Thursday, June 23, 2011

Hell No I Ain't Reading No White Paper!

Most of this interview that Richard Gage does for Skeptical Inquirer magazine isn't that interesting, and good deal is completely unintelligible, but I found the bit in the middle about whether he had read Ryan Mackey's comprehensive White Paper interesting. From 4:50 into the second video:



Have you read [Ryan Mackey's] white paper?

Gage: No, but others have. And I understand it is full of nonsense and manipulation that has been exposed very well by Jim Hoffman at the website 911research.com. He has answered all of those assertions. Jim Hoffman's response has not been responded to by Ryan Mackey. I don't have the time to look into every critique of ours, particularly when others have responded to that.


Well yeah, he has to fly to England to speak with Holocaust deniers and anti-vaccine nuts. No time for research!

Labels: ,

370 Comments:

At 24 June, 2011 01:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

Would you like to commend any particular portions or points of Mr. Mackey's book for Mr. Gage's consideration, or are we meant to simply ooh and aah over its heft of 153,000 words? Normal people won't get past the first few pages because, whether by accident or design, Mr. Mackey's ponderous writing is practically unreadable.

 
At 24 June, 2011 01:16, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Would you like to commend any particular portions or points of Mr. Mackey's book for Mr. Gage's consideration,

Yeah, he could start out with Appendix D, where Mackey deals with Jim "1.8 million ceiling tile bombs" Hoffman's criticism. Gage is a blatant liar.

Can we also assume that due to their unreasonable length, Gage hasn't read any of the NIST reports?

 
At 24 June, 2011 01:24, Blogger sabba said...

Brian Good "the lying bitch"- aka snug.bug says:Would you like to commend any particular portions or points of Mr. Mackey's book for Mr. Gage's consideration...
Shut the F* up Brian, you do not speak for Richard Gage ( you are not part of his organization due to your stalking of Rodriguez, Carol Brouillet and Barrett) and you do not speak for the widows, or neither of the victims. Be quiet and listen to the grown ups here.

 
At 24 June, 2011 01:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

DU, why should one care about Mr. Mackey's rebuttal to Mr. Hoffman's rebuttal to Mr. Mackey's rebuttal to Dr. Griffin's rebuttal to NIST?

So is the upshot of 153,000 words "Jim Hoffman is a doo-doo head?"

 
At 24 June, 2011 06:40, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Gage is no different the average truther on the street. He just repeats what others tell him. The only difference is that he makes a living off it by putting it on powerpoint.

 
At 24 June, 2011 07:14, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

Here's one that was short enough so that even Dicky Gage could read it...

An open letter to Richard Gage and AE911Truth(pdf)

How did Gage respond? He branded Gregory Urich a 'troublemaker' and left it at that.

 
At 24 June, 2011 08:11, Blogger Ian said...

Normal people won't get past the first few pages because, whether by accident or design, Mr. Mackey's ponderous writing is practically unreadable.

Brian, just because you're illiterate and have the attention span of a Yorkshire terrier on amphetamines doesn't mean that "normal" people won't read it.

 
At 24 June, 2011 08:12, Blogger Ian said...

DU, why should one care about Mr. Mackey's rebuttal to Mr. Hoffman's rebuttal to Mr. Mackey's rebuttal to Dr. Griffin's rebuttal to NIST?

Nobody should. Griffin and Hoffman are liars who aren't worthy of responses.

 
At 24 June, 2011 09:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Person: "Have you read the paper?"

Gage: "No, but......(long winded excuse)"

Yeah, we know Gage is an idiot when it comes to papers proving him wrong. Gage is a laughingstock of the Truth Movement community, second only to Brian Good.

 
At 24 June, 2011 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, since I spend most of my waking hours reading and writing, I can pretty easily get a sense of when a writer is trying to communicate with me and when a writer is trying to do a snow job.

It appears that nobody here is familiar enough with Mr. Mackey's paper to be able to recommend any salient portions of it.

DU, Mr. Ulrich's letter mostly quibbles about imprecision in Gage's statements.

 
At 24 June, 2011 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, please point out the part of Mr. Mackey's paper where he proves Mr. Gage wrong.

 
At 24 June, 2011 12:00, Blogger Alex said...

Did Hoffman really write an analysis of Mackeys paper? I don't remember reading about that, but I haven't really been following the twoof movement very closely for the last few years. Obviously I use the word "analysis" loosely, but I wouldn't mind checking out what he had to say. Anyone got a link, or a short summary?

 
At 24 June, 2011 12:02, Blogger J Rebori said...

Since you failed to understand a document that is only 4440 words long, it really isn't a shock that one 34+ times that length would surpass your capabililtes, Doesn't mean it surpasses everyone elses.

 
At 24 June, 2011 12:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

Alex, if you had bothered to read this very short thread you would see that DU recommended Mackey Appendix D, a rebuttal to Hoffman's analysis.

JR, can you name one person who has actually read Mr. Mackey's tome?

 
At 24 June, 2011 13:04, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, since I spend most of my waking hours reading and writing, I can pretty easily get a sense of when a writer is trying to communicate with me and when a writer is trying to do a snow job.

Brian, we all know you spend all of your waking hours writing, i.e. posting deranged gibberish about smoldering carpets and meatballs on forks all over the internet.

It appears that nobody here is familiar enough with Mr. Mackey's paper to be able to recommend any salient portions of it.

False.

 
At 24 June, 2011 13:04, Blogger Ian said...

JR, can you name one person who has actually read Mr. Mackey's tome?

I can.

 
At 24 June, 2011 13:30, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, can you name one person who has actually read Mr. Mackey's tome?"

Irrelevant. Since you demonstrably cannot grasp the basics in a 4440 word document that is written in plain English, your judgment about the readability and/or comprehensibility of a paper much longer is highly suspect, unreliable, and therefore unimportant.

Nothing about how many other readers exist changes that simple fact.

It seems that once again your only defense is to try to dsitract from the facts.

 
At 24 June, 2011 15:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody here has read it, nobody is going to read it, it's just a Big Fat Bible you can wave while claiming "the answers are all in there!"

The answers are all in my nine-hour DVD, just $55.55, and if ya'all are too lazy to watch it you can just STFU.

 
At 24 June, 2011 16:03, Blogger Triterope said...

The answers are all in my nine-hour DVD, just $55.55, and if ya'all are too lazy to watch it you can just STFU.

https://www.ae911truth.net/store/

 
At 24 June, 2011 16:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't see any nine hour DVD at that store, and besides you can watch Blueprint for Truth on the AE911Truth Youtube channel for free. Are you deliberately missing the point that Mr. Mackey seems to have deliberately written something that nobody with any sense would read?

 
At 24 June, 2011 17:21, Blogger J Rebori said...

Are you deliberately missing the point that your own proven inability to comprehend much shorter clearly written documents renders your opinion on the comprehensibility of this document null and void?

 
At 24 June, 2011 17:35, Blogger paul w said...

Did he read it?
Would it matter?
Nope.

 
At 24 June, 2011 18:20, Blogger Triterope said...

I don't see any nine hour DVD at that store

Are you fucking blind?

 
At 24 June, 2011 20:55, Blogger paul w said...

Are you fucking blind?

He saw it. He just wants any excuse to keep talking.
The guy's mentally ill.

 
At 24 June, 2011 21:21, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

So I downloaded Mackey's white-paper. I've covered 90 pages. Easy read.

Bottom line: Gage misrepresents evidence, takes quotes from the NIST report out of context, takes historical quotes out of historical context, makes claims without documentation, makes no attempt to double check his own work, cites as sources other 9/11 troofers as credible, and generally makes an ass out of himself.

It's a worthwhile read if for no other reason than it tears Gage a new sub-basment.

" snug.bug said...
Ian, since I spend most of my waking hours reading and writing, I can pretty easily get a sense of when a writer is trying to communicate with me and when a writer is trying to do a snow job"

A. You don't/can't read as well as you think you do.

B. Coloring books don't count as reading and writing.

C. You can't easily get a sense of when someone isn't interested in you romantically even while in direct contact. Plus your inability to read-in-context has been well documented on this blog.

 
At 25 June, 2011 08:15, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody here has read it, nobody is going to read it, it's just a Big Fat Bible you can wave while claiming "the answers are all in there!"

My, such squealing!

Are you deliberately missing the point that Mr. Mackey seems to have deliberately written something that nobody with any sense would read?

I've read it, Brian. Just because you're too dumb to understand it doesn't mean normal people don't understand it.

 
At 25 June, 2011 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, can you cite a particular part of Mr. Mackey's book that you consider well-reasoned?

 
At 25 June, 2011 14:31, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, can you cite a particular part of Mr. Mackey's book that you consider well-reasoned?

I can.

 
At 25 June, 2011 14:42, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"snug.bug said...
MGF, can you cite a particular part of Mr. Mackey's book that you consider well-reasoned?"

Oh gosh, where to begin....oh yes, chapter one: "Why Did the Airplanes Cause So Much Damage"(7)

He points out that while Gage claims that the WTC was designed for the impact of a 707, but :

"As Dr. Griffin indicates [14], the NIST Report does acknowledge [15] that some
cursory study of a high-speed airliner impact was performed in the 1960’s. NIST
was unable to find this calculation, and apparently Dr. Griffin does not have
access to it either. It is fact that structural modeling in general, impact modeling,
and particularly fire modeling were dramatically less sophisticated in the 1960’s,
and thus is it not obvious that such a study would be of any value at all, let alone
superior to the NIST study. The burden of proof remains on Dr. Griffin, not on
NIST. The NIST methods and conclusions are available for scrutiny and
criticism, whereas this alleged calculation is not. No further comment is needed" (Mackey - p.7)

So gage makes a claim with zero documentation, and doesn't take into account that the building was designed at a time when calculations for such an impact were probably lip-service. Mackey also points out that both buildings survived the impact - as designed - long enough to evacuate thr majority of the people inside each tower. Each tower did it's job.

There's lots more stuff in that one chapter about the damage inflicted to each tower being consistent which each collapse. There's great information about fire damage and structural damage.

Not that it makes any difference, you won't read it because you can't read it. You're mentally ill, this stuff is obviously beyod you.

 
At 25 June, 2011 15:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

So, did you stop reading at page 7? That's funny, because that's where I stopped reading too.

The claim that the building design had been evaluated with respect to an impact by a 707 is not that of Mr. Gage and Dr. Griffin alone, but of the Skilling firm, Malcolm Levy, and John Skilling himself.

Mr. Mackey's claim that modeling technology had improved is silly given that the accuracy of a model can depend more on its honesty than its precision. The White Paper cited by Gage and Griffin found that the building could survive impact by a 707, and the buildings did in fact survive impact by 767s. NIST claims it was not the impact and not the fire that brought the buildings down, but the destruction of the fireproofing that brought the buildings down. Griffin and Gage's claims were accurate and the "burden of proof" issue of which Mackey makes much is immaterial.

Mr. Mackey opened with nonsense, and I saw no reason to read any further. I see no evidence that anyone here read beyond page 7 either.

 
At 25 June, 2011 16:27, Blogger Triterope said...

Would you like to commend any particular portions or points of Mr. Mackey's book for Mr. Gage's consideration, or are we meant to simply ooh and aah over its heft of 153,000 words?

Which is just fucking hilarious in light of Brian Good's obsessive parroting of DURR THE WIDOWS HAVE 308 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS DURR THE WIDOWS HAVE 308 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS DURR THE WIDOWS HAVE 308 UNANSWERED QUESTIONS for the better part of two fucking years.

 
At 25 June, 2011 16:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

So far I've read 90 pages, which I already wrote - underlining your inability to read.

