Saturday, July 02, 2011

Chris Mohr Begins his Gage Rebuttal

When Chris Mohr debated Richard Gage earlier, Gage's organization promised they were going to make a video presentation of the event, they even filmed it with 3 different cameras. After Gage's embarrassing performance though, they immediately decided against that and won't even release the unedited video of the event. Mohr has decided to release the first in what should be a long series of YouTube videos with his rebuttal though. Don't expect to hear anymore from Gage on this though.


Labels: ,

173 Comments:

At 02 July, 2011 10:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here's a link to the second video in the series.

Richard Gage 9/11 Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal Part 1: What Initiated WTC Tower Collapses.

 
At 02 July, 2011 11:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Gosh can he possibly be more soporific? No one is going to watch this crap, no one is going to read Mackey's 134,000 words, and no one is going to read the 10,000 page NIST report.

But a lot of people are going to pretend they did.

 
At 02 July, 2011 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

How come the best you guys can do is obfuscatory TNRATS crap?

 
At 02 July, 2011 11:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, gay boi, still smarting from the ass kicking I gave you yesterday?

Go play in the middle of US highway 101, goat fucker.

 
At 02 July, 2011 12:07, Blogger Ian said...

Gosh can he possibly be more soporific? No one is going to watch this crap, no one is going to read Mackey's 134,000 words, and no one is going to read the 10,000 page NIST report.

Once again, Brian runs away squealing and crying from something that might shatter his delusions about 9/11. It's hilarious.

 
At 02 July, 2011 13:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why doesn't Mohr just write a paper? That way you could skim in 30 seconds what he reads in 8 minutes.

 
At 02 July, 2011 13:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As opposed to what, goat fucker? Your Number One method, which consists of not reading the document at all? Or your Number Two method, which consists of giving the document a cursory read, and then ignoring all the evidence that proves you're wrong?

Go play in the middle of US highway 101, goat fucker.

 
At 02 July, 2011 13:59, Blogger Ian said...

Why doesn't Mohr just write a paper? That way you could skim in 30 seconds what he reads in 8 minutes.

Why doesn't Brian just admit that he's terrified of ever exposing his delusions about 9/11 to rebuttal? That way we wouldn't have to read endless dumbspam about widows and thermite all day.

 
At 02 July, 2011 14:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Well you see Brian, all of us being much smarter than a failed janitor would not find this stuff boring, we would find it enlightening. A guy like you with your child's mentality would be bored by grown up stuff. Best for you to stick to the cartoon world of trutherism.

 
At 02 July, 2011 14:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Why doesn't Mohr just write a paper? That way you could skim in 30 seconds what he reads in 8 minutes."

You'd just color it anyway.



"Gosh can he possibly be more soporific? No one is going to watch this crap, no one is going to read Mackey's 134,000 words, and no one is going to read the 10,000 page NIST report."

Why should they? The facts are simple: Two identical structures hit by the exact same aircraft types failed in the exact same way. No explosives, no nanothermite, no secret plot to bring down WTC.

The facts have been addressed. Kooks, nut-jobs, psychopths, and failed janitors do not get equal time because they just want to ask questions.

No report is ever complete, no report is ever perfect, science is not perfect. You give the best prossible expplaination based on the availible information. Grifter and Gage know this and take full advantage. Their whole scam relies on dismissing the official reports. It's perfect because it means that no indendant investigations need to be coducted, no actual work be done on their part.

It is high school debate team 101, which is neato in debate club but doesn't hold water in the real world.

Ten years, Brian, you have no proof, no evidence of any kind. Hysterical rantings don't count as serious presentations of the facts.

 
At 02 July, 2011 18:10, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

http://theintelhub.com/2011/07/01/wtf-charlie-veitch/

Charlie Veitch Changed his Mind on 911. Only took 5 years for him.

 
At 02 July, 2011 18:18, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"No report is ever complete, no report is ever perfect, science is not perfect."

And this is exactly the same tactic used by creationist, forget coming up with a logical explanation on why living creature evolve over time when asking stupid questions will get the religious faithful to follow. ignorance is easy, knowledge is dangerous to dogma.

 
At 02 July, 2011 19:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"And this is exactly the same tactic used by creationist, forget coming up with a logical explanation on why living creature evolve over time when asking stupid questions will get the religious faithful to follow. ignorance is easy, knowledge is dangerous to dogma."

Yes.

The thing that I found amazing was that Darwin holds up under the new science of DNA and RNA.

 
At 02 July, 2011 19:45, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Charlie Veitch Changed his Mind on 911. Only took 5 years for him."

