21:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

James B, if you go to RememberBuilding7.org you can see why Bob McIlvaine cares about Building 7.

 
At 07 June, 2011 22:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, if the whole SW corner of the building is missing, then how did Chief Hayden put a transit on it and find a bulge at floor 13?

 
At 07 June, 2011 22:36, Blogger James B. said...

"Because “pull” is a term used in the building demolition industry, "

Oh God, that site is filled with the same crap you idiots have been peddling for 10 years. Don't you people ever learn?

 
At 07 June, 2011 23:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

David Chandler forcing NIST to acknowledge 2.5 seconds of freefall collapse is new.

NIST removing the claim from their final report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" is new.

 
At 08 June, 2011 00:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

%^)

http://www.rense.com/general78/blt.htm

ROTFLMAO!

 
At 08 June, 2011 04:29, Blogger Ian said...

James B, if you go to RememberBuilding7.org you can see why Bob McIlvaine cares about Building 7.

Nobody cares.

TR, if the whole SW corner of the building is missing, then how did Chief Hayden put a transit on it and find a bulge at floor 13?

Because modified attack baboons were holding the building up.

David Chandler forcing NIST to acknowledge 2.5 seconds of freefall collapse is new.

NIST removing the claim from their final report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" is new.


And nobody cares.

 
At 08 June, 2011 04:34, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, would you care to tell us what you think caused WTC 7 to collapse? Also, why do you think the conspirators wanted to destroy it?

 
At 08 June, 2011 06:21, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, if the whole SW corner of the building is missing, then how did Chief Hayden put a transit on it and find a bulge at floor 13?

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 08 June, 2011 07:34, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Chief Hayden told of setting up transit in early afternoon - transit is positioned and locked on feature of the building such as a corner. In this case was
bulge in building on SW corner. Periodic observations were taken - by 2:30PM could see building was creeping or moving out out plumb.

So you have a 47 story building which is on fire and when it starts to lean and forms a bulge, It doesn’t take a genus to figure the thing may fall.

 
At 08 June, 2011 07:40, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

TR, if the whole SW corner of the building is missing, then how did Chief Hayden put a transit on it and find a bulge at floor 13?

Well because Brian has the IQ of 80 let me help him out. The corner of the building BELOW 13 was gone. What an idiot.

 
At 08 June, 2011 07:43, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Also, Brian, would you care to tell us what you think caused WTC 7 to collapse?

That would involve thinking a certain logical acuity, something retarded people never seem to have. Stupid people ask questions, smart people give proof.

 
At 08 June, 2011 07:55, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Silverstein was told by Nigro that "there are firemen in the building and I'm going to have to pull them out."

Apparently being complete idiots truthers don't understand what "Pull" means in terms of "pulling out".

 
At 08 June, 2011 16:03, Blogger Ian said...

Apparently being complete idiots truthers don't understand what "Pull" means in terms of "pulling out".

There's a joke about the inability of truthers to get laid in here somewhere....

 
At 08 June, 2011 19:47, Blogger Arcterus said...

I'm really shocked that the "pull it" argument is still used these days.

David Chandler forcing NIST to acknowledge 2.5 seconds of freefall collapse is new.

I think this is a great example of how desperate truthers can be to get information. What does 2.5 seconds of free fall do for you? What about the other seconds? How is that part consistent with controlled demolition? But a fraction of the collapse going down at free fall speed is supposed to be mind-blowing stuff? It doesn't mean anything.

The "flashes" argument is the same, when truthers try to counter the claim that a controlled demolition would have had flashes. So they pour over the video footage for light reflections and go "Look there! And there! See? Flashes!"

Anything that even remotely resembles evidence is used as an argument by you people. That's why you are incapable of being taken seriously.

 
At 08 June, 2011 19:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

David Chandler forcing NIST to acknowledge 2.5 seconds of freefall collapse is new.

I don't see how NIST was forced to do anything. It looked like a voluntary statement to me.

NIST removing the claim from their final report that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles" is new.

Are you really trying to suggest that NIST knowingly put forth a fraudulent report, but removed those four words because they didn't want to lie? You seem to lack the judgment of a mentally healthy adult.

 
At 08 June, 2011 23:18, Blogger paul w said...

The blatantly dishonest

Proof?

and unscientific investigation

Proof?

This is ther second time I have asked.

 
At 09 June, 2011 00:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Paul w, sorry, I can do no more than bumper stickers under current posting rules. How about you play 20 questions?

 
At 09 June, 2011 04:31, Blogger Ian said...

Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Wow. Just....wow.

Paul w, sorry, I can do no more than bumper stickers under current posting rules. How about you play 20 questions?

My, such squealing!

Brian, you're not allowed under current rules to babble endlessly about Willie Rodriguez or the "widows". You are perfectly within your rights to tell us why you think the NIST report removing a few words is significant.

Also, you still haven't told us what you think made WTC 7 collapse, and why the conspirators wanted that building destroyed.

 
At 09 June, 2011 05:57, Blogger paul w said...

Paul w, sorry, I can do no more than bumper stickers under current posting rules.


Bullshit.

Back up your comments or fuck off.

 
At 09 June, 2011 07:43, Blogger Triterope said...

I can do no more than bumper stickers under current posting rules.

And this would be different how?

 
At 09 June, 2011 08:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, my thoughts on the WTC7 collapse have nothing to do with whether it is incongruous that bereaved family members are concerned about Building 7.

The rules as I understand them are that y'all are permitted to say any kind of ignorant and erroneous nonsense you want, and I am not permitted to respond.

 
At 09 June, 2011 11:30, Blogger Triterope said...

You're allowed to respond, you whiny little shit, you just have to be on topic. I know it's a new concept for you, but do give it a try.

 
At 09 June, 2011 12:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics."

Nope.

First off there is no such thing as free-fall speed. There is terminal velocity. Second, the buldings collapse in no way violated Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics because it really doesn't apply:

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

It has to do with energy and heat was it relates to a system. It also says matter cannot be destroyed. "The internal energy of a closed system is equal to the heat added to the system minus the work done by the system" - that means that between the damage to the building combined with the raging fires put more strain on the supporting column than they could take.

You keep throwing around Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics like you know what you're talking about, but you leave out his second law which was written to fill in the hole of his first law by adding entropy. You ignore Newton's most important laws - gravitation:

Newton's 1st law of motion. A force causes a change in something's velocity (an acceleration).

In this case it was gravity itself that cause the building to fall as fast as it did.

Newton's third law of motion: for every action force ON an object, there is an equal but opposite force BY the object.

WTC7 is heavily damaged by tower collapse, fire rages inside for eight hours = This is (plus gravity) is the action force. The reaction? Building fall down go boom.

So once again you cite science that has nothing to do with the event ( in this case Netwon's 1st Law of Thermodynamics) and ignore the larger body of the same science that was used to correctly explain the collapses of all three buildings at the WTC complex.

You are so lost, Brian. Sek help.

 
At 09 June, 2011 13:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've already explained the 2.5 seconds of "free fall" (the real term is gravitational acceleration). Building 7 had a multi-story open atrium between floors 1 and 5. And I quote:

"...WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels." -- Dan Nigro

http://sites.google.com/site/911guide/danielnigro

A glance at a schematic of building 7 proves the multi-story atrium comprised the entrance to the building (from the ground to the fifth floor).

Thus, the building fell through the atrium at gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds as a result of the failure of the critical column, column 79A, and when that portion of the collapse was complete the building met plenty of resistance.