"The claim that the building design had been evaluated with respect to an impact by a 707 is not that of Mr. Gage and Dr. Griffin alone, but of the Skilling firm, Malcolm Levy, and John Skilling himself."

Yet none of those folks could present their calculations to Gage,Mackey, nor the NIST. So while they say it was designed for a 707, nobody can present the calculations that went into this claim. So it is only so much smoke, and a non-issue.

It gets interesting, you should read more, like this:

"We have explored above why there is indeed evidence of both sufficient fire size and
heat. As for the rest of Dr. Griffin’s argument, this is simply a strawman. NIST never
states that the core columns were heated all the way to the ground. Quite the opposite, in
fact: Its own simulation results, as we have already seen in our discussion of the
recovered fragments, predict hardly any heating of core columns beyond the impact
zones, such as at the 78th and 84th floors of the South Tower. Dr. Griffin seems to realize
that he has put forth a strawman argument by stating “NIST would probably deny that its
theory entails this.”
As for the question of breaking or buckling columns on the lower floors, the theory is
quite simple, and requires no heating at all. After the initial collapse, the descending pile
of material grows in both size and speed. The resulting load on lower floors, as they are
hit one by one, exceeds their strength by a huge margin even if they are completely
undamaged and unweakened. Columns are buckled by overload and by impact – quite
unlike a static load, impact creates pressure waves in the steel members, and this leads to
highly non-uniform stresses and local fractures.
In his criticism of the progressive collapse hypothesis, Dr. Griffin provides absolutely no
calculations of his own, nor any support from anyone who has. He is therefore arguing
from “common sense,” also known as an Argument to Incredulity. Unlike Dr. Griffin, the
author does have peer-reviewed calculations supporting his position, but before providing
formal evidence of this, the author argues in kind with his own appeal to “common sense""(Mackey pg 38)

Now you have to read all the stuff that comes before this, refferences to calculations, experiments, and other cool stuff that should be easy for someone with a B.A. in "Biological Science".

Not that you'll read it. You don't care. For you it's all about the lie.

 
At 25 June, 2011 16:34, Blogger Ian said...

Mr. Mackey opened with nonsense, and I saw no reason to read any further.

Exactly. You ran away squealing and crying because 9/11 truth fantasies are the only thing that give your empty life meaning, so you can't deal with anything that could shatter those delusions in your head.

I see no evidence that anyone here read beyond page 7 either.

I did, and I've noticed you haven't asked me what I thought. That's because you're terrified I'll pwn you as always.

 
At 25 June, 2011 16:40, Blogger Ian said...

Arguing from incredulity is all Brian has ever done. In his failed janitor's mind, he can't believe that what happened on 9/11 could be true, so it must be a conspiracy.

 
At 25 June, 2011 17:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So, did you stop reading at page 7? That's funny, because that's where I stopped reading too.

Well DUH, yeah, because YOU have a janitors IQ. Concepts outside of how much wax to use on a floor is going to confuse a simpleton like your self.

 
At 25 June, 2011 18:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

It seems that Brian has aped all of Gage's theories, assertions, and BS talking points. He has been parroting them here non-stop.

I find this hillarious. I have never read or listened to Gage before because nobody has ever backed up any of his theories, so I figured he's an idiot (which he is). Now that I'm familiar with his work the comedy gold vein of the troofers just got longer.

The best part? Brian has no original thoughts on the subject! How sad this is. He cannot independantly formulate a theory of his own to advance. He just walks around quacking out other troofer theories in hopes that one will be proven right. In 9 years and ten months since the attacks of 9/11 not one troofer theory has been proven correct.

That has to eat Brian up, knowing that he has bought into another hair-brained failure.

Ouch...

 
At 25 June, 2011 19:11, Blogger Triterope said...

RMackey responds to Brian:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7312916&postcount=26

 
At 26 June, 2011 07:02, Blogger Ian said...

Brian should be happy that Mackey even bothered to address him. Most experts would tend to ignore someone as pathetic as Brian.

Of course, he pwn3d you completely, Brian, so maybe next time you shouldn't address Mackey directly and just continue babbling about smoldering carpets.

 
At 26 June, 2011 09:15, Blogger Triterope said...

It seems that Brian has aped all of Gage's theories, assertions, and BS talking points. He has been parroting them here non-stop.

And let's not forget that Gage's entire schtick is pretty much plagiarized from David Ray Griffin's books. All Gage adds is the "1500 architects and engineers" and the relentless touring.

 
At 27 June, 2011 11:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, maybe if Ian wouldn't insist on telling repetitive lies I wouldn't find it necessary to tell repetitive truths.

MGF, so you read 90 pages and it's just a coincidence that the best-reasoned part of it was the fourth page? If that's the best part of it, then I guess stopping at that page was the right thing to do.

There is no need for calculations. The point is that the Port Authority claimed that the study had been done and that the buildings could withstand a hit from a 707 at 60 mph. That is not "smoke", it is an official proclamation. If you think the Port Authority lied, take it up with them.

Mr. Mackey shows himself for a fool when he claims on p. 5 that NIST's report was "meticulous". NIST's report is a joke--they refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C steel, they provide no calculations supporting their assumed collapse mechanism, and by cutting off the analysis at the moment of collapse initiation they avoid all the mysterious features of the collapse: symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

Mackey starts out by showing himself for a fool, he then opens his analysis with nonsense, and there's no reason to wade through his nitpicking twaddle.

I haven't asked you what you think because I don't care what you think. You have shown yourself to be an ideologue out of touch with reality.

 
At 27 June, 2011 11:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

As to Mr. Mackey, I've many times seen the technique employed by Bushbots: serve up a steaming heap of crap, and when somebody declines to chow down, claim they're not smart enough to understand it. I not only understand it, I see it for what it is in the first four pages.

Mr. Mackey admits he can't write, and it seems that somehow it never occurred to him to ask for some help from somebody who can. Such arrogance only proves my point. He doesn't want to communicate, but only to impress the gullible.

Mackey's careless claim that Gage's presentation contains "not one fact" shows that Mackey is not afraid to show that he thinks his JREF colleagues are idiots.

 
At 27 June, 2011 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I'm not surprised you stopped reading on p. 90. It's pretty silly. It starts with a straw man argument, attributing to Dr. Griffin the claim that the breakage of columns requires explosives. Griffin didn't say that. He said that NIST's theory does not adequately explain the breaking of columns. (This is particularly the case with respect to the lower core in WTC2, which remained standing after the floors had been peeled away, and then inexplicably broke up into little pieces. This is another one of the essential mysteries that NIST dodges by truncating its analysis.)

Then Mackey indulges in the idiotic argument that since controlled demolition aims to avoid damage to adjacent buildings, and since there was damage to adjacent buildings, therefore there was no controlled demolition.

Mackey then claims that Griffin provides no estimate of the pattern of explosives used--when obviously the pattern would simply be SYMMETRICAL. As it says on the Griffin's following page, page 187, all the columns had to fail simultaneously.

Mackey then claims that there was no reason to demolish the buildings vertically. There was plenty of reason. To avoid unnecessary casualties, to avoid unnecessary damage and disruption to other offices and buildings, to avoid so far as possible, complicated insurance claims (and possible out-of-control insurance investigations) involving other buildings. The RJ Lee Report that discovered the iron microspheres, for instance, came out of the damage to the Bankers Trust Building.

Mackey then stupidly compares the destruction of the towers to the demolition of a far different structure, the J l Hudson building. The Hudson building had been built in 12 separate stages. Thus it was taken down in segments. It was not practical to take the towers down in segments, because their concrete floors were unified membranes. The Hudson Building was also only a little bit taller than it was wide. The WTC was more than 6 times as tall as it was wide. There's no comparison between Hudson and the WTC.

With such a heap of idiocy on just one of his pages, I'm sure glad Mr. Mackey is not a truther. Let me know when he gets his book published by a respectable peer-reviewed outfit and maybe I'll take a look. As it is it's a waste of time.

 
At 27 June, 2011 12:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mackey can pack more stupidity into one page than even Kevin Barrett can, and that's really saying something!

 
At 27 June, 2011 13:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, please point out the part of Mr. Mackey's paper where he proves Mr. Gage wrong.

When Gage didn't want ot read MR. Mackey's paper. Isn't that plain as day since Gage clearly said that he didn't?

Brian, you are just as illiterate as Gage is.

 
At 27 June, 2011 13:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I think Brian want's to challenge Mr. Mackey in a debate. Someone get in touch with Mr. Mackey and tell him that Brian wants to debate him.

Of course the outcome will be exactly the same when Brian challenged Willie Rodriguez, he'll run-away.

 
At 27 June, 2011 14:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I hear Brian clucking at the thought of debating Mr. Mackey:

BAWK BAWK BAWK

 
At 27 June, 2011 14:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

"MGF, I'm not surprised you stopped reading on p. 90."

Where did MGF indicate he "stopped reading at p. 90"?

You continuously prove your incompetence at grasping much smaller and straight forward documents than this one. You can't even read a blog postings comments properly and you want anyone to believe your claim that this white paper is unreadable?

 
At 27 June, 2011 14:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 June, 2011 14:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I like how Mr. Mackey makes his point about Brian in this statement (very funny BTW):

"But even funnier is the hypocrisy. He's (Brian Good) complaining about my paper? It is, admittedly, about 290 pages including all the appendices -- I wanted to be thorough. I also make no claim to be a writer on par with Hemingway or even George RR Martin, far from it. But my paper is about the same size as Dr. Griffin's book, upon which it is based, something that is in fact hard to read because it jumps all over the place, like any other Truther. Anyway, in his mind, apparently thoroughness naturally equates to misinformation!"

Mackey would be right about Brain's thinking that thoroughness means "misinformation". Brian, the only misinformation is your sad tale of 9/11 being a "U.S. Government Conspiracy". Get a fucking grip on reality Brian, cause it's going to bite you in the ass over and over again.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:05, Blogger Triterope said...

serve up a steaming heap of crap, and when somebody declines to chow down, claim they're not smart enough to understand it.

Yeah! I hate people who do that.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:08, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey Brian, why don't you run your brilliant analysis past Mackey himself? He's right there at the link I posted earlier.

If you're stuck for a new handle, I suggest "Epic Truther Winner." It's how they know you.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:11, Blogger Ian said...

TR, maybe if Ian wouldn't insist on telling repetitive lies I wouldn't find it necessary to tell repetitive truths.

What lies have I told, Brian?

There is no need for calculations.

Of course not: on Planet Petgoat, science is done without any math. Whatever Brian thinks reality should be is the way things are.

Mackey starts out by showing himself for a fool, he then opens his analysis with nonsense, and there's no reason to wade through his nitpicking twaddle.

Brian ran away squealing and crying from Mackey just as he ran away squealing and crying from Rodriguez.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:12, Blogger Ian said...

I not only understand it, I see it for what it is in the first four pages.

Brian, if there's one thing you've demonstrated over and over again, it's that you don't understand anything. That's why you're a failed janitor who lives with your parents.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:14, Blogger Ian said...

Mackey can pack more stupidity into one page than even Kevin Barrett can, and that's really saying something!

Boy Brian, you sure can squeal and cry with the best of them!

It's hilarious how much you know that you've been pwn3d by Mackey. That's why you made four posts of dumbspam in a row.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, I'm not going to go down the JREF rabbit hole.

Ian you know full well what you've lied about. There is no need for Griffin and Gage's math to prove that the Port Authority study showed that the WTC could withstand a hit from a 707. Leslie Robertson verified it.

 
At 27 June, 2011 17:53, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I'm not going to go down the JREF rabbit hole.

Of course you're not. We all know how you handle confrontation.

 
At 27 June, 2011 18:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

For the record, I've read the whole thing. I have to hand it to Mackey for explaining the obvious. It took me two evenings to read, and it was in no way heavy or over-technical.