There's a lot of quotable stuff in those interviews. Good for him.

 
At 02 July, 2011 19:45, Blogger paul w said...

Charlie Veitch Changed his Mind on 911. Only took 5 years for him.

The comments:

"These are the tactics employed by fascist elements controlling governments. Now you are reciting their fairy tale like a parrot. I pray that you tell the world how these monsters threatened you."

Translation: it is impossible to change one's mind about 9/11, except under extreme duress.

"Now Charlie just disregards all the other evidence and 1000′s of architects, builders and demolition companies opinions?? That was quick, something is not right. It was like a brainwashed person speaking?"

Translation: as above.

"When it comes down to torture and survival don’t be surprised who tucks tail and runs."

Translation: as above

"Anyone immersed into an intensive campaign like that would come away toeing the party line"

Translation: as above.

I think the truther/creationist tag sums up the belief system of the dedicated truthers, and will be as impossible to defeat.

 
At 02 July, 2011 21:06, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

My favorite part is where he talks about being on the 48th floor of the new WTC7 looking out onto Ground Zero and realizing "how f-ing close they were".

I had the same awakening at the Texas Schoolbook Depository in 1996. Everything looks bigger on TV, and looking out of the 6th floor it was painfully obvious that it was an easy shot. Then standing on the sidewalk were the fatal headshot struck, and then looking at the picket fence only to realize that a shooter would have been obvious in every photograph taken.

I've said it before, I just assumed that all of those people who'd written those conspiracy books knew what they were talking about. That was my mistake. Plus the JFK assassination didn't have WikiLeaks as the Iraq and Afghanistan wars do. We can read secret communications of our military and our government, but there is nothing inconsistant with what they've told us publically. If WikiLeaks had documents that prove 9/11 was an inside job they'd release them with a parade.

I can't wait to see this BBC documentary.

 
At 02 July, 2011 21:42, Blogger Ian said...

My favorite part is where he talks about being on the 48th floor of the new WTC7 looking out onto Ground Zero and realizing "how f-ing close they were".

I work in 1 Liberty Plaza and my office overlooks the WTC site. What amazes me is not that 7 WTC collapsed, but that 1 Liberty Plaza (and a slew of other buildings including the World Financial Center) didn't.

 
At 03 July, 2011 02:50, Blogger Pat said...

Unfortunately for Brian, there are no picture books of 9-11 debunking.

 
At 03 July, 2011 06:57, Blogger Arcterus said...

Gosh can he possibly be more soporific? No one is going to watch this crap, no one is going to read Mackey's 134,000 words, and no one is going to read the 10,000 page NIST report.

But a lot of people are going to pretend they did.


I think everyone's getting sick of this, Brian. You're too bloody lazy to read/watch anything that's too long and then claim that nobody else is reading/watching it either. Then, you challenge someone to prove that they read it by providing an excerpt, and then they do, and you fucking ignore it anyway and continue claiming that "nobody's gonna read that". Well, that's bullshit. It's a troll tactic.

The thing that I found amazing was that Darwin holds up under the new science of DNA and RNA.

That was always amazing to me, as well. This was a theory formed long before we had anywhere near the knowledge of genetics we have today, back when Lamarck's "acquired traits" theory actually sounded plausible to some people. Not only did Darwin come up with this theory, but every single scientific development, every nobel prize-winning discovery, every fact we've gleaned has been 100% consist with evolution. Darwin's theory has been built upon and improved over the past 150 years, but it has never, ever been contradicted. It's really quite fascinating.

 
At 03 July, 2011 10:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Parts 2, 3 and 4:

Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal: Part Two - Gage's 10 Reasons.

Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Part 3 Tall Steel Frame Building Fire Collapses.

Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked) Part 4: Symmetrical, free fall collapse.

 
At 03 July, 2011 12:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 03 July, 2011 12:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you seem to miss the fact that it is precisely because I wish to expose my "delusions" to rebuttal that I come here. And I don't get any rebuttal. I get bluff, lies, venom, and calls for banishment--all typical bushbot tactics.

DK, Chris Mohr is obviously in love with the sound of his own voice. In these information-rich times, there just isn't time for such meager ore.

MGF, the NIST reports are inadequate because they did not consider all the available information, and it can not be the best possible explanation when they failed to address the most baffling aspects of the collapses.

A subjective opinion that the buildings were close together is your favorite part? How scientific of you! Not! So you need to stand on the site to know how far 400 feet is? Also the point is irrelevant because NIST says that debris-induced structural damage played no part in collapse initiation. Look at the spectacular