There's no mystery why the building experienced 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration. What we're witnessing here is the goat fucker and his number 1 propaganda technique: When his lies and propaganda are debunked, he slithers back into his basement and returns a few weeks later to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

Ban the bastard, once and for all.

 
At 09 June, 2011 13:40, Blogger Triterope said...

whether it is incongruous that bereaved family members are concerned about Building 7.

Nobody died in Building 7, moron.

 
At 09 June, 2011 15:37, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, my thoughts on the WTC7 collapse have nothing to do with whether it is incongruous that bereaved family members are concerned about Building 7.

So you're not going to tell us what you think happened, huh? I guess you're too scared of being laughed at again.

The rules as I understand them are that y'all are permitted to say any kind of ignorant and erroneous nonsense you want, and I am not permitted to respond.

Well, this would be yet another thing you don't understand, just like, well, everything else in life.

Brian, you're not allowed to post endless spam about Willie Rodriguez and "widows" and the like. You're supposed to post about the topic. Well, the topic here is WTC 7, so please, tell us why WTC 7 came down, and why the conspirators felt it necessary to destroy the building.

 
At 09 June, 2011 15:47, Blogger Ian said...

BTW, thanks M. Gregory Ferris, for explaining the 1st Law of Thermodynamics to Brian. I had to catch the bus this morning and didn't have time to do it.

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Newton's 1st law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics are two different things. Try again.

GutterBall, you should write to NIST with your theory that the building fell through the atrium. That is not what the NIST report says.

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous.

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:10, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, Newton's 1st law and the 1st Law of Thermodynamics are two different things. Try again.

Brian, you're the one who hilariously posted this:

"Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics."

Remember?

The fact that you don't understand the first thing about physics goes a long way toward explaining why you're so confused about 9/11, and also why you lacked the basic intelligence necessary to be a successful janitor.

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:14, Blogger Ian said...

GutterBall, you should write to NIST with your theory that the building fell through the atrium. That is not what the NIST report says.

Nobody cares.

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous.

Brian, there are no family members of people who died in WTC 7 because, um, nobody died in WTC. You're not very bright, are you?

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:18, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, you're not allowed to post endless spam about Willie Rodriguez and "widows" and the like. You're supposed to post about the topic.

And I think it's fair to say that reasonable topical drift is allowed.

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:19, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous.

Nobody died in Building 7, moron.

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, you should write to NIST with your theory that the building fell through the atrium."

What "theory", ass face? That building 7 had a five story tall atrium isn't a "theory," and I just supplied expert testimony from Dan Nigro to support the claim. There's no question that the building fell for five stories through nothing but air, so it should surprise no one--with the exception of an idiot--that building achieved gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds.

So what's your excuse, idiot?

 
At 09 June, 2011 16:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are only pretending that I am wrong, and the fact that you missed MGF's ignorant conflation of the two first laws shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Free-fall collapse for any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous. The dishonest, incomplete, unscientific, and unbelievable nature of NIST's WTC7 report casts doubt on all of the other 9/11 investigations.

GutterBall, that the building had an atrium is a fact, and only you are mistaking it for a theory. Your theory that the building fell through the atrium, causing the freefall collapse, is entirely evidence-free, and contradicts NIST's theory.

My excuse is that I have studied the issue and you have not.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, scumbag?

There was no "free fall collapse," and if you had even the faintest knowledge of physics--and you don't--you'd know that "free fall" was never achieved.

In fact, you're lying again, because the NIST Report doesn't explain why the building reached gravitational acceleration for 2.5 seconds.

And why should anyone believe the lies of a self-admitted "propagandist"?

"...I think I'll stick to diplomacy, propaganda, and civil confrontation, thank you. It seems to have worked in isolating Barrett and Ranke." -- Brian "goat fucker" Good posting under his latest sock puppet handle, "truebeleaguer."

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7149&start=30

You haven't "studied" anything. You're a shameless liar and propagandist who wears women's underwear.

So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA? You aren't getting the money from social security, and your mother doesn't live with you. So who pays your bills and buys your food, goat fucker? You sure as Hell aren't living off the "savings" of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear? Let me guess, the same group who pays "Cosmos," "Jon Gold," "Woolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you are only pretending that I am wrong, and the fact that you missed MGF's ignorant conflation of the two first laws shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Free-fall collapse for any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Poor Brian, he's been exposed as an ignorant liar, and all he can do is post dumbspam like this and insist that he's right. That's why he's a failed janitor instead of the chair of the physics department at Stanford.

TR, the fact that no one died in WTC7 does not make the family members' interest in it incongruous. The dishonest, incomplete, unscientific, and unbelievable nature of NIST's WTC7 report casts doubt on all of the other 9/11 investigations.

What's dishonest, incomplete, unscientific, and unbelievable about it?

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:11, Blogger Ian said...

GutterBall, that the building had an atrium is a fact, and only you are mistaking it for a theory. Your theory that the building fell through the atrium, causing the freefall collapse, is entirely evidence-free, and contradicts NIST's theory.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian has been pwn3d again, and all he can do is post dumbspam. It's sad, really.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:13, Blogger Ian said...

So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA?

Trust fund? Brian is probably the shiftless loser son of rich people who lives off of his parents' success. He's like Donald Trump, except with worse hair.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you don't know what you're talking about. NIST has acknowledged that WTC7's collapse included 2.5 seconds of freefall.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, scumbag? No, NIST did no such thing.

NIST acknowledged "2.5 second of gravitational acceleration," not "free fall"--you scurrilous liar. And NIST never explained the 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration (because the reason is obvious to anyone with an IQ in excess of room temperature, which always excludes the goat fucker).

Answer the question, goat fucker: So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA? You aren't getting the money from social security, and your mother doesn't live with you. So who pays your bills and buys your food, goat fucker? You sure as Hell aren't living off the "savings" of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. Let me guess, the same group who pays "Cosmos," "Jon Gold," "Woolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

You're as compromised as the day is long, goat fucker. So who pays you to spend 18 hours per day on-line, while you lie like a rug, goat fucker?

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gravitational acceleration is free fall. You seem to be dumb enough to think that if you are abusive enough while admitting that I was right and you were wrong, that nobody will notice that I was right and you were wrong.

You don't know what you're talking about. According to NIST's model the interior of the building already fell into the atrium several seconds before the freefall phase began.

What you're proposing is completely outside of the realm of NIST's theory, and it's one that NIST will never even consider because it implies engineering design defects.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:55, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, free-fall collapse over any time period violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

No it doesn't, you retard. What the fuck are you talking about?

First of all, if this was true. Free-fall would not be possible EVEN WITH controlled demolition. We'd be talking about something along the same lines as perpetual motion.

But to address your point, the 1st law of thermodynamics addresses conservation of energy. Energy can be manipulated and redirected, but it's quantity can not increase nor decrease. You are telling me that the fact that something can hit terminal velocity violates that principal?

If the internal structure broke down before the outside, then yes, it might indeed go free-fall momentarily. Once it catches up with more of the structure, however, there would be resistance, and it would slow down. This would explain why there are only 2.5 seconds of free fall speed. So far, I don't see the violation.

But returning to my earlier point, if free-fall speed violates the first law of thermodynamics, then it is impossible, and you must admit three things:

A) The measurement of 2.5 seconds at terminal velocity is an error of some sort and NIST was mistaken for admitting it's legitimacy in the first place.

(Not even getting into the discussion of whether or not NIST actually admitted this.)