"There is no need for calculations. The point is that the Port Authority claimed that the study had been done and that the buildings could withstand a hit from a 707 at 60 mph. That is not "smoke", it is an official proclamation. If you think the Port Authority lied, take it up with them."

Guess what, dipshit, if someone designs a building then makes a claim about withstanding an aircraft strike - you need to do some calculations. Then you need to have those calculations independantl reviewed. Then you keep those calculations (and the reviews) on file, usually with all the other design paperwork.

Mackey points out that while the designers of the WTC said that the towers were designed to withstand a direct hit from a 707, nobody can present the work. So we don't know how good their numbers actually were (or if they even existed at all).

The Titanic was described as unsinkable by White Star's management, but nowhere in the plans, blue-prints, or construction notes does it say "Unsinkable". I suspect that no such work was done, and instead they relied on existing parameters of construction to make the 707 claim.

"Mr. Mackey shows himself for a fool when he claims on p. 5 that NIST's report was "meticulous". NIST's report is a joke--they refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C steel, they provide no calculations supporting their assumed collapse mechanism, and by cutting off the analysis at the moment of collapse initiation they avoid all the mysterious features of the collapse: symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of molten steel in the rubble."

Except for that none of that happened you might have a point.

No symmetry of collapse,to totallity, the speed was not unusual for either building, conrect was not entirely pulverize outside of parameters for such a collapse,and there was no molten steel in the wreckage - just molten metal which could be lead for UPSs, office funtature, wireing, and other things you'd find in an office.

There's nothing to explain. No explosives were used nor found. The collapses (all three buildings) were a result of the combination of the conditions inflicted upon them.

Just because in your fantasy world you need 9/11 to be a conspiracy doesn't make it so. You offer no proof. You parrot the ideas of other idiots as if they know what they're talking about. You refuse to do any substantive research/work of your own on this subject. You don't really care, none of this is important enough to inspire you beyond using the truth movement to hit on women.

 
At 27 June, 2011 18:32, Blogger Ian said...

TR, I'm not going to go down the JREF rabbit hole.

Running away squealing and crying again, huh Brian?

Ian you know full well what you've lied about.

Yup. I lied about being Petgoat, I lied about being an unemployed janitor, I lied about stalking Carol Brouillet, I lied about Shyam Sunder, and I lied about "widows".

Oh wait, no, those are your lies, Brian.

There is no need for Griffin and Gage's math to prove that the Port Authority study showed that the WTC could withstand a hit from a 707.

Since when do Gage and Griffin have any idea how to do math?

 
At 27 June, 2011 18:39, Blogger Ian said...

The point is that the Port Authority claimed that the study had been done and that the buildings could withstand a hit from a 707 at 60 mph.

Hey, the towers were designed to withstand a hit from a certain airplane traveling at a certain speed, so of course a bigger aircraft traveling at a a faster speed would have done no damage!

Brian, I can't believe a genius like you isn't the chair of the physics department at Stanford.

 
At 27 June, 2011 18:41, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, the reason the collapse is "mysterious" to you is that you're an idiot. It's that simple. You don't have the intelligence to understand how the world works, which is why you spent your life mopping floors. You believe absurd things.

symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of the concrete, and the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

See what I mean?

 
At 27 June, 2011 18:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, The Port Authority white paper claimed the study of the 707 impact had been done. Unless you're going to call them liars, that's all we need to know. And the fact that the buildings stood up to the 767s validates the study's findings.

You live in a fantasy world. You think the towers didn't collapse totally? You think Dr. Astaneh Asl doesn't know a melted girder when he sees one? You think the WTC was built of lead girders? You think Dr. Ghoniem was lying when he said the evidence for melted steel was strong?

I don't have to prove what happened. I can prove that the NIST reports are dishonest, unscientific, incomplete, and unbelievable.

 
At 27 June, 2011 18:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the 767s were going much slower than 600 mph. The 707 is 146,000 pounds, the 767 is 180,000 pounds.

 
At 27 June, 2011 19:11, Blogger Ian said...

And the fact that the buildings stood up to the 767s validates the study's findings.

Um, the buildings collapsed, Brian. You'd know this if you learned to Google.

You live in a fantasy world. You think the towers didn't collapse totally? You think Dr. Astaneh Asl doesn't know a melted girder when he sees one? You think the WTC was built of lead girders? You think Dr. Ghoniem was lying when he said the evidence for melted steel was strong?

Man, the wheels are really falling off here. It's only a matter of time before Brian calls us "girls"...

I don't have to prove what happened.

Of course you don't. You can keep babbling about the same nonsense while being laughed at by normal people. That's much more entertaining.

I can prove that the NIST reports are dishonest, unscientific, incomplete, and unbelievable.

See what I mean?

 
At 27 June, 2011 19:12, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, the 767s were going much slower than 600 mph.

That's nice, Brian.

The 707 is 146,000 pounds, the 767 is 180,000 pounds.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 27 June, 2011 19:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...There is no need for calculations...NIST's report is a joke...they provide no calculations supporting their assumed collapse mechanism." -- Brian "goat fucker" Good talking out of both sides of his mealy mouth.

Face it, gents, it's futile to "debate" an insane sex stalker and compulsive liar who wears women's underwear.

 
At 27 June, 2011 19:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The Port Authority white paper claimed the study of the 707 impact had been done"

Cool, show me where the Port Authority posted to a report, a link to a historical document showing where anyone had done the work.

"You think Dr. Astaneh Asl doesn't know a melted girder when he sees one?"

I doubt he saw a melted girder. You are nutorious for misquoting and taking things out of context. If he does think that he saw it he is mistaken.

"You think Dr. Ghoniem was lying when he said the evidence for melted steel was strong?"

Either there was or there wasn't. If Dr. Ghoniem said the evidence was strong (WTF does that even mean?) then where is it? Show me the melted steel. Show me a good picture of the molten steel.

"I don't have to prove what happened."

Actually you do. You and the troofers are making a claim about the events of 9/11. You need to prove your claims or shut up. it's been ten years, where is your proof.

"I can prove that the NIST reports are dishonest, unscientific, incomplete, and unbelievable."

Then by all means write your own white paper where you deconstruct the NIST.

We all know that you can't. You tried to apply Newton's 1st Law of thermodynamics to the collapse of the WTC when it doesn't apply. You think commercial jets can fly at 100mph.

So we will expect to read your super awsome white paper soon.

 
At 27 June, 2011 21:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 June, 2011 22:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

The discussion of the white paper is in City in the Sky, p. 131.

So you think Dr. Astaneh doesn't know a melted girder when he sees one. The guy is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley, he flew out the New York to inspect the steel, and he says he saw melted girders.

There's a picture of the 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF4C6qtU_Fc&feature=channel_video_title (at 3:24)

I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11. But I know the people at the top of the official investigation--people like Shyam Sunder and John Gross--are liars, and that's one reason I'm not satisfied with their investigation.

You're still confusing the 1st law of thermodynamics with Newton's 1st law. CSUMB doesn't even offer a geology degree.

 
At 28 June, 2011 04:30, Blogger Triterope said...

The discussion of the white paper is in City in the Sky, p. 131.

No, it isn't. You completely misrepresent this. We've illustrated this before:

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2011/02/sticking-it-to-penn-and-teller.html

Keep telling the same lies, Brian, maybe someday they'll become truth.

 
At 28 June, 2011 04:43, Blogger Ian said...

I don't claim to know what happened on 9/11. But I know the people at the top of the official investigation--people like Shyam Sunder and John Gross--are liars, and that's one reason I'm not satisfied with their investigation.

You don't know what happened on 9/11 but you do know what happened on 9/11. Also, something tells me that Shyamn Sunder doesn't stay awake at night worrying what a failed janitor and perverted liar who wears women's underwear thinks of him.

You're still confusing the 1st law of thermodynamics with Newton's 1st law.

No, that was you who hilariously messed up these laws. Then everyone laughed at you, you got pissed, started squealing, and called everyone "girls".

You're hilarious, Brian. Please, never change.

 
At 28 June, 2011 08:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 June, 2011 08:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, the discussion of the white paper and the 600 mph 707 study is in City in the Sky, p. 131, 132, and 133.

What can be seen in the Penn and Teller thread is frantic lies on the part of Guitar Bill, and the childish and somewhat faith-based argument that if "City in the Sky"
does not support "the truthers", then its proof that the 600 mph specification exists is irrelevant to the question of whether that specification exists.

GutterBall also misrepresents the role of Lawrence Wien, and misspells his name. That's because GutterBall does all his research in obscure political blogs, and doesn't bother to check their claims.

Ian, Shyam Sunder's obvious lies are clear whether you know what happened on 9/11 or not. For instance his claim at Popular Mechanics that WTC7 had been "scooped out" by debris damage to 1/3 of its depth. He told a prominent 9/11 activist that he had pictures of this, but no pictures were ever produced. The claim is obviously absurd, because such damage would have made the orderly straight-down collapse of the building impossible and because reports said the lobby was debris-free.

Dr. Sunder also lied when he told NOVA that the reason the steel wreckage was "scattered" making it difficult to study was the necessity of search and rescue operations.

Ian, you lie. I know the differences (and the overlapping) between the two first laws just fine.

MGF, if you've read Mr. Mackey's entire tome, would you like to recommend another part other than page 4 and page 90 that you find particularly well-reasoned?

Can anyone offer any defense of Mackey's wall-to-wall idiocy on page 90?

 
At 28 June, 2011 09:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Lying again, goat fucker? Of course you are lying. After all, you're a proven compulsive liar.

In fact, you were caught red-handed misrepresenting the content of City in the Sky, as I've already proven.

For example, I never misrepresented "the role of Lawrence Wien." In fact, YOU MISREPRESENTED Wein's position, and, as usual, YOU ACCUSE ME OF THE CRIMES YOU COMMIT, like the typical neo-Nazi you've always been.

"...At least that is how Wein saw it. And that was why Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation that the twin towers were 'unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane.'"

But then again, no sane person should trust a compulsive liar, Al Qeada apologist, and sex stalker who wears women's underwear.

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous, lying sack-of-shit (Yes, I know that's an insult to sacks of shit. My bad.)

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 09:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...That's because GutterBall does all his research in obscure political blogs, and doesn't bother to check their claims."

You'll make any scurrilous claim, no matter how ridiculous, won't you, goat fucker? Care to substantiate your assertion, ass?

 
At 28 June, 2011 09:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...What can be seen in the Penn and Teller thread is frantic lies on the part of Guitar Bill, and the childish and somewhat faith-based argument that if "City in the Sky"
does not support "the truthers", then its proof that the 600 mph specification exists is irrelevant to the question of whether that specification exists."


Would anyone care to translate that nonsense from retard to English?

Again, care to substantiate your assertion, ass?

 
At 28 June, 2011 09:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

You misrepresented Wien as a Port Authority figure when he was the owner of the Empire State Building and didn't want the competition from the WTC, and now you're lying about it.

I didn't misrepresent anything. You however will lie through your teeth simply to avoid admitting that you were wrong.

 
At 28 June, 2011 09:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, perhaps if you break the sentence up into bite-sized pieces it can fit your intellect.

How much of Mr. Mackey's opus have you read? Doesn't the idiocy on page 90 make it look like he never expected anyone to read that far, so it's all just sawdust?

 
At 28 June, 2011 09:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, the inference that you get your "facts" from lying political blogs comes from the observation that you haven't gotten them from any respectable source, and that nobody has any reason to lie about 9/11 except those with a political agenda. It's obvious that when you refer to things like the R J Lee paper that you have never actually read them.

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Another pack of lies. I never claimed that Wein was a member of the port authority. In fact, the quote I reference clearly states "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation that the twin towers were 'unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane.'"

Thus, you're not only misrepresenting the content of City in the Sky, you're resorting to a straw man argument when you lie and claim that I said Wein was a member of the port authority.

So tell us, goat fucker, which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...How much of Mr. Mackey's opus have you read?"

All of it.

And you're still a lying sack-of-shit who wears women's underwear.

So tell us, goat fucker, who pays for your trips to Victoria's Secret? As a married man, I can tell you that lingerie is expensive. So who pays you to spread propaganda in political forums, goat fucker? The same group that pays "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Jon Gold," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, the inference that you get your "facts" from lying political blogs comes from the observation that you haven't gotten them from any respectable source, and that nobody has any reason to lie about 9/11 except those with a political agenda."

That's not proof, goat fucker, that's your lying opinion masquerading as "fact."

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're lying. 2/11 15:33 you wrote:

The book argues that the port authority didn't trust Skilling's calculations. And I quote:

"...At least that is how Wein saw it. And that was why Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation that the twin towers were 'unsafe in an explosion or if hit by an airplane.'"


That is where you misrepresented Mr. Wien as a Port Authority figure.

Let's not recap an off-topic argument we already had where you had to lie and lie and lie and lie.

Have you read Mr. Mackey's book? What's the strongest part of it? Can you defend his complete idiocy on page 90?

And here, let me diagram that sentence you can't read:

What A shows is your lies and your dumb argument that if B does not support C, then B's proof of E is irrelevant.

Should be pretty simple stuff for a computer programmer.

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...That is where you misrepresented Mr. Wien as a Port Authority figure."

That's not proof of anything. I never wrote one word that would lead anyone but an illiterate and a compulsive liar to come to that erroneous conclusion (ie., Straw man argument).

Answer the question, goat fucker: Which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

So what's the part of Mackey's paper most worth reading? I haven't seen anything in it that's worth anything.

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

I didn't represent any inferences as fact.

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The idiot whines, "...Have you read Mr. Mackey's book?"

What part of "All of it" don't you understand--you illiterate used-toilet water connoisseur who wears women's underwear?

You're an idiot (Yes, that's an insult to idiots. My bad.).

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

You claimed "The book argues that the port authority didn't trust Skilling's calculations."

You offered no support for that claim except a quote as to what Mr. Wien thought.

The discussion of Wien and the 707 is pointless except to show your irrationality and mendacity. If as you claim the building was defectively designed, then the NIST report that claims it wasn't is blatantly dishonest and you should be joining in calls for new investigations.

What's the best part of Mackey's book?

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So what's the part of Mackey's paper most worth reading? I haven't seen anything in it that's worth anything."

Who cares what an illiterate homosexual who wears women's underwear thinks?

"...Lingerie is cheap. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about."

No, you're cheap.

And that's not an answer, goat fucker. Answer the question: So tell us, goat fucker, who pays for your trips to Victoria's Secret? The same group that pays "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Jon Gold," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

"...I didn't represent any inferences as fact."

Another lie. You made a definite assertion when you wrote--and I quote: "...That's because GutterBall does all his research in obscure political blogs, and doesn't bother to check their claims."

You wouldn't know an inference if it jumped an bit you on the ass.

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fcker continues to lie, "...You offered no support for that claim except a quote as to what Mr. Wien thought."

Illiteracy on your part is not my fault, goat fucker.

Now, for the third time, answer the God damned question, goat fucker: Which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Obviously that assertion was my opinion, just as your assertion "you FAIL" is an opinion.

You offered no support for your claim that "The book argues that the port authority didn't trust Skilling's calculations."

What's the best part of Mackey's silly paper? How come nobody ever cites it in debates? Seems like if it were any good, it should be a research resource. Can't you defend any of its nonsense on page 90?

 
At 28 June, 2011 10:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Let's get back on topic. Let's talk about page 90 to Mackey's silliness. It starts with a straw man argument, attributing to Dr. Griffin the claim that the breakage of columns requires explosives. Griffin didn't say that. He said that NIST's theory does not adequately explain the breaking of columns. (This is particularly the case with respect to the lower core in WTC2, which remained standing after the floors had been peeled away, and then inexplicably broke up into little pieces. This is another one of the essential mysteries that NIST dodges by truncating its analysis.)

Then Mackey indulges in the idiotic argument that since controlled demolition aims to avoid damage to adjacent buildings, and since there was damage to adjacent buildings, therefore there was no controlled demolition.

Mackey then claims that Griffin provides no estimate of the pattern of explosives used--when obviously the pattern would simply be SYMMETRICAL. As it says on the Griffin's following page, page 187, all the columns had to fail simultaneously.

Mackey then claims that there was no reason to demolish the buildings vertically. There was plenty of reason. To avoid unnecessary casualties, to avoid unnecessary damage and disruption to other offices and buildings, to avoid so far as possible, complicated insurance claims (and possible out-of-control insurance investigations) involving other buildings. The RJ Lee Report that discovered the iron microspheres, for instance, came out of the damage to the Bankers Trust Building.

Mackey then stupidly compares the destruction of the towers to the demolition of a far different structure, the J l Hudson building. The Hudson building had been built in 12 separate stages. Thus it was taken down in segments. It was not practical to take the towers down in segments, because their concrete floors were unified membranes. The Hudson Building was also only a little bit taller than it was wide. The WTC was more than 6 times as tall as it was wide. There's no comparison between Hudson and the WTC.

With such a heap of idiocy on just one of his pages, I'm sure glad Mr. Mackey is not a truther. Let me know when he gets his book published by a respectable peer-reviewed outfit and maybe I'll take a look. As it is it's a waste of time.

 
At 28 June, 2011 11:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Let's get back on topic."

In other words, let's change the subject because Bill caught me lying again.

In fact, no one has ever produced Skilling's alleged "calculations," and Leslie Robertson never "verified it."

Here's what Robertson really said--sans your never-ending lies--and I quote: "...Yes, I do. I support the general conclusions of the NIST Report. It was prepared, by the way, not just by NIST, but by a series engineering firms around the country, who provided advise and assistance to NIST in their investigations. It was reasonably thorough and amounted to, as I recall, about $16 million of effort. Our firm participated, in a small way, by providing information about the basic structure that was constructed...The project was designed for the impact of a...ah...we call it a low-flying, slow flying Boing 707, that was the largest aircraft of its time. Actually the intercontinental version. We envisioned it much as the case would be for the aircraft that struck the Empire State Building in the Second World War. More or less the same condition--lost in the fog--ie, an accidental impact by an aircraft into the building. It was not designed for a high speed impact from the jet that actually hit it. In fact, those jets were flying well above their rated speed at that altitude."

And now, let's have a look at pages 138 and 139 of "City in the Sky." And I quote:

"...There would be another airplane study later, by Leslie E. Robertson...What is known is that the calculations again focused on a Boeing 707, 'the largest jet aircraft in the air at that time,' as Robertson would describe it, crashing into one of the towers. The study assumed that the weight of the plane was 263,000 pounds, and that its speed was 180 MPH. Robertson calculated that under those highly specific circumstances, the tower would stand. Once again, the unavoidable fires were not taken into account. All of these carefully hedged conclusions would etch themselves into the minds of those outside the design effort in a simple way: As an assurance that the towers would stand if hit by an airplane...The Port Authority was about to discover the third flaw in the confident story line ginned up on the structure of the WTC, the storyline it was using to maintain support for the project in New York."

Thus, you can't produce Skilling's alleged "calculations"--no on can produce them. Basically, your argument carries all the weight of the lying little boy who claims "my dog chewed up my homework."

So where are Skilling alleged "calculations", Pinocchio?

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 11:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now, for the fourth time, answer the God damned questions, goat fucker:

[1] Which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

[2] So tell us, goat fucker, who pays for your trips to Victoria's Secret? The same group that pays "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Jon Gold," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

Now, answer the questions, goat fucker. To do otherwise is to "debate" is bad faith--which is your stock-and-trade.

 
At 28 June, 2011 11:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker scribbles, "...It starts with a straw man argument."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Imagine that? The illiterate, logical fallacy spewing troofer is complaining about an alleged "straw man argument." In fact, your entire post at 10:52 is a straw man argument.

Tell us, goat fucker, with your third grade-level reading comprehension skills, how did you ever make it through high school? Obviously, you can't read--and you're so arrogant as to think that we won't immediate spot your deficiency.

So which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

 
At 28 June, 2011 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

So I take it you can't cite one part of Mr. Mackey's book that you think is particularly well done, and MGF cites page four, and though both of you claim that you slogged through Mackey's entire swamp, neither one of you is prepared to discuss it.

The subject of this thread is why Mr. Gage has not read Mr. Mackey's paper. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Gage has not read it for the same reason I haven't read it--because it is a non-issue. It makes no noteworthy points, it's incompetently argued, it hasn't been peer-reviewed even by his colleagues at JREF, and it's just a steaming heap of crap.

 
At 28 June, 2011 11:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Listen, goat fucker, you're the one who made the scurrilous, lying allegations up thread, and as usual, you can't substantiate the lies you spew like a fire hose.

I'm perfectly aware of the subject of the OP, and I don't need you to clarify anything. In fact, you changed the subject and then lied about my position on this matter. Thus, I have every right to defend myself and prove that you're a straw man argument spewing liar who wears women's underwear.

Now, for the fifth time, answer the God damned questions, asshole:

[1] Which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

[2] So tell us, goat fucker, who pays for your trips to Victoria's Secret? The same group that pays "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Jon Gold," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about anything. You claimed falsely and absurdly that the Port Authority didn't trust Skilling's calculations, you invoked Wien's name as proof, and then you did your damndest to obfuscate because you lack the manly stuff to admit when you're wrong.

You're just trying to change the subject because you can't name a single page of Mackey's book that's worthwhile, and you don't even know anybody who can.

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The subject of this thread is why Mr. Gage has not read Mr. Mackey's paper. It's pretty obvious that Mr. Gage has not read it for the same reason I haven't read it--because it is a non-issue. It makes no noteworthy points, it's incompetently argued, it hasn't been peer-reviewed even by his colleagues at JREF, and it's just a steaming heap of crap"

...and this is why we will not dicuss Mackey's work with you.

You are a con man and a liar and sociopath. Mackey deconstructs Gages lies so obviously you will ignore it. It contains facts, facts that undermine the thousands of lies that you and the rest of the troofers tell every day.

You are also an idiot. You throw Newton around incorrectly,you misquote text, cherry-pick information out of context, and you cite idiots like Gage who does the same thing.

The attacks of 9/11 happened just like the official story says they did. No real mysteries to be found. No conspiracy before the fact and the only person to destroy evidence was Sandy Berger, and you blow that off because your psychosis is politically motivated. You offer no proof of anything, and all you do is mount limp-wristed attacks on the official reports. Reports that were conducted needlessly in the first place because the attacks happened in broad daylight in New York fucking City in front of every major media outlet in the country. Nothing was hidden, everyone gave interviews, everything was photographed, all the wreckage was trucked to a site and inspected, and no evidence of anything but a plane crash and fire was found.

Deal with it.

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion garnished with the same lies I just debunked.

Now, for the sixth time, answer the God damned questions, asshole:

[1] Which part of "Wein, Helmsley, and their real estate allies made the allegation" don't you understand?

[2] So tell us, goat fucker, who pays for your trips to Victoria's Secret? The same group that pays "Cosmos," "Wolsey," "Jon Gold," "Arabesque" and "Col. Jenny Sparks"?

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Furthermore, I never claimed that Wein was a member of the NY & NJ Port authority.

Your allegation, which is obviously proven false to anyone with the reading comprehension of third grader, is a straw man argument. Nowhere did I ever claim that Wein "was in the Port Authority."