B) That this has nothing to do with controlled demolition and is irrelevant to your cause anyway.

C) That you are a retard.

Prove this violation, and then admit these 3 things.

 
At 09 June, 2011 17:59, Blogger Ian said...

Gravitational acceleration is free fall.

Wow. Just....wow.

You seem to be dumb enough to think that if you are abusive enough while admitting that I was right and you were wrong, that nobody will notice that I was right and you were wrong.

Brian, when were you right? So far, all you've done is show how ridiculously ignorant you are, with your howlers about the 1st law of thermodynamics, and now this.

 
At 09 June, 2011 18:01, Blogger Ian said...

According to NIST's model the interior of the building already fell into the atrium several seconds before the freefall phase began.

Nobody cares.

What you're proposing is completely outside of the realm of NIST's theory, and it's one that NIST will never even consider because it implies engineering design defects.

False.

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

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 09 June, 2011 18:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

False. You're lying and misrepresenting the content of the NIST report. Why? Because there's no way that the failure of one column completely filled the atrium with debris. The building reached its 2.5 second of gravitational acceleration between t = 1.75 and t= 4.0 seconds after the North wall began its decent. There's not one shred of evidence to support your lies, goat fucker.

Once again, we can see that you're misrepresenting your source.

Now stop the STONEWALLING and answer the question, goat fucker: So how do you manage to afford an apartment in Palo Alto, CA? You aren't getting the money from social security, and your mother doesn't live with you. So who pays your bills and buys your food, goat fucker? You sure as Hell aren't living off the "savings" of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear. Let me guess, the same group who pays "Cosmos," "Jon Gold," "Woolsey," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

So who pays you to spend 18 hours per day on-line, while you lie like a rug, goat fucker? Who puts food in your gullet, goat fucker

 
At 09 June, 2011 18:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE GOAT FUCKER ADMITS THAT HE'S A "PROPAGANDIST."

And I quote:

"...I think I'll stick to diplomacy, propaganda, and civil confrontation, thank you. It seems to have worked in isolating Barrett and Ranke." -- Brian "goat fucker" Good posting under his latest sock puppet handle, "truebeleaguer."

http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7149&start=30

Make no mistake, goat fucker. You can run, but you can't hide.

 
At 09 June, 2011 18:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

LET THE RECORD ALSO SHOW THAT THE GOAT FUCKER DOESN'T UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SPEED AND ACCELERATION.

Since he's an admitted propagandist, he deliberately blurs the concept of a vector for his own self-serving lies.

 
At 10 June, 2011 01:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 June, 2011 02:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, where do you get the idea that freefall is not permitted by controlled demolition? NIST said that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder said the same thing to NOVA.

Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance. This may be the case when 120,000 tons of debris are hammering on 30,000 tons of structure, but not until then.

How can you so confidently opine that the building "might indeed go freefall momentarily"? What is your authority for this?

Free-fall collapse is not impossible if the resistance has been removed by demolition.

Ian, again you are only making empty claims that I am wrong.

UtterFail, NIST claims that the failure of one column resulted in a chain reaction by which the entire interior of the building fell down, leaving the shell standing, which then fell in 6.5 seconds. Your time scale is all wet because it leaves out the collapse of the west penthouse.

My finances are none of your business. I will say that for many years I worked so much overtime that I never had any time to spend my money, and I then invested quite shrewdly if I do say so myself.

I understand the difference between speed and acceleration just fine. I said "freefall collapse".

 
At 10 June, 2011 04:35, Blogger Ian said...

NIST said that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder said the same thing to NOVA.

False.

Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance. This may be the case when 120,000 tons of debris are hammering on 30,000 tons of structure, but not until then.

And now Brian gets "terminal velocity" exactly backwards. It's just amazing to me how dumb you are, Brian. This is basic high school physics that you're screwing up in this thread.

 
At 10 June, 2011 04:39, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, again you are only making empty claims that I am wrong.

If you're not wrong, how come you can't get a new investigation?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!

My finances are none of your business. I will say that for many years I worked so much overtime that I never had any time to spend my money, and I then invested quite shrewdly if I do say so myself.

Please, Brian. We all know you are a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in modified attack baboons and magic thermite elves. Your idea of a shrewd investment is a 3-card Monty table. You need your parents to support you.

I understand the difference between speed and acceleration just fine.

No you don't. You just demonstrated that you don't understand this earlier in the post. Learn to read.

 
At 10 June, 2011 07:21, Blogger Triterope said...

I will say that for many years I worked so much overtime that I never had any time to spend my money, and I then invested quite shrewdly if I do say so myself.

Sure, Brian. You got one of those super-lucrative hourly wage jobs. As opposed to these salaried or commission-based jobs that we lesser professionals have to take.

Then you worked enough overtime (to which you apparently had unlimited access) to retire in your early 50s on "investments", even though the Dow lost half its value in 18 months and hasn't recovered all of it yet. Oh, and you live in one of the most expensive cities in the world.

Again, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, when what you're talking about is the life of an ordinary educated, professional adult.

 
At 10 June, 2011 08:13, Blogger sabba said...

I could post alot about Brian's finances and prove again he is a liar, but it will derail the thread as he always wants to do. I will keep that for a future ocassion seem fit to expose the chicken shit, debate dodger, Bitch.

 
At 10 June, 2011 08:22, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance. This may be the case when 120,000 tons of debris are hammering on 30,000 tons of structure, but not until then."

Absolutly wrong.

Terminal velocity only exists in the presence of resistance, otherwise acceleration continues unopposed. In the usual meaning of the word, it is the speed at which air resistance equals gravitational acceleration. Other velocities are "terminal" when resistors other than air and/or accelerators other than gravity are involved.

 
At 10 June, 2011 09:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Arcterus, where do you get the idea that freefall is not permitted by controlled demolition? NIST said that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall" and Dr. Sunder said the same thing to NOVA."

Dr. Sunder makes the 'free-fall" referrence as he's talking about the Twin Towers, not WTC7. He uses the phrase because the interviewer uses it in his question.

Dr. Sunder also effectively explains why the buildings fell the way they did, a fact you always leave out.

Yet again you cite a source that undermines your theory - with facts no less.

"Gravitational acceleration is free fall."

Oh good lord. No, Brian, no it's not. Acceleration is acceleration. The terminal velocity of WTC7 would be in the thousands of miles per hour. Had any of the WTC building reached their terminal velocity they would have broken the sound barrier.

That's how normel people can tell you're full of shit.

 
At 10 June, 2011 10:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The only thing that's 2.5 seconds of free fall is when Brian takes a shit.

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

Ian, that your colleagues on this board fail to repudiate your continues empty and false declarations of victory contaminates them with your dishonesty.

JR, I thought we were referring to terminal velocity in terms of freefall with only air resistance. Since air resistance is negligible in this case, here it's a meaningless trope. Do you believe that it's appropriate to apply the principles of fluid mechanics to describe building debris falling through the undamaged lower part of the building?

MGF, the interviewer asked generally about the speed with which the buildings fell. It was Dr. Sunder who initiated the discussion of free fall. He volunteered: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

The fact that the buildings are mostly air does not exempt them from the laws of physics.

Free fall is an acceleration of 32 feet/sec/sec. You'd better take your Newtonian physics class over again 'cause you obviously didn't get it.

As to the velocity of WTC7, you'd better brush up on your falling bodies equations. Instantaneous velocity after a 600 foot fall would be 133 mph.