This is another example of your inability to debate in good faith. And you wonder why we subject you to constant ridicule.

You're a liar and a scumbag with the morals of a street walking, crack addicted whore.

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mackey deconstructs Gages lies so obviously you will ignore it. It contains facts, facts that undermine the thousands of lies

So why can't you name any of those facts that stand up to scrutiny?

What does Sandy Berger have to do with the WTC? Did he destroy the evidence that the WTC design was defective?

Your claims that there are "no real mysteries" and "no conspiracy" and "the only person to destroy evidence was Sandy Berger" are nonsensical and the only way you can maintain such silly beliefs is to deny the facts and make up lies such as "nothing was hidden" and "everything was photographed" and "all the wreckage was trucked to a site and inspected".

What melted the girders, Myron? Jet fuel can't do it.

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here we go again with the "melted girders" crap.

You're cherry picking Dr. Astaneh Asl's testimony and trying to make it look like he's a troofer. There's not one scintilla of evidence to support the idea that "molten steel" was present at Ground Zero.

In fact, Dr. Astaneh Asl has nothing but contempt for the 9/11 "truth" movement--your never-ending lies notwithstanding.

 
At 28 June, 2011 12:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And don't give me that "Dr. Astaneh Asl said" crap.

Without evidence (e.g., an assay of the alleged "molten steel" confirmed by two certified investigators) to prove the existence of "molten steel" at Ground Zero, Dr. Astaneh Asl's testimony is pure hearsay.

Sorry goat fucker, but if you can't produce an assay of the alleged "molten steel," your argument is based on hearsay--which, like everything else you spew, is worthless.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 13:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not trying to make Dr. Astaneh-Asl look like anything. He told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." Unless you have evidence that there were girders made of something other than steel, that is evidence of melted steel at Ground Zero. There is much evidence, even a report from Father Edward Molloy, President of Notre Dame University. Was he lying?

You don't know what "hearsay" means, and too ignorant to know you don't know.

 
At 28 June, 2011 13:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There you go again, goat fucker. If you're not stretching the truth, you simply sidestep it altogether.

Let's try it again, this time R--E--A--L----S--L--O--W, okay dumbfuck?

Dr. Astaneh Asl's claim is unsubstantiated--hearsay. No evidence has ever been produced to substantiate the "melted girders" claim.

So where's the assay of the alleged "molten steel", goat fucker? Because without an assay, you have no evidence.

Furthermore, hearsay is defined as "information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated;" in other words, rumor. Thus, the only person who doesn't understand the concept of hearsay is you, goat fucker. Why? Because your entire argument is based on hearsay.

Once again, you FAIL.

Grade: F-

 
At 28 June, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 June, 2011 15:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's not hearsay. You're so stubbornly ignorant that even after you google "hearsay" you still don't know what it means. By your definition, all newspaper articles are simply hearsay.

Dr. Astaneh Asl's direct testimony of his own experience is not "hearsay".

"No assay, no evidence" is a lie. There's plenty of evidence-photographs, testimony, and even samples. You clowns can maintain your opinions only by lying.

So what part of Mackey's nonsense is worth reading? Take your best shot. I could use a laugh.

You didn't answer my question. Is Father Edward Molloy's report of molten steel a lie?

 
At 28 June, 2011 16:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'm not trying to make Dr. Astaneh-Asl look like anything. He told PBS 'I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center.' Unless you have evidence that there were girders made of something other than steel, that is evidence of melted steel at Ground Zero."

Bullshit! Astaneh-Asl's claim is unsubstantiated; thus, it's hearsay. As always, you have no evidence whatsoever. You can't show me the "melted girders"; you can't show me the acreted mass of alleged "molten steel"; and you can't show me an assay that precisely defines the substances allegedly found in the acreted mass of "molten steel." Again, you have nothing but speculation.

FAIL.

"...Dr. Astaneh Asl's direct testimony of his own experience is not 'hearsay'."

Bullshit! His claims have never been substantiated by scientific analysis; thus, his claims are hearsay--period.

"..."No assay, no evidence" is a lie. There's plenty of evidence-photographs, testimony, and even samples. You clowns can maintain your opinions only by lying."

Bullshit! Photographs don't provide a detailed analysis of the substances found in the alleged acreted mass of "molten steel." Thus, once again, you have nothing but speculation.

FAIL.

"...So what part of Mackey's nonsense is worth reading? Take your best shot. I could use a laugh."

Shut up, goat fucker. As I've demonstrated again-and-again, you don't read anything. You cherry pick the author's information and lie about the content found therein. You're an asshole with the morals of a street walking crack whore.

"...You didn't answer my question. Is Father Edward Molloy's report of molten steel a lie?"

Fuck you--you degenerate. Father Malloy's testimony is even less reliable than Dr. Asteneh Asl's claims.

Again, no assay of the acreted mass, no cigar. All you have is speculation, and speculation is not evidence.

FAIL.

 
At 28 June, 2011 16:26, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian, have you ever had a conversation that didn't turn into a Marx Brothers routine?

 
At 28 June, 2011 17:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 June, 2011 17:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you still haven't absorbed what "hearsay" means. Dr. Astaneh Asl is a professor of structural engineering whose expertise in structural steel qualified him for an NSF grant to study the steel. When he studied the steel he saw melted girders. He is an expert.

There's a picture of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DF4C6qtU_Fc&feature=channel_video_title (at 3:24)

Look at yourself, desperately claiming that day has not been proven to be light nor night proven dark. So Father Edward Malloy, CSC, is a liar? Is that what you're saying? And Dr. Astaneh doesn't know a steel girder from a scrap of copper pipe? What a fuckin daffodil.

TR, they usually turn into a farce, but it's not my doing. It's these rodeo clowns distracting from the issues that do it.

Do you of anybody who knows any part of Mackey's book that's worth reading? This thread is supposed to be about why Gage didn't read Mackey, but nobody can point to any reason that he should.

 
At 28 June, 2011 17:41, Blogger paul w said...

Truthers will never accept anything that might cause them to reassess their beliefs.

I've been trying to discuss the organic/alt medicine stuff with someone, and no matter what reality I show them, they just ignore it and raise other questions.

It’s interesting how often they say do I ‘believe’ or ‘trust’ this or that (i.e. mainstream media), as if that has anything to do with it.

Trying to tell a truther it was not an inside job is like saying there is no god to a christian.

It 'aint gonna happen.

 
At 28 June, 2011 17:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, can you name a part of the Mackey book that is worth reading? I can't find anybody who knows of any.

 
At 28 June, 2011 18:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

So you're "proof" is a video made by a troofer?

Brian, we are not playing your game any more. You need to grow up and do some work of your own. You need to stop using the troofers as a way to stalk women.

You bought into a web of lies and you are too small of an man to admit that you are wrong, that there is no evidence of a conspiracy in the attacks of 9/11 beyond Al Qaeda. You're a hack and a loser. That's why Willie Rodriguez makes your blood boil, he's a hero, a janitor who stepped up beyond the call to save people. You know that you would have run away.

Every chapter of Mackey's book is worth reading, except for Brian who can't read because his mental illness prohibits him from comprehension.

 
At 28 June, 2011 18:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"....When he studied the steel he saw melted girders. He is an expert."

Dr. Asteneh Asl didn't "study" anything. He made a cursory observation and made a scientifically unsubstantiated claim. Speculation, need I remind you, is not "study" or analysis.

No assay, no cigar.

FAIL.

"...There's a picture of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel in this video"

The "40-pound ingot" you cite as "evidence" has never been subjected to an assay by a qualified metallurgist or chemist. For all you know, the "40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel" is composed of aluminum or other substances that melt at far lower temperatures. Thus, the video you cite as "evidence" is worse than worthless.

Again, no assay, no cigar.

"...So Father Edward Malloy, CSC, is a liar?"

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said he's "lying"--you douchebag. I said his testimony is unreliable--that is, pure speculation unsubstantiated by scientific analysis.

Again, no assay, no cigar.

FAIL.

 
At 28 June, 2011 18:59, Blogger Ian said...

Paul w, can you name a part of the Mackey book that is worth reading? I can't find anybody who knows of any.

I can tell you many parts of which are worth reading. First you have to stop babbling about "molten steel".

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:01, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, you never answered my question: when you came up with your "meatball on a fork" model, were you high on model airplane glue or rubber cement?

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian wrote, "...when you came up with your 'meatball on a fork' model, were you high on model airplane glue or rubber cement?"

He was smoking his toenail clippings.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Here are links that describe the melting temps for a variety of metals:

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/melting-temperature-metals-d_860.html

Many of these were present in the WTC towers.

Also not all steel is created equal, and will melt at around 1500 degrees F.

Then there are latent heat factors:


http://phoenix.phys.clemson.edu/labs/223/spheat/index.html

http://www.engineersedge.com/properties_of_metals.htm

None of this has anything to do with Gage's ineptitude and refusal to read Mackey desconstruction of his "work".

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the proof is the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses--5 of them PhDs, as well as a photo of what is alleged to be a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel.

William Rodriguez doesn't make my blood boil. I feel sorry for a guy who is such a loser that he'll lie about 9/11 just for a few years of fame, knowing all along that he'll be an object of pity and disgust for the rest of his life when he's found out.

Can you please pick out the best part of Mackey's argument? The stuff you've picked out so far is a joke. Tell him I said so.

GutterBall, clearly you are ignorant of Dr. Astaneh's studies of the WTC steel. As of March, 2002 he had made 3 trips to NYC and spent 25 days studying the steel. For you reject Dr. Astaneh's expert testimony as "scientifically unsubstantiated" is silly and dumb.

For scientific analysis you need only look at the FEMA Appendix C samples, which were described by the NYT as "partially evaporated". There is no question that they are steel.

Ian, I'm not babbling about anything. Meatball on a fork is petgoat's model, not mine.

Can you point to a part of Mackey's epic crap that is particularly worthwhile? It's seems nobody else around here has the guts.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

When he studied the steel he saw melted girders. He is an expert.

This is the same as the Jonathan Barnett "evaporated steel" maneuver -- confusing an informal description with a scientific assertion. An informal description spoken by an expert is still just an informal description.

As with Dr. Barnett, one seeking the truth might simply ask the speaker to clarify what they meant.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, FEMA Appendix C describes intragranular melting of the steel. There's nothing informal about that description.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...clearly you are ignorant of Dr. Astaneh's studies of the WTC steel. As of March, 2002 he had made 3 trips to NYC and spent 25 days studying the steel. For you reject Dr. Astaneh's expert testimony as "scientifically unsubstantiated" is silly and dumb."

You just refuse to reason, don't you, goat fucker?

Get it through your thick skull: You cannot determine the composition of a blob of metal by looking at the God damned thing. The blob of metal must be subjected to an assay, which is performed by a fully-qualified metallurgist or a chemist.

Again, all you have is speculation, and speculation is NOT evidence.

FAIL.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...RGT, FEMA Appendix C describes intragranular melting of the steel."

Another half-truth.

Intragranular "melting", as I've already proven, only takes place in solid phase. Furthermore, Drs. Barnett, Beiderman, and Sisson determined that the steel didn't "melt", it eroded.

Again, you're repeating the same lies that were debunked months ago.

You're an asshole and a shameless liar, who should be banned permanently.

FAIL.

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:53, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, the proof is the testimony of at least a dozen witnesses--5 of them PhDs, as well as a photo of what is alleged to be a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel.

In other words, nothing but innuendo and hearsay. That's all Brian ever has.

William Rodriguez doesn't make my blood boil. I feel sorry for a guy who is such a loser that he'll lie about 9/11 just for a few years of fame, knowing all along that he'll be an object of pity and disgust for the rest of his life when he's found out.

And yet, when presented with the opportunity to "out" this man, you ran away squealing and crying. What a brave warrior for truth you are, Brian!

 
At 28 June, 2011 19:54, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I'm not babbling about anything. Meatball on a fork is petgoat's model, not mine.

Stop lying, petgoat.

Can you point to a part of Mackey's epic crap that is particularly worthwhile? It's seems nobody else around here has the guts.

I sure can. All you have to do is admit that the widows have no questions, and I'll tell you what's worthwhile about Mackey's book.

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

So MGF, what's your point? That maybe there was molten steel after all? Then why did Leslie Robertson and John Gross find it necessary to lie about it?

Nice try with the latent heat of fusion. Maybe you'd better take chemistry over again. Pay attention this time when they tell you why orchards are flooded when a freeze is threatened.

It only kicks in when the material is changing phase, and when the phase change is melting it means the process requires MORE HEAT, not less. I don't believe that you're about the graduate form CSUMB with a degree in Marine Geology. I think you're a liar.

If you will recommend a particularly well-reasoned part of Mackey's magnum poopus, I will take it apart.

UtterFool, Dr. Astaneh didn't see a blob of metal. He saw melting of girders. Girders are steel. He was discussing the steel at the Oakland Freeway fire at the time, so clearly he was referring to steel girders, not lead girders, copper girders, silver girders, antimony or zinc girders, or anything else you might like to fantasize about.

All melting takes place in the solid phase, idiot. You can;'t melt stuff that's in the vapor phase or the liquid phase.

You don't know what you're talking about. You and Willie would really make a cute couple, you know that?

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:22, Blogger Ian said...

And once again, as with every one of his other posts, Brian shows how much he doesn't understand about physics and chemistry, and then babbles about his Willie Rodriguez obsession.

I wouldn't want it any other way.

Goodnight, petgoat!

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:23, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, FEMA Appendix C describes intragranular melting of the steel. There's nothing informal about that description.

We're not discussing FEMA's findings. We're discussing Barnett's and Astaneh's statements and whether they reflect what those individuals now believe.

They sound like very important statements if true, so it's odd that you get so nervous about verifying what the sources really think. It's almost like you don't want to know.

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I prefer my science to be done in public and not in the form of private communications on the internet. I do not have the resources to conduct my own investigation.

If either Dr. Astaneh-Asl or Dr. Barnett has anything to add to the public discourse, they are quite free to do so.

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:41, Blogger paul w said...

I feel sorry for a guy who is such a loser that he'll lie about 9/11 just for a few years of fame, knowing all along that he'll be an object of pity and disgust for the rest of his life when he's found out.

The stuff you've picked out so far is a joke. Tell him I said so.

GutterBall, clearly you are ignorant

Ian, I'm not babbling about anything.

It's seems nobody else around here has the guts.

So MGF, what's your point?

Maybe you'd better take chemistry over again.

I don't believe that you're about the graduate form CSUMB with a degree in Marine Geology. I think you're a liar.

If you will recommend a particularly well-reasoned part of Mackey's magnum poopus, I will take it apart.

UtterFool...anything else you might like to fantasize about.

All melting takes place in the solid phase, idiot.

You don't know what you're talking about. You and Willie would really make a cute couple, you know that?

This, from just two posts.

Once again, this forum is turning into a Brian Good rant.

Ban.

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'll take that as no, just like everybody else on this forum, you can't recommend any part of Mr. Mackey's magnum poopus as worth reading.

 
At 28 June, 2011 20:53, Blogger paul w said...

I'll take that as no, just like everybody else on this forum, you can't recommend any part of Mr. Mackey's magnum poopus as worth reading.

Shut the fuck up, Brian.

This is bullshit. This moron has reduced this forum to his unstable level.

Ban. Now.

 
At 28 June, 2011 21:04, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I prefer my science to be done in public and not in the form of private communications on the internet. I do not have the resources to conduct my own investigation.

A private communication does not preclude a public investigation. Confirmed statements from these experts that, yes, they really did witness steel doing these impossible things could be instrumental in getting that real investigation. You're telling me that's not worth shooting off a couple of emails?

 
At 28 June, 2011 21:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Shoot off your own emails, RGT.

Can you recommend any part of Mr. Mackey's unpublished book?

 
At 28 June, 2011 21:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, there are plenty of truthers-are-doo-doo-heads threads here for your posting pleasure. This particular thread is about why people should read Mr. Mackey's unpublishable book, and nobody can give me any credible hints about that.

 
At 28 June, 2011 21:54, Blogger Triterope said...

Paul w, can you name a part of the Mackey book that is worth reading? I can't find anybody who knows of any.

Brian, you couldn't find a whore in a whorehouse.

 
At 28 June, 2011 22:06, Blogger Triterope said...

This is bullshit. This moron has reduced this forum to his unstable level.

Ban. Now.


Indeed. All the guy can do is make the same tired claims over and over again, as though they'd never been addressed.

 
At 28 June, 2011 22:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

The points haven't been addressed. All I get is obfuscation, hysterical and irrational denial, and lies.

And nobody can recommend a part of Mackey's paper worth reading. I just pulled page 90 because that's where MGF was at and found about 5 real howlers just on one page. It's like Mackey didn't expect that anyone would actually read that far.

 
At 28 June, 2011 22:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mr. Mackey shows himself for a fool when he claims on p. 5 that NIST's report was "meticulous". NIST's report is a joke--they refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C steel, they provide no calculations supporting their assumed collapse mechanism, and by cutting off the analysis at the moment of collapse initiation they avoid all the mysterious features of the collapse: symmetry, totality, speed, the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the core, and the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

P. 90 is pretty silly. It starts with a straw man argument, attributing to Dr. Griffin the claim that the breakage of columns requires explosives. Griffin didn't say that. He said that NIST's theory does not adequately explain the breaking of columns. (This is particularly the case with respect to the lower core in WTC2, which remained standing after the floors had been peeled away, and then inexplicably broke up into little pieces. This is another one of the essential mysteries that NIST dodges by truncating its analysis.)

Then Mackey indulges in the idiotic argument that since controlled demolition aims to avoid damage to adjacent buildings, and since there was damage to adjacent buildings, therefore there was no controlled demolition.

Mackey then claims that Griffin provides no estimate of the pattern of explosives used--when obviously the pattern would simply be SYMMETRICAL. As it says on the Griffin's following page, page 187, all the columns had to fail simultaneously.

Mackey then claims that there was no reason to demolish the buildings vertically. There was plenty of reason. To avoid unnecessary casualties, to avoid unnecessary damage and disruption to other offices and buildings, to avoid so far as possible, complicated insurance claims (and possible out-of-control insurance investigations) involving other buildings. The RJ Lee Report that discovered the iron microspheres, for instance, came out of the damage to the Bankers Trust Building.

Mackey then stupidly compares the destruction of the towers to the demolition of a far different structure, the J l Hudson building. The Hudson building had been built in 12 separate stages. Thus it was taken down in segments. It was not practical to take the towers down in segments, because their concrete floors were unified membranes. The Hudson Building was also only a little bit taller than it was wide. The WTC was more than 6 times as tall as it was wide. There's no comparison between Hudson and the WTC.

With such a heap of idiocy on just one of his pages, I'm sure glad Mr. Mackey is not a truther. Let me know when he gets his book published by a respectable peer-reviewed outfit and maybe I'll take a look. As it is it's a waste of time.

 
At 28 June, 2011 23:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 June, 2011 23:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean? Dr. Astaneh says he saw melting of girders and UtterFool says no he didn't. Barnett and Sisson and Beiderman describe intragranular melting and GutterBall says it's not melting. The melting occurred on the surface until it melted all the way through the girder.

Jonathan Cole reproduced the same effect using thermate. See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXlC2TlNgEU

So you're telling us that the steel melted because it was sitting in a pool of melted steel. Oh gee guy, thanks for clearing that up!

Why did Robertson and Gross lie about the molten steel? Why did NIST pretend the sulfidated steel samples didn't exist? Why weren't the FEMA Appendix C studies continued so they could get an idea of the source of the sulfur?

 
At 29 June, 2011 00:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...So you're telling us that the steel melted because it was sitting in a pool of melted steel. Oh gee guy, thanks for clearing that up!"

No, that's not what I'm saying. Dr. Astaneh Asl is simply mistaken. The findings of Drs. Barnett, Beiderman and Sisson prove that he was mistaken.

"...Evidence of a severe high temperature corrosion attack on the steel, including oxidation and sulfication with subsequent intragranular melting, was readily visible in the near-surface microstructure. A liquid eutectic mixture containing primarily iron, oxygen, and sulfur formed during this hot corrosion attack on the steel. This sulfur-rich liquid penetrated preferentially down grain boundaries of the steel, severely weakening the beam and making it susceptible to erosion. The eutectic temperature for this mixture strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached 1,000 °C (1,800 °F), which is substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel." -- Drs. Barnett, Beiderman and Sisson.

Thus, the steel didn't "melt," it eroded. And to this day, Dr. Astaneh Asl has never challenged the findings of Drs. Barnett, Beiderman and Sisson.

Furthermore, the video you cite doesn't prove anything. Try basic scientific logic: Correlation doesn't prove causation.

"...Why did Robertson and Gross lie about the molten steel?"

Mr Robertson and Dr. Gross didn't lie about anything, goat fucker. The 9/11 "truth" movement lies about the presence of "molten steel," just as you're lying now. This is the "truthers" Number One straw man argument.

"...Why did NIST pretend the sulfidated steel samples didn't exist?"

NIST didn't "pretend the sulfidated steel samples didn't exist"--you lying cretin. NIST published the results and released them for everyone who's interested to read and study. The 9/11 "truthers" deliberate misrepresentation of Drs Barnett, Beiderman and Sisson's conclusion does not equal deceit on the part of NIST.

"...Why weren't the FEMA Appendix C studies continued so they could get an idea of the source of the sulfur?"

Does the obvious always evade you, goat fucker? Because there's no evidence that the girder corroded prior to collapse. In fact, all the evidence points to a post-collapse corrosive event. The most likely source of sulfur was determined to be a simple as acid rain.

"...'The important questions,' says Biederman, 'are how much sulfur do you need, and where did it come from? The answer could be as simple--and this is scary--as acid rain.'" -- Dr. Beiderman

Case closed.

 
At 29 June, 2011 00:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...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." -- Professor Sisson

 
At 29 June, 2011 09:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're playing with words. It eroded because it melted. Jonathan Cole was able to exactly simulate the swiss-cheese appearance and razor sharp thinness in the FEMA samples by blasting a beam with thermate.

Dr. Gross can not possibly have been as ignorant as he claimed of the many witness reports of molten steel.

Mr. Robertson denied that anyone saw molten steel--when he had claimed that he'd seen it himself.

NIST pretended the FEMA sulfidated steel samples didn't exist. They're not listed in NIST's steel inventory, and NIST claims there are no WTC7 samples when one of the FEMA samples came from WTC7. NIST did not do the followup studies of the eutectic steel that were requested by FEMA.

Dr. Biederman's speculation about acid rain was not a "determination". It was not a part of the FEMA report.

If the most likely source of the sulfur was acid rain, then why can't we have some further investigation to prove it? Has such corrosion ever occurred at a building fire site anywhere else, ever? The vaporized steel was reported 3 weeks after 9/11. How much rain happened during that time?

If Dr. Sisson has solved the "deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation" I wish he would do us all the favor of publishing a peer-reviewed paper instead of doing his science on TV.

UtterFail, your double standards for evidence and your selective skepticism are transparent. You're as self-deceiving as the looniest conspiracy theorists.

 
At 29 June, 2011 09:29, Blogger Triterope said...