 
At 10 June, 2011 12:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that your colleagues on this board fail to repudiate your continues empty and false declarations of victory contaminates them with your dishonesty.

As usual, Brian just posts dumbspam with lots of big words when he's been pwn3d.

Brian, I don't have "colleagues" here. I don't know anyone else who posts here. The only thing we have in common is that we're normal people who are fascinated/amused by your insanity.

 
At 10 June, 2011 12:27, Blogger Ian said...

JR, I thought we were referring to terminal velocity in terms of freefall with only air resistance. Since air resistance is negligible in this case, here it's a meaningless trope. Do you believe that it's appropriate to apply the principles of fluid mechanics to describe building debris falling through the undamaged lower part of the building?

Brian, you should really release a video series explaining the laws of physics in the universe you live in. Certainly, you don't inhabit the same universe the rest of us do.

 
At 10 June, 2011 12:29, Blogger Ian said...

It was Dr. Sunder who initiated the discussion of free fall. He volunteered: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds.... It essentially came down in free fall."

Stop lying, Brian.

The fact that the buildings are mostly air does not exempt them from the laws of physics.

Right, which is why you should learn something about those laws before you babble about them, unless your goal is to make us all laugh at your amazing ignorance and stupidity.

Free fall is an acceleration of 32 feet/sec/sec. You'd better take your Newtonian physics class over again 'cause you obviously didn't get it.

Nobody cares.

As to the velocity of WTC7, you'd better brush up on your falling bodies equations. Instantaneous velocity after a 600 foot fall would be 133 mph.

Once again, nobody cares.

 
At 10 June, 2011 12:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry to use pretentious big words I don't understand. Obviously I meant "refudiate".

 
At 10 June, 2011 12:51, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, I thought we were referring to terminal velocity in terms of freefall with only air resistance. Since air resistance is negligible in this case, here it's a meaningless trope. Do you believe that it's appropriate to apply the principles of fluid mechanics to describe building debris falling through the undamaged lower part of the building?"

What part of that supports your absolutely ridiculous claim that "Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance"?

That is a statement that is completely the opposite of the physical reality of the phenomena of "terminal velocity". Terminal velocity only exists in the presence of resistance.

Your argument fails as soon as you make the assertion you did. The statement would have gotten you laughed out of a high school physics class.

 
At 10 June, 2011 12:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't introduce the "terminal velocity" phrase. MGF did, and Arcterus ignorantly picked up in it, and rather than indulge in pedantry about an irrelevance I went along with their vocabulary, since obviously what they meant by "terminal velocity" was free-fall acceleration in air.

You are trying to beat me over the head with their ignorance.

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:14, Blogger J Rebori said...

No one else made the statement that terminal velocity only happens in the absence of reistance. Anyone who attended high school physics would know that is the exact opposite of reality.

I'm beating you over the head with your usual inabililty to use words properly,and with the sloppy thinking that goes along with that.

Oh yeah, that and your inability to admit to even a simple error.

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

In the context of a falling building, gravitational acceleration happens only in the absence of resistance. As I explained, MGF and Arcterus were obviously using "terminal velocity" to mean "gravitational acceleration". The error that so alarms you was theirs, not mine, and I went along with their vocabulary to avoid bogging the discussion down in obfuscatory nit-picking.

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:36, Blogger J Rebori said...

Neither of them claimed that terminal velocity occurs in the absence of resistance.

Why can't you admit you were wrong?

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:40, Blogger Arcterus said...

"Arcterus, where do you get the idea that freefall is not permitted by controlled demolition?"

Your words, not mine, dipshit. You're the one who said free-fall violates the first law of thermodynamics. That would make it IMPOSSIBLE. If you meant to say that it violates that law in this certain circumstance, you should have said that. It would still be retarded, but you should have said that anyway.

"I didn't introduce the "terminal velocity" phrase. MGF did, and Arcterus ignorantly picked up in it"

I used both terms interchangeably. I didn't say something stupid like "terminal velocity only happens when there's no resistance".

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, for someone as bright as you to pick up the rhetorical habits of this bunch of nit-wits here would be unfortunate.

NIST's claim that the buildings can come down "essentially in free fall" without demolition violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Demolition removes the structural resistance of the building to collapse, and then you approach free fall or, speaking loosely, "terminal velocity".

Air resistance in the case of a collapsing building is negligible. We're not talking about 200,000 tons of feathers here, OK?

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:55, Blogger Triterope said...

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 10 June, 2011 13:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You guys just don't understand how Goatfuckerian "logic" works. You see, when the goat fucker is wrong, that's proof that we're "nit-wits."

Got it?

%^)

 
At 10 June, 2011 14:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, when you're wrong again and again and again and again, and then you claim that I'm wrong when I'm not, that makes you nit-wits.

 
At 10 June, 2011 14:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I use terminal velocity because it is the correct expression for an object achieving maximum velocity as it falls through space powered only by gravity.

Free-Fall-Speed is mostly a troofer word that has no place in scientific debate. With Free-Fall Speed as used instead of terminal velocity troofers can sound authoritative as if they know what they're talking about. If you only use the phrase terminal velocity it introduces an problem from troofers because then the buildings didn't fall suspiciously fast, and in fact they fell about as fast as you'd expect damaged buildings with their construction to fall.

I understand this principle, I could be a Navy SEAL if I could make up my own rules for what it takes to be a Navy SEAL. Unfortunately if I want to be an actual Navy SEAL I have to...you know...join the Navy and go to selection and actually pass BUD/S.

Anyway, keep on trying, Brian, maybe they'll let you sit at the grown up table someday.

 
At 10 June, 2011 14:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You've never proven me wrong, goat fucker.

Creating a caricature of my argument and then attacking the straw man you created isn't proof of anything--with the exception of your boundless dishonesty.

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

In fact, you remain an idiot who doesn't know the difference between speed and acceleration. But don't get butt hurt, goat fucker, because ignorance and dishonesty is common among self-proclaimed 9/11 "truthers."

 
At 10 June, 2011 14:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Oh, and just for fun NASA has a terminal velocity calculator:

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/k-12/airplane/termv.html

Maybe someone can calculate how fast WTC7's termal velocity is. I suspect it is much faster than the speed it was clocked at.

 
At 10 June, 2011 14:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Maybe someone can calculate how fast WTC7's termal velocity is."

I'd do the calculation, but any answer would be based on speculation because I don't know the total mass of the building. In any case, terminal velocity for a falling object is achieved when net force on the object is zero (f^d - f^g = 0, where g = 0).

 
At 10 June, 2011 14:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's really a hoot when you guys try to be smart.

 
At 10 June, 2011 15:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Says the failed janitor who wears women's underwear.

 
At 10 June, 2011 16:51, Blogger J Rebori said...

Still can't bring yourself to admit your definition of terminal velocity is completely wrong?

 
At 10 June, 2011 17:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

J Rebori, of course it's wrong. It was MGF's error and I simply failed to correct it because the issue of air resistance is irrelevant to a building collapse.

 
At 10 June, 2011 18:31, Blogger J Rebori said...

Point out to me exactly where MGF made the statement "Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance."

No one said that but you, you were completely in error with that statement and rather than admit it you are attempting to blame everyone else for it.

You said "something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance" A statement that shows the person making it has zero understanding of a very basic physics concept.

Your error, and as we have seen in the past, your total inabillity to admit it.

 
At 10 June, 2011 18:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, "terminal velocity" is completely irrelevant to the issues. When MGF brought it up, it was in the context of his ignorant conflation of Newton's first law and the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The difference between "terminal velocity" and "gravitational acceleration" is simply a matter of air resistance--beyond trivial. You are only raising obfuscatory confusion.

 
At 10 June, 2011 18:54, Blogger J Rebori said...

Bullshit.

You made the statement, no one else did. If they did, quote them.

You made the absurd claim, and now as so often before you can not admit to it.

All you are doing is proving what so many already know. You do not understand what you are talking about and you would rather spin away any credibility you had than admit to any error at all.

All you have to do is say "I was in error when I claimed that something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance."

But I believe you are incapable of making that admission.

 
At 10 June, 2011 19:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, the difference between freefall acceleration with air resistance and freefall acceleration without it in the context of a building collapse is of interest only to a pedant who is trying to obfuscate the ignorance both of the facts and of physics displayed by Arcterus and MGF.

I was simply using the phrase "terminal velocity" in the sense that MGF and Arcterus were using it (as a synonym for freefall), and was doing so only to avoid the meaningless quibble that you are trying make a mountain of.

 
At 10 June, 2011 19:37, Blogger J Rebori said...

Bullshit.

You specifically claimed that terminal velocity could only occur when there is no resistance.

NO ONE else made that statement.

It isn't pedantry to point out that your claim is completely inaccurate and goes against all our understandings of physics at the most basic level. That is simply seeking to showcase the truth, as opposed to your delusions.

Of course now we see your typical claim when proven wrong, that you aren't wrong and even if you are it isn't relevant.

You said it, you made it relevant.

 
At 10 June, 2011 19:50, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, when you're wrong again and again and again and again, and then you claim that I'm wrong when I'm not, that makes you nit-wits.

My, such squealing!

Hey Brian, if we're wrong, how come you can't get the widows questions answered? HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 10 June, 2011 19:53, Blogger Ian said...

So to sum up this thread:

1: Brian Good, the failed janitor and liar who wears women's underwear and was expelled from the truth movement, makes a bunch of hilariously wrong statements about physics.

2: A bunch of sane people laugh at him.

3: Brian posts a bunch of dumbspam blaming other people for the idiocy he posted.

Yeah, that's about par for the course with Brian. That's why he's a failed janitor with no friends, no family, and nothing to live for but his 9/11 truth fantasies.

 
At 10 June, 2011 20:03, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 June, 2011 20:08, Blogger paul w said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 June, 2011 20:10, Blogger paul w said...

The blatantly dishonest

Proof?

and unscientific investigation

Proof?

This is the third time I have asked, and well within the Brain's blogging rules, and his answer is...



* crickets*












*crickets*














*crickets*









Brian is obviously an 'unusual' person, but he is a typical truther.

 
At 10 June, 2011 20:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Let the squealing begin.

%^)

 
At 10 June, 2011 21:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I have learned that:

Brian doesn't understand Newton on any level.

Brian doesn't understand that Thermodynamics (the transfer of heat into energy) has nothing to do with any of the collapses save the impact of the jets into the towers (then yes, thermodynamics plays a big part). He cites the 1st law, but doesn't understand that the second law was added to address the gaping hole of the first law, not that the second law has anything to do with the collapses either.

We have also learned that Brian can't read in such a way as to apply what he reads to anything important. He will cite reports that undermine whatever claim he is trying to support with his link.

Oh, and he has no proof of any kind other than his misinterpretation of video footage.

 
At 12 June, 2011 10:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, all I did was fail to point out that MGF and Arcterus's invocation of "terminal velocity" as if it were a synonym of "freefall" was ignorant. I wished to avoid the kind of pedantry that infests this board and for the purpose of argument I adopted their terminology.

Ian, obviously we can't get the widows' questions answered because we're right.

Paul w, NIST's investigations are dishonest because they pretend evidence doesn't exist, they ignore essential issues and fail to pursue obvious lines of inquiry, they reverse-engineer their data points, and their perfunctory examination of the explosive/incendiary hypothesis was perfunctory and clearly aimed at a predetermined conclusion.

Their reports are unscientific for the reasons above.

MGF, your belief that the 1st law of thermodynamics is limited to heat and has nothing to do with work suggests to me that you never had freshman physics or you need to take it over. Heat doesn't transfer into energy--heat IS energy.

Pray tell, what "gaping hole" in the 1st law does the 2d law address?

The 2d law raises questions in terms of the extremely orderly nature of "collapses" that were allegedly incited by disorderly impacts and fires.

 
At 12 June, 2011 15:34, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian doesn't understand Newton on any level.

Brian doesn't understand anything on any level.

When challenged on any point, he will immediately run to Google and put together some response that sounds like Wikipedia threw up. Then when other people try to explain what he got wrong, he goes into his 'pearls before swine' act.

Brian's actually a good bullshit artist. His arguments sound convincing if you know nothing about the subject. But anyone with the tiniest depth of knowledge -- say, they read a book, or took an introductory college course -- can easily illustrate Brian's errors. As we have seen many times on this thread alone.

What makes Brian interesting in this regard is his relentlessness. He'll pretend to be an expert in absolutely everything: physics, avionics, metallurgy, music theory, mass media, military procedure, whatever the thread calls for.

Better liars than Brian know how to pick their spots, and know how to gracefully back off when they run into someone who can expose them.

 
At 12 June, 2011 16:31, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, all I did was fail to point out that MGF and Arcterus's invocation of "terminal velocity" as if it were a synonym of "freefall" was ignorant. I wished to avoid the kind of pedantry that infests this board and for the purpose of argument I adopted their terminology."

Please give the exact quote where anyone but you claimed that "terminal velocity", a phenomena absolutly dependant on the presence of some reisitance, can only exist in the absence of resistance.

No one but you made that absurd claim, and with your usual utter disregard for truth and honesty you try to spin away the evidence of your own error and instead blame it on anyone else.

You are a contemptible liar and craven.

 
At 12 June, 2011 17:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, obviously we can't get the widows' questions answered because we're right.

False. You can't get the widows questions answered because nobody cares about the widows or their questions.

MGF, your belief that the 1st law of thermodynamics is limited to heat and has nothing to do with work suggests to me that you never had freshman physics or you need to take it over. Heat doesn't transfer into energy--heat IS energy.

It's amazing to me that you're really dumb enough to keep at this Brian. If you're right about physics and everyone else is wrong, how come you're an unemployed janitor and not the chair of the physics department at Stanford?

 
At 12 June, 2011 17:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, you are framing the issue dishonestly. Both MGF and Arcterus ignorantly used the term "terminal velocity" as a synonym for freefall in the context of building collapses, and rather than quibble about their faulty vocabulary I simply employed it for the sake of argument.

Since the difference between freefall and terminal velocity in the context of building collapses is not just trivial or negligible but infinitessimal, only the desperately pedantic would bring the point up at all. So I didn't.

 
At 12 June, 2011 17:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I'll take your post as an acknoweldgment that you can't refute any of my points, and so must resort to a generalized attack. I don't pretend to be an expert in anything except that I have studied the destruction of the World Trade Center more than most people in the world. I don't need to be an expert to point out the obvious dishonesty and incomplete and unbelievable nature of the NIST reports.

 
At 12 June, 2011 17:57, Blogger J Rebori said...

Snug.bug, the dishonesty is clearly reviewable and clearly yours.

No one but you made the absurd claim that terminal velocity only occurs in the absence of velocity.

You chose those words, no one else.

If it wasn't what you meant, you shouldn't have said it.