Christ, Brian, it would take another 290-page document to correct all the things you got wrong.

 
At 29 June, 2011 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

It's a typical empty one-liner from you, TR.

How about you show one of my points to be incorrect, and how about you name one point in Mackey's 135,000 word magnum poopus that stands up to scrutiny.

 
At 29 June, 2011 09:52, Blogger Triterope said...

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=7312916&postcount=26

 
At 29 June, 2011 10:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 June, 2011 11:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

How did that link show my point--which was that Mackey's crap seemed to have been deliberately written in such a manner that no one would read it--was not true?

He admits he's not a good writer, and mentions no efforts to get editorial help. So he validates my point: he deliberately wrote a repulsive book.

His claim that his book is as long as its source material is a stupid lie. Mackey's 138,000-word heap is more than four times as long as the 30,000 word chapter it criticizes.

His evidence-free claim that I am not capable of understanding his book is another stupid lie, since he has no way of knowing what I can and can not understand.

The fact that Gage sells DVDs and Mackey's book is free has nothing do do with the point. Gage sells DVDs in an effort to communicate, and Mackey's book is clearly an effort to obfuscate. That's the point. Nobody in this forum can provide any evidence that they actually read Mackey's book, and nobody here is prepared to discuss it. QED. It's a bible you guys want to wave, but you haven't even read it yourselves.

Mr. Mackey's inept and irrational response shows that he's as lousy as a debater as he is as a writer. I'm sure glad he's not a 9/11 truther.

 
At 29 June, 2011 11:14, Blogger Triterope said...

How did that link show my point--which was that Mackey's crap seemed to have been deliberately written in such a manner that no one would read it--was not true?

It didn't.

You said "show one of my points to be incorrect." The link shows one of your points to be incorrect, but not that particular point.

Christ, Brian, are you so illiterate you can't even understand things you wrote yourself?

 
At 29 June, 2011 11:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

Is it too much to ask that you specify what point Mackey showed to be incorrect?

You didn't answer my original question. You didn't name anything in my 9:29 post above that was wrong, and you didn't name even one point in Mackey's 135,000 word magnum poopus that stands up to scrutiny.

 
At 29 June, 2011 11:47, Blogger Triterope said...

Is it too much to ask that you specify what point Mackey showed to be incorrect?

"Specify?" What do you need specified, exactly? Do you want me to fucking read it to you?

Honestly, Brian, if you can't read those words and understand what of your point(s) he is objecting to, and what arguments he offers to counter it...

Christ, I can't even finish that sentence. I can't even imagine something so fucked up that I can complete a sentence that starts with "Brian Good's reading comprehension is like ___________." If that was a question on Match Game, it would drive all six panelists, both contestants, and Gene Rayburn to suicide.

You didn't name anything in my 9:29 post above that was wrong,

You're right, I didn't. See if you can figure out why.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you refuse to specify what point Mackey refuted, you refuse to name a single point in the 9:29 above that is wrong, and you refuse to name a single point in Mackey's book that is worth reading.

Typical empty Bushbot tactics.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:11, Blogger Triterope said...

you refuse to name a single point in the 9:29 above that is wrong

That's right, I do.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because you know if you do, I will prove you wrong, and as long as you don't your smug innuendo that they're all wrong will stand.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Because you know if you do, I will prove you wrong, and as long as you don't your smug innuendo that they're all wrong will stand.

Here's a prime example of a paradox which Brian has created for himself.

He says: I will prove you wrong which in reality he can't prove him wrong, because that would mean that Brian is admitting that he was right all along.

Another paradox: they're all wrong which in logical sense means that he's saying that they're all right.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I can't prove TR wrong so long as he lacks the guts to make any specific claims. Like the rest of you here, he hides behind generalities.

9/11 has reduced all of you to children, desperately clinging to authority for protection and support.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:52, Blogger Triterope said...

Because you know if you do, I will prove you wrong, and as long as you don't your smug innuendo that they're all wrong will stand.

No, that's not it at all. I have a very specific reason for not pointing out any errors in the 9:29 post.

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I can't prove TR wrong so long as he lacks the guts to make any specific claims. Like the rest of you here, he hides behind generalities.

And you can't prove anything without screaming like a little girl wanting everything in a candy store. You have no substance for debate, no soruces to argue with, no evidence to prove anything you claim to be the truth. THEREFORE YOU ARE NOTHING!

9/11 has reduced all of you to children, desperately clinging to authority for protection and support.

And you've created a paradox which you can't get out of. What a fucking shame!

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian there's 3 Laws of Paradox, let me explain because you show all 3:

Self reference – An example is "This statement is false", a form of the Liar paradox. The statement is referring to itself. Another example of self reference is the question of whether the barber shaves himself in the Barber paradox. One more example would be "Is the answer to this question no?" In this case, if you replied no, you would be stating that the answer is not no. If you reply yes, you are stating that it is no, because you said yes. But because you answered yes the answer is not no. However you could reply "It isn't." indicating a negative response without saying the word "no".

Contradiction – "This statement is false"—the statement cannot be false and true at the same time.

Vicious circularity or infinite regress – "This statement is false"—if the statement is true, then the statement is false, thereby making the statement true. Another example of vicious circularity is the following group of statements:
"The following sentence is true."
"The previous sentence is false."

 
At 29 June, 2011 12:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Therefore Brian, you've got a paradox where every single lie you've told us in the past years that the Official Story was "wrong" or it's a "lie" actually means that you've admitted that the Official Story was right and that it tells the truth.


That's the paradox you goat fucker!

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, WAQo has it all figured out! Up is Down and Black is White and now it all makes sense! He's a "genious"!

I not only have substance for debate, I have demolished Mackey's nonsense every time I have examined it--in the first four pages of his book, on page 90 of his book, and in his silly post at JREF.

I also demolished UtterFail's nonsense in my 9:16 post above.

I have plenty of substance for debate. And still none of you can name a part of Mackey's nonsense that is worth reading, let alone defending.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So come on Brian, show more of these paradox's which you speak of. Cause with every single keystroke you make to complete a sentence, the more you deny yourself of the reality of your situation.

You disagree with us, but in reality you have no choice but to agree with us. You claim we're all "liars", but yet you managed to say that we're all telling the truth.

This is why I like these paradox's you create Brian, cause in reality it's just the opposite of what you say.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:05, Blogger Triterope said...

Come on Brian, don't you want to know why I won't attack the 9:29 post? I'll tell you if you ask.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:06, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I not only have substance for debate, I have demolished Mackey's nonsense every time I have examined it--in the first four pages of his book, on page 90 of his book, and in his silly post at JREF.

Paradox - You say you have substance for debate, but in reality you have no substance to go by. You claim to demolish Mackey, in reality you haven't demolished Mackey.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:09, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I also demolished UtterFail's nonsense in my 9:16 post above.

I have plenty of substance for debate. And still none of you can name a part of Mackey's nonsense that is worth reading, let alone defending.


Paradox - You claim to demolish Utterfail, in reality you haven't. Again you claim to have substance, in reality you have none.

Mackey's paper is readable and coherent. Only an illiterate moron (like yourself) can't comprehend the valuable information that dwells within Mackey's paper.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Showing how Brian's claims are paradox's really pisses him off. I like that!

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I also demolished UtterFail's nonsense in my 9:16 post above."

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back, Pinocchio.

You didn't demolish anything--with the exception of your non-existent credibility.

For example, the Jonathan Cole video you cite as "evidence" is the antithesis of the scientific method. Specifically, Cole works backward for a predetermined conclusion. Working backward from a predetermined conclusion is intellectually dishonest. And then to add insult to injury, you engage in a huge leap of logic to justify your idiotic thermate theory.

Again, the only thing you've managed to demolish is your own credibility.

FAIL.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brain's paradox - "I demolished Mackey & Utterfail", in reality he demolished himself in the process.

Yes Brian, you're really doing a smashing job at debunking yourself.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

And as predicted, Brian runs away when he encounters me.

BAWK BAWK BAWK BAWK!

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:36, Blogger Triterope said...

Maybe he finally figured out why I wasn't objecting to the 9:29 post.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, your dollar-store sophistry ain't cutting it.

GutterBall, what you call "working backward from a predetermined conclusion" can in Mr. Cole's case be more accurately characterized as "testing a hypothesis", which is the foundation of the scientific method.

Mr. Cole also tested the alternative hypothesis that Gypsum had caused the sulfidation attack, the swiss-cheese appearance, and the razor-sharp thinness shown by the FEMA samples. He found that Gypsum doesn't do that. It's inert.

NIST tested neither the thermite hypothesis nor the Gypsum hypothesis, nor your acid rain ("case closed") hypothesis--or if they did, they kept the result of their experiments to themselves. They pretended that the issue did not exist.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Maybe you're right TR. :-D

With Brian, he can't stand the truth, but when we figure out that it's him lying out of his ass that he realizes we've caught onto his little game. We then maticulaously deconstruct his claims & theories in such a way that he can't respond in a polite manner.

We'll never read him say: "I've been wrong about the whole thing." Because he's a child trapped in a mans body, which is quite sad.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, your dollar-store sophistry ain't cutting it.

Brian's paradox - You claim that my sophistry isn't cutting it, in reality it is cutting it because you don't like it when I do that to you.

BAWK BAWK BAWK

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

they kept the result of their experiments to themselves. They pretended that the issue did not exist.

Brian's paradox - Claims that they kept the experiments themselves, in reality the experiments were peer-reviewed by the experts and published to the public. Claims that the issue doesn't exist, in reality it does exist (except in Brian's mind it doesn't).

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:46, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey Brian, what about that 9:29 post you're suddenly not talking about?

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Good Lord Brian, I've handed you your own ass multiple times.

Thank Glod I found your weak spot, your claims & theories are just paradoxes which I can deconstruct. You just like it when I piss you off!

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I meant "GOD" not "glod".

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So MGF, what's your point? That maybe there was molten steel after all? Then why did Leslie Robertson and John Gross find it necessary to lie about it?"

My point is that molten steel is a red herring. There was a lot of melted metal in both towers. There were many different steel types in each tower that melt at lower temps. Robertson and Gross didn't lie, they knew that the molt metals had nothing to do with the collpase. You'd know that if you read Mackey's white paper.

"I don't believe that you're about the graduate form CSUMB with a degree in Marine Geology. I think you're a liar."

I never said I went to CSUMB, only that I'm majoring in Marine Geology. You assumed the rest - because you're stupid.

"William Rodriguez doesn't make my blood boil. I feel sorry for a guy who is such a loser that he'll lie about 9/11 just for a few years of fame, knowing all along that he'll be an object of pity and disgust for the rest of his life when he's found out."

What? Willie hasn't been found out yet? I thought that you'd proven to the world that he was a fraud? Could it be that everyone else that looked into his story found it to be credible? That would make you, oh what's the word? Oh yes, that would make you a liar.

"Nice try with the latent heat of fusion. Maybe you'd better take chemistry over again. Pay attention this time when they tell you why orchards are flooded when a freeze is threatened."

They do that in the physics class, not chem. Nice try, dipshit.

"It only kicks in when the material is changing phase, and when the phase change is melting it means the process requires MORE HEAT, not less. "

Nope.

Sea water that seeps into cracks along subduction zones heats as it goes deeper into the earth. This heated water lowers the temps that rock will melt (latent heat of melting) and creates lava. ( they teach us lowly geology students this in the first quarter).

Although it has been shown that the combination of burning/melting materials caused the fires in each tower to burn hotter than the jet fuel would have burned alone. All that had to happen was to melt enought trusses to the point of weakening to cause collapse. The heat transfer from the kinetic energy upon other heated trusses would have been instantaneous allowing for total collapse within the damaged part of the tower where impact had knocked off the fire protective insulation. The instant shifting of mass caused the rest of the supporting beams to pop lose like a zipper under the sudden kinwtic weight. This is the propper use of Newton's 1st law of thermodynamics, which holds up as we saw each tower's collapse slow as it neared the ground, and the initial kintetic dissipate as secondary waves of kinetic energy took over.