When confronted with having said something in error, normal rational people who believe in the pursuit of truth admit thier error.

It is telling that each time you are shown your errors you attempt to push them off on others, or deny you made them.

As I said, you are a despicable liar and a craven.

 
At 12 June, 2011 18:49, Blogger Ian said...

TR, I'll take your post as an acknoweldgment that you can't refute any of my points, and so must resort to a generalized attack.

Brian, you don't have any points. You posted a bunch of nonsense making it clear that you understand nothing of physics, and you've been trying to cover it up with dumbspam ever since.

I don't pretend to be an expert in anything except that I have studied the destruction of the World Trade Center more than most people in the world.

Brian, watching youtube videos over and over again while sniffing glue is not "studying".

I suppose you've looked into the destruction of the WTC more than, say, a Masai tribesman from Kenya, but since you've drawn all the wrong conclusions from what you've seen, said tribesman is, by default, better educated on the subject than you are.

 
At 12 June, 2011 18:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, in the context of a building collapse the difference between terminal velocity and freefall is of interest only to a desperate pedant like yourself who is only mad at me because I have humiliated him so many times on this board, showing that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

What I said, that something can reach freefall only when there is no resistance, was true. Have you calculated exactly how many picoseconds the effect of air resistance would impose on WTC collapse times? If not, then what are you quibbling about?

If you want to argue about truth why don't you ask Shyam Sunder why he told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" if it wasn't true.

 
At 12 June, 2011 18:51, Blogger Ian said...

I don't need to be an expert to point out the obvious dishonesty and incomplete and unbelievable nature of the NIST reports.

See what I mean?

Brian, do you care to present evidence of the dishonesty or how the NIST report is unbelievable? Can you tell us what you think brought down WTC 7 and why the conspirators did it? We keep asking but you won't answer these questions.

 
At 12 June, 2011 18:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at Ian, doing what he does best--trying to spread ignorance.

 
At 12 June, 2011 18:53, Blogger Ian said...

What I said, that something can reach freefall only when there is no resistance, was true.

False.

If you want to argue about truth why don't you ask Shyam Sunder why he told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds" if it wasn't true.

He did no such thing, Brian. I don't think he'd appreciate you lying about him.

 
At 12 June, 2011 18:55, Blogger Ian said...

Look at Ian, doing what he does best--trying to spread ignorance.

My, such squealing!

Brian, I take it you won't answer our questions, since you keep burying them in squealspam. Oh well, nobody really cares, since we just keep you around to laugh at you.

 
At 12 June, 2011 19:02, Blogger J Rebori said...

"What I said, that something can reach freefall only when there is no resistance, was true."

Liar.

That isn't what you said. You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference. You again show how little you care for actual truth or accuracy.

If you lying to yourself about who has proven who wrong on this site helps you sleep at night, go ahead. Anyone wishing to actually read the discussions can decide for themselves, and I'm happy to leave that in thier hands.

 
At 12 June, 2011 19:14, Blogger J Rebori said...

The word "difference" in the above comment should have been the word "resistance:

 
At 12 June, 2011 19:35, Blogger Triterope said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12 June, 2011 19:39, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I'll take your post as an acknoweldgment that you can't refute any of my points, and so must resort to a generalized attack.

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 12 June, 2011 19:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian wrote, "...Brian, watching youtube videos over and over again while sniffing glue is not 'studying'."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 12 June, 2011 20:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh that's rich, JR. Come on now, did you or did you not say "You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference." I said nothing of the sort. Are you going to strand by your statement or not? Don't lie about it, now.

 
At 12 June, 2011 20:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I'll take "STFU" as an acknowledgement that you can't refute my points.

 
At 12 June, 2011 20:06, Blogger Ian said...

TR, I'll take "STFU" as an acknowledgement that you can't refute my points.

What points? You're just posting dumbspam to try to cover up all your posts about physics that demonstrate how much of an ignorant liar you are.

 
At 12 June, 2011 20:08, Blogger Ian said...

Oh that's rich, JR. Come on now, did you or did you not say "You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference." I said nothing of the sort. Are you going to strand by your statement or not? Don't lie about it, now.

Brian, this dumbspam isn't going to get you a new investigation. Try making sense with your posts.

 
At 12 June, 2011 20:28, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Oh that's rich, JR. Come on now, did you or did you not say "You said that something can only reach terminal velocity when there is no difference." I said nothing of the sort. Are you going to strand by your statement or not? Don't lie about it, now.

That is know as realizing you missed something during proofreading and correcting it when you see it. Notice that I didn't wait and hope no one spotted it, I didn't claim it was someone elses fault that I typed the wrong word, nor did I try to claim it was something other than an error on my part.

That is what an adult does. Admit the error and correct it without drama and lies. It's called honesty.

Take notes.

 
At 12 June, 2011 20:31, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I'll take "STFU" as an acknowledgement that you can't refute my points.

Yes, I'm sure you will. You have a long history of taking things the way you want to, rather than what they are. But shut the fuck up anyway.

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

JR, I admitted that it was, technically, wrong to say "Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance." Since MGF and Arcterus introduced the term, and we were talking about building resistance at the time and not air resistance, I wished to avoid a pedantic and irrelevant distinction of which you wish to make a federal case. Kindly calculate the number of picoseconds you think that air resistance would add to the duration of collapse of a building.

TR, you have a long history of making empty claims. If I am wrong to believe that you can't refute my points, kindly refute them.

 
At 13 June, 2011 11:08, Blogger J Rebori said...

It is not "technically" wrong.

It is completely wrong. Regardless of the type of resistance, structural, air, or any other form, nothing has a terminal velocity unless there is some form of resistance.

It shows an utter lack of understanding of the concept. And the continued denials of that fact show an utter disregard for truth. As you demonstrate once again, it isn't the crime, or in this case the error, but the attempted cover up that actually exposes you.

 
At 13 June, 2011 12:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, are you maintaining that a 15-story building falling through a 90-story building is a matter of fluid mechanics? Are you maintaining that the lower 90 stories were built of fluid or air?

MGF and Arcterus were using the term "terminal velocity" as a synonym for free fall. Thank you for clarifying the difference. As a practical matter in this case, there is none. So I used their term.

You may as well argue that night is not dark because there are stars, and day is not light because there are closets and caves.

You have simply created a symantical distraction to try to spam over the extreme ignorance displayed by your colleagues upthread.

 
At 13 June, 2011 13:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Are you maintaining that the lower 90 stories were built of fluid or air?"

Air is a fluid--you cretin.

Tell us more about "fluid mechanics," while you give us another demonstration of the "extreme ignorance" that informs every post you make to this blog, clown.

 
At 13 June, 2011 13:49, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, are you maintaining that a 15-story building falling through a 90-story building is a matter of fluid mechanics? Are you maintaining that the lower 90 stories were built of fluid or air?"

No, I'm claiming that some form of resistance must exist for there to be a "terminal velocity". You remember, the EXACT OPPOSITE of your ridiculous claim.

Still can't bring yourself to actually face the truth?

 
At 13 June, 2011 14:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if I had conflated fluid and air, Ian would have accused me of having gills.

JR, please quantify the air resistance involved in a collapsing building, and explain why MGF and Arcterus should have considered this when they invoked the term "terminal velocity".

Clearly it was just a case of MGF and Arcterus adopting pretentious diction to try to impress any ten-year-olds who happened by this thread.

 
At 13 June, 2011 14:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

I use "Terminal Velocity" because it is the correct term when discussing a falling object of any kind, you dipshit.

"Free-Fall" is a skydiving term, it describes a state of motion. It DOES NOT DESCRIBE SPEED. If we take our friend Newton's apple and drop it off a kitchen counter to the floor the physical act of the apple is free-fall, but free-fall has no other definition beyond describing the apple as it trasitions from the counter to the floor.

Troofers watch the towers and WTC7 fall with their stopwatches and shout "Free-Fall Speed!" as if it means something. It doesn't. What they should be doing is calculating the terminal velocity for each structure,then calculate how fast it took for the roof to hit the street, then estimate how fast buildings of that type to collapse. If there is a glaring gap in the estimated number and the speed of collapse then you've got something.

The problem is that none of the buildings fell any faster than they should have. The fell as fast as buildings with major structural damage should. In fact the towers lasted longer than they should have considering the damage, and WTC7 lasted 8 hours with massive damage and raging fires inside.

 
At 13 June, 2011 14:46, Blogger paul w said...

Paul w, NIST's investigations are dishonest because they pretend evidence doesn't exist

Proof?

they ignore essential issues

Proof?

and fail to pursue obvious lines of inquiry

Proof?

they reverse-engineer their data points

Proof?

and their perfunctory examination of the explosive/incendiary hypothesis was perfunctory

Proof?

and clearly aimed at a predetermined conclusion

Proof?

 
At 13 June, 2011 14:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shut up, goat fucker.

Not only do you fail to understand the difference between acceleration and speed, you don't understand that air is a fluid.

You're an idiot and a liar.

 
At 13 June, 2011 15:24, Blogger J Rebori said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 June, 2011 15:25, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, please quantify the air resistance involved in a collapsing building, and explain why MGF and Arcterus should have considered this when they invoked the term "terminal velocity"."

Why should I?

The subject of our discussion is your complete reversal of the circumstances surrounding "terminal velocity". Your attempt to change that subject is not going to work.

Please explain how terminal velocity occurs in the absence of resistance as you initially specifically claimed.

 
At 13 June, 2011 17:02, Blogger Ian said...

UtterFail, if I had conflated fluid and air, Ian would have accused me of having gills.

Um, no. Air is a fluid. I would have given you the broken clock award for accidentally stumbling onto something correct.

Clearly it was just a case of MGF and Arcterus adopting pretentious diction to try to impress any ten-year-olds who happened by this thread.

Wow, an unemployed failed janitor, liar, and lunatic like Brian is accusing others of using "pretentious diction".

This is why we keep you around, Brian. You're just way too amusing.

 
At 13 June, 2011 18:26, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, you have a long history of making empty claims. If I am wrong to believe that you can't refute my points, kindly refute them.

Ian, J_Rebori, and MGF have refuted you all up and down this thread. I have nothing to add to what they've said.

 
At 13 June, 2011 18:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you only continue to sink into the quicksand deeper the more you try to explain. "Terminal velocity" is entirely inappropriate in discussion of building collapses, because it applies only to objects falling in air or other fluids. I thus complained that it applies only when the building offers no resistance.

Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute.

There is no need to calculate terminal velocity for the structures, because the influence of air is negligible. The 2.5 second segment of freefall collapse of WTC7 is contrary to the 1st law of thermodynamics unless the supporting structure was removed by explosives or incendiaries. The towers could be expected to approach freefall acceleration at some point when a large proportion of their structure was impinging on some smaller proportion, but for the entire collapse to approach freefall in the absence of removal of the the support is contrary to the first law of thermodynamics.

JR, I only used the terminology put in place by MGF and Arcterus to avoid obfuscatory pedantry, which seems to be all you have to offer the discussion.

 
At 13 June, 2011 18:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Are you maintaining that the lower 90 stories were built of fluid or air?" -- Brian "goat fucker" Good.

Didn't I just explain to you that air is a fluid?

That statement alone proves that you know nothing about fluid dynamics. Why can't you simply admit that you're wrong? (The answer is simple: You're a psychopath; thus, you're a compulsive liar).

 
At 13 June, 2011 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute."

How many times must I explain this to you, cretin?

Essentially is a weasel word. It means the building didn't collapse at "free fall speed."

The South Tower collapsed in 14.25 seconds; the North Tower collapsed in excess of 22 seconds, which is nowhere near gravitational acceleration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLShZOvxVe4

 
At 13 June, 2011 19:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 June, 2011 19:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

If you disagree with that official quantification of "essentially in fee fall" you would, if you had any honesty, join those who are calling for new investigations.

Sorry, the claims of the RKOwens report are not good enough. We need a credible official report. Not an unbelievable report with unbelievable bandaids stuck on it.

 
At 13 June, 2011 20:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Apparently a stopwatch is beyond your ability to understand. I guess they don't have stopwatch technology in goat fucker land.

"...in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

You're incapable of learning, aren't you, goat fucker?

About is a weasel word, just like essentially is a weasel word.

I stand by my statement: You're a cretin.

 
At 13 June, 2011 20:20, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute."

Yet again you cite Dr. Sunder to support your agrument but you ignore that in the same discussion he explains why the buildings fell as fast as they did. You then dispute his explaination.

Which is it Brian? If we listen to Dr. Sunder then we hear him say that the buildings were mostly air, and that's why they fell the way they did.

My favorite part of this is that you throw in the skydiver part. A skydiver falls at 200km/h, so the towers fell at that speed? Are you sure? You can actually check this sick theory by timing the jumpers, working out an average time to fall say 50 stories, then compare that time to the collapse speeds.

Should be easy for a fizickx master like y'all.

 
At 13 June, 2011 20:29, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, I only used the terminology put in place by MGF and Arcterus to avoid obfuscatory pedantry, which seems to be all you have to offer the discussion."

Bullshit.

You made a claim about terminal velocity that is completely the opposite of reality. If you think they were that wrong, why didn't you say so and prove it?

Don't you think finding yourself in a position that has you making a claim completely and provably outside of reality might be a good reason to stop talking and reevaluate your position?

That is what rational people do. You just get louder and dig in deeper.

 
At 13 June, 2011 20:30, Blogger Ian said...

Truthers listen to Dr. Sunder tell us that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds and read NIST's claim that they came down "essentially in free fall" and conclude that they fell in free fall, at gravitational acceleration--as fast as a skydiver with no parachute.

No, you lie about him, since Dr. Sunder never said these things.

UtterFail, Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html


See what I mean?

 
At 13 June, 2011 21:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

So in the exalted opinion of GutterBall is 14 seconds "about" 9 seconds and is 22 seconds "about" 11 seconds? Is that good enough for you for the official reports that justified wars that killed over a million?

So MGF, do you believe Dr. Sunder's time frame of 9 seconds and 11 seconds? If so, don't GutterBall's estimates of 14 and 22 trouble you?

For you to invoke the speed of a skydiver's fall as if it had something to do with gravitational acceleration in a building collapse shows that you don't understand freshman physics. I very much doubt your claim that you're about to graduate from CSUMB with a science degree.\

JR, you are taking my statement out of context. I said freefall collapse was impossible if there was any structural resistance. I used the terminology that MGF had ignorantly set in place and left out the word "structural". The technical error was MGF's, was irrelevant, and has nothing to do with my position.

Ian, anybody who reads Dr. Sunder's statement can see that you lie. But you needn't fear, because nobody here will bother.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

 
At 14 June, 2011 04:11, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian just doesn't know when to quit, does he? No matter how many times you illustrate that he's wrong, he'll come right back with some new Google-inspired misunderstanding that he thinks proves him right. Then you try to correct him about that. Then he starts acting like you're the one with the problem. Rinse and repeat.