The fires burned inside of the pile for weeks, so who knows where much of the molten metals found were initially heated? That's why nobody cares.

"I do not have the resources to conduct my own investigation."

Translation: I'm lazy and stupid.

"The fact that Gage sells DVDs and Mackey's book is free has nothing do do with the point. Gage sells DVDs in an effort to communicate, and Mackey's book is clearly an effort to obfuscate."

No, Gage sells his DVD because he's a scam artist. Mackey's book is free because it is like any other scientific white-paper. Mackey has nothing to hide (as gage does) and nothing to gain financially as his interest is only in the facts.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Nobody in this forum can provide any evidence that they actually read Mackey's book, and nobody here is prepared to discuss it"

The only person here who is not prepaired to discuss Mackey is you. You lack the ability (due to your mental condition) to stay on point. You lack the ability to cite indepentand sources and instead use troofer source materials. You cite sources out of context and cite quotes that are also out of context. You use physics and metallurgy incorrectly. Plus you generally spaz out.

 
At 29 June, 2011 13:56, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's paradox - Claims that molten steel was found on 9/11, in reality there was no molten steel to be found by either the rescue teams, firefighters, police nor Port Authority.

Brian sure is losing his game!

 
At 29 June, 2011 14:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian ran away again. Chickenshit!

BAWK BAWK BAWK!

 
At 29 June, 2011 14:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you guys haven't deconstructed ANY of my claims. That's just the point. Looks like you just discovered paradox and you think it's the key to everything.

MGF, molten steel is not a red herring. Jet fuel can not have caused it. The officials have provided no scientific explanation for it but only hypotheses they refuse to test, and lies. Robertson and Gross lied when they professed ignorance of molten iron.
There's no reason for them to lie if it had nothing to do with the collapse.

April 24, 20:23 in the "How Stupid Is..." thread you wrote:

"I'm in my 4th year of Marine Geology at CSUMB, and no they're not looking for a janitor." You're a liar, MGF, and Energy of Fusion is 1rst quarter freshman chemistry. I see you're still operating under the illusion that Newton wrote the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your persistent ignorance is noted. You not only don't know, you won't learn! It's not healthy for you to dwell on the fact that you're lazy and stupid. Simply work harder, and be careful what you say and believe.

Willie's been found out. It took four years for the truth movement to catch on, four years of frantic lobbying and lying on Willie's part.

You guys still can't name anything wrong in my points, and you can't name anything right in Mackey's claims.

 
At 29 June, 2011 14:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF is a liar and I'm not.

TR thinks he's cute and I don't.

WAQo's not smart enough to see that his argument is bogus--and I am.\

 
At 29 June, 2011 14:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dr. Biederman's speculation about acid rain was not a "determination". It was not a part of the FEMA report.

Ah, so you do understand the difference. But now you need to explain why you arbitrarily characterize Barnett's and Astaneh's off-report statements as determinations.

 
At 29 June, 2011 14:55, Blogger Triterope said...

TR thinks he's cute and I don't.

Thank God for that.

 
At 29 June, 2011 14:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said they were determinations. They are evidence that need to be investigated.

You guys use a double standard. You say Your evidence is not proof, and therefore we don't need a new investigation

And you say Our evidence is proof even though it's not.

All the evidence needs further investigation to answer all the questions.

 
At 29 June, 2011 15:15, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Hey Brian, what about that 9:29 post you're suddenly not talking about?"

He is psychologically unable to adress that point. He simply can not admit to even the most minor of errors. He either pretends it never happened,or twists his own perception of reality so he can blame others for it.

My bet is he will never adress your point about it.

 
At 29 June, 2011 15:20, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I never said they were determinations. They are evidence that need to be investigated.

Why do "evaporated steel" and "melted girders" demand investigation, while "acid rain" may be safely dismissed?

All the evidence needs further investigation to answer all the questions.

Rational judgment, when applied to the existing body of evidence, leads to the government's conclusion. There are no loose ends that cannot be explained by faulty memories and verbal shortcuts. You've been duped. How many years of your life have you wasted on this?

 
At 29 June, 2011 15:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, if acid rain made steel evaporate, surely we would have seen it before. Also, you'd think the WPI guys would test it if they really believed it. I think that explanation was offered as a joke. If you want to run some tests, feel free to do so.

Your frantic denial that there are loose ends resembles hysterical blindness. The evaporated steel is a loose end. Symmetry, totality, pulverized concrete, speed of collapse, destruction of the core, NIST's unwillingness to release the input data for its models, the widows' 273 questions, Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, Behrooz Sarshar, and the 114 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report are all loose ends.

You guys can maintain your opinions only by lying to yourselves and each other.

 
At 29 June, 2011 15:45, Blogger Triterope said...

He is psychologically unable to adress that point. He simply can not admit to even the most minor of errors.

I think it runs deeper than that. Brian not only can't admit to error, he is incapable of considering the possibility that he might have made an error.

Most people, when confronted by an adversary over something pedantic like that, would actually check to see if maybe they made a mistake. Not Brian. It never occurred to him that I was yanking his chain. I had to say it three times before he thought to look.

And you know what's really funny about this? The post below the 9:29 timestamp isn't the right post either! I thought maybe he misassigned the timestamp to the post below it, instead of the post above it. Easy mistake to make. But I think he's talking about the 9:16 post, which couldn't possibly be confused with the 9:29 timestamp... well, you'd think. Brian discovers new ways to be stupid every day.

 
At 29 June, 2011 16:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

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

At the time I was. When I get financial aid again I will return.


"Energy of Fusion is 1rst quarter freshman chemistry."

Not any more, maybe back in the 1970s, but not now.


"I see you're still operating under the illusion that Newton wrote the 1st law of thermodynamics."

Youre the one who spent the last eight years waiving Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics, fucktard. I'm the one who pointed out that you were misapplying it. I don't care who wrote it, all that matters is that you're wrong.

"Your persistent ignorance is noted. You not only don't know, you won't learn!"

Translation: My fantasy jedi powers don't work on people who aren't mentally ill.

"It's not healthy for you to dwell on the fact that you're lazy and stupid. Simply work harder, and be careful what you say and believe."

I think this is written on a sign over the door at the mental health clinic he gets his medication at.

I really like being lectured by a sex-preditor troofer about being careful about what you say and believe.

I saw you brought the RJLee report and iron microspheres back into the discussion. Your psychosis is striking.

Too bad you'll end up being banned, you're hillarious.

 
At 29 June, 2011 16:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Your frantic denial that there are loose ends resembles hysterical blindness. The evaporated steel is a loose end. Symmetry, totality, pulverized concrete, speed of collapse, destruction of the core, NIST's unwillingness to release the input data for its models, the widows' 273 questions, Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, Behrooz Sarshar, and the 114 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report are all loose ends."

See what I mean by spazzing out?

Ban.

 
At 29 June, 2011 16:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, what you call 'working backward from a predetermined conclusion' can in Mr. Cole's case be more accurately characterized as 'testing a hypothesis', which is the foundation of the scientific method."

No, Cole is working backwards from a predetermined conclusion. He has no evidence for the presence of any alleged thermitic material--thermite, thermate or "nanothermite."

Before Cole can claim to have justification for the presence thermate, a reasonable scientist would try to establish the presence of the material, which would be found in a variety of sources, including the WTC dust.

The byproducts of thermate are aluminum oxide and barium nitrate. Yet, neither the USGS Report or any other investigator--including Steven Jones--report finding traces of either substance--aluminum oxide or barium nitrate--in the dust samples. Yes, the USGS and Jones found aluminum, but aluminum is decidedly not aluminum oxide. Aluminum, as anyone familiar with the construction of the WTC is aware, was found everywhere in the towers.

The absence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate thoroughly disproves Cole's thermate theory.

Furthermore, the Jones "nanothermite" theory was proven false because his results are not reproducible in a laboratory.

Thus, it's intellectually dishonest for Cole to simulate a high temperature corrosive attack on a structural steel beam using thermate, without first establishing the presence of the substance in the first place.

And that's precisely why Cole is guilty of working backward from a predetermined conclusion.

FAIL.

"...Mr. Cole also tested the alternative hypothesis that Gypsum had caused the sulfidation attack, the swiss-cheese appearance, and the razor-sharp thinness shown by the FEMA samples. He found that Gypsum doesn't do that. It's inert."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

We've already been over this, goat fucker. Dr. Sisson never claimed that gypsum was the source of the sulfur. The BBC made that claim.

FAIL.

"...NIST tested neither the thermite hypothesis nor the Gypsum hypothesis, nor your acid rain ("case closed") hypothesis--or if they did, they kept the result of their experiments to themselves. They pretended that the issue did not exist."

NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate. Thus, your argument is irrelevant.

FAIL.

 
At 29 June, 2011 16:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The words "thermite hypothesis" should be in quotation marks. Cole's hokum involved thermate, not thermite, so why the goat fucker refers to "thermite hypothesis" is anyone's guess. The fact remains that USGS data doesn't support the idea that thermite, thermate or "nanothermite" was present at Ground Zero.

 
At 29 June, 2011 16:54, Blogger paul w said...

The evaporated steel is a loose end. Symmetry, totality, pulverized concrete, speed of collapse, destruction of the core, NIST's unwillingness to release the input data for its models, the widows' 273 questions, Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, Behrooz Sarshar, and the 114 omissions and distortions in the 9/11 Commission report are all loose ends.

And here we have the result of all the efforts over the past couple of years to explain the issues to him.

Can anyone see any change over the next few years?

Exactly.

It's this reason, and it's the only reason, I ask for this mentally unstable man to be removed.

He's incapable of admitting error, and therefore changing.

 
At 29 June, 2011 17:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR wants to quibble over the timestamp instead of answer the points in the post. Actually I recognized the error and the pedantry and the chain yanking right off, and considered it too dumb for response.

MGF, claimed that you never said that you were a student at CSUMB. You did say you were a student there. They don't offer a Marine Geology degree, you think Newton wrote the 1st law of thermodynamics, you don't know what you're talking about and you're a liar.

GutterBall, there is evidence of thermite: the molten steel found at Ground Zero, which has not yet been explained by any other hypothesis.

Thermate does not require barium, only an idiot would put on your "no barium, no thermite" argument, aluminum oxide is a gas at reaction temperatures and so would not be expected to be found in the dust, and you failed to mention iron as a byproduct of the reaction. Your persistently erroneous pontificating on things you know nothing about is getting tiresome.

There's nothing dishonest about Cole testing the question "Can thermite cut steel?", especially after National Geographic had already done so on TV and concluded, by running a fraudulent experiment, that it can not.

Paul w, you guys don't know enough to explain these things to me, and when the info-to-lies ratio from ya'all is about nil I can hardly be blamed for not changing my mind. If you guys could put on an argument without logical fallacies and lies, I might listen, but you can't.

And still nobody is able to recommend any part of Mackey's paper worth reading, let alone discussing.

 
At 29 June, 2011 17:10, Blogger Ian said...

If either Dr. Astaneh-Asl or Dr. Barnett has anything to add to the public discourse, they are quite free to do so.

Something tells me that they're not particularly concerned with what a failed janitor babbling on an obscure blog thinks...

The points haven't been addressed. All I get is obfuscation, hysterical and irrational denial, and lies.

What points? All you get is normal people laughing at you and egging you on because you're the 21st century equivalent of the lunatics in Bedlam that the residents of London used to go poke with sticks.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home