Boris Epstein was the same way. You just couldn't tell him he didn't know what he was talking about.

But these are the sort of minds that find 9-11 Truth convincing.

 
At 14 June, 2011 04:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who reads Dr. Sunder's statement can see that you lie. But you needn't fear, because nobody here will bother.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html


Brian, you're the one who lies about Dr. Sunder, as your link clearly shows.

 
At 14 June, 2011 09:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So in the exalted opinion of GutterBall is 14 seconds "about" 9 seconds and is 22 seconds "about" 11 seconds? Is that good enough for you for the official reports that justified wars that killed over a million?"

The stopwatch doesn't lie, goat fucker. And all the essentiallys and abouts won't lend the force of credibility to your argument.

Since all objects at sea level fall with an g (acceleration) of 9.81 m/sec^2, we can test the values given by the troof movement, NIST and Owens to see how "close" the Towers came to "free fall."

Assuming that the South Tower fell at "free fall", we can expect the following values:

h = 417m; t = 9.22 sec; g = 9.81 m/sec^2.

Assuming NIST's parameters, we can expect the following values:

h = 417m; t = 12.0 sec; g = 5.79 m/sec^2.

Assuming Owens' parameters, we can expect the following values:

h = 417m; t = 15 sec; g = 3.71 m/sec^2.

Thus, we can see that the collapse, when timed with a relatively accurate mechanism, e.g., a stopwatch, proves the Towers didn't collapse at a rate approaching gravitational acceleration. Unless, of course, you're so delusional and thoroughly dishonest that you're prepared to argue that 3.71 m/sec^2 approximates "free fall."

A little math will always bring the lie to the goat fuckers argument. Now, can we finally toss the goat fucker in the dust bin, where he belongs?

 
At 14 June, 2011 10:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

So in TR's lexicon "fact-based" becomes "google-inspired" and "he's right" becomes "he won't admit that he's wrong".

Until you clowns start calling out Ian for lying you can not possibly have any credibility. Dr. Sunder clearly says 9 seconds and 11 seconds, as my link shows. (Click on "transacript" button.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

As usual GutterBall bullshits instead of illuminates. How did that work out in your career, guy?
You didn't answer the question. Is 14 seconds "about" 9 seconds and is 22 seconds "about" 11 seconds? Is that good enough for you for the official reports that justified wars that killed over a million?

 
At 14 June, 2011 10:36, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Something can hit terminal velocity only when there is no resistance."

snug.bug at 10 June, 2011 02:09

"I said freefall collapse was impossible if there was any structural resistance."

snug.bug at 13 June, 2011 21:25

You are a liar.

 
At 14 June, 2011 10:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You are truly the most dense fool I've ever encountered, goat fucker.

Dr. Sunder didn't use the words exactly or precisely, he used the words essentially and about. As anyone with an IQ in excess of warm spit knows, the words essentially and about are used when a person doesn't have precise figures or estimates at hand. That Sunder used inexact terms doesn't "prove" that we need a "new investigation." On the contrary, all that's proven is your inability to think, and reliance on propaganda over reason.

As I, and others, have proven beyond a doubt, the Towers didn't collapse at anything approaching gravitational acceleration, and all the dishonesty and propaganda in the World won't convince anyone with an ounce of sense that a "new investigation" is necessary.

Furthermore, the NIST Report was never used to "[justify] wars that killed over a million." Again, you're lying and spreading readily verified nonsense. What else should we expect from a self-admitted propagandist? In fact, the wars were based on botched intelligence provided by the CIA, etc., not the NIST Report.

 
At 14 June, 2011 11:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, in the context of the discussion I was clearly talking about structural resistance, the negligible air resistance being of interest only to an obfuscatory pedant like yourself.

So in GutterBall's world, is 11 seconds "about" 22 seconds? And is "essentially free fall" twice the freefall time? And is that degree of precision adequate for an investigation used to justify wars that killed a million people?
And with that degree of uncertainty, how can we trust anything NIST says?

 
At 14 June, 2011 11:40, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, in the context of the discussion I was clearly talking about structural resistance, the negligible air resistance being of interest only to an obfuscatory pedant like yourself."

Bullshit.

Your words were exactly as I quoted them. They have very specific meanings you claim to know. Your use of them is directly opposed to that meaning. Therefore you didn't know or understand the meaning of the words.

That you continue to try to claim you said other than what you said adds to the proven fact you are ignorant of basic physics that you are a liar.

It isn't pedantry to insist that, in an argument about physics, the meanings of words and phrases being used are the definitions used by physicists.

Your constant sloppy use of words in technical arguments is the clearest repeated sign that you have no real knowledge about the things you are talking about.

 
At 14 June, 2011 12:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, ignore what I've written and repeat yourself ad nauseum.

You're a liar and a self-admitted propagandist, who couldn't pass an examination in elementary high school-level physics.

FAIL

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

JR, the ignorant use of terminology was MGF's and Arcterus's, and I simply went along with it to avoid obfuscatory pedantry. Are you arguing that air resistance should be considered when discussing building collapses?

Clearly in the context of discussion I was talking about structural resistance. Since there is no air resistance, there was nothing to say about that.

 
At 14 June, 2011 13:54, Blogger J Rebori said...

TH\he facts are all up thread. Anyone who wants to can go and see for themselves.

The facts remain the facts.

Your statement proved you do not know what you are talking about, your following statements prove both that you can not admit you were wrong, and you are willing to lie to keep from doing that.

 
At 14 June, 2011 15:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

The facts are up the thread all right. MGF thinks Newton's 1st law and the 1st law of thermodynamics are the same thing, and introduces "terminal velocity" as a synonym for free fall, and you, vengeful because I have so many times made a fool of your ignorant nonsense in the past, are trying to make out like that's my fault.

 
At 14 June, 2011 16:46, Blogger J Rebori said...

You keep thinking that.

I'm more than happy to let everyone read the facts for themselves.

You are, once again, exposed.

 
At 14 June, 2011 19:35, Blogger Ian said...

Until you clowns start calling out Ian for lying you can not possibly have any credibility. Dr. Sunder clearly says 9 seconds and 11 seconds, as my link shows. (Click on "transacript" button.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html


Poor Brian, he knows I've pwn3d him here, and yet he keeps babbling about it. It's just like the same nonsense about "thermodynamics" and "terminal velocity" that he keeps embarrassing himself with.

 
At 14 June, 2011 21:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

nwor

 
At 14 June, 2011 22:02, Blogger Triterope said...

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 15 June, 2011 00:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Aw you're going to hurt somebody's feelings talking like that, TR.

But not mine.

 
At 15 June, 2011 04:40, Blogger Ian said...

I hurt Brian's feelings by pwning him every day.

 
At 15 June, 2011 07:50, Blogger Triterope said...

Aw you're going to hurt somebody's feelings talking like that, TR. But not mine.

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

 
At 15 June, 2011 09:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 June, 2011 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 June, 2011 10:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your idea of pwning someone is telling a lie--even if you're called on it. If that's pwning, you've found the key to utter invincibility (in your own mind). It's also known as insanity.

 
At 15 June, 2011 15:45, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your idea of pwning someone is telling a lie--even if you're called on it. If that's pwning, you've found the key to utter invincibility (in your own mind). It's also known as insanity.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 16 June, 2011 00:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Put some WD40 on it, Ian.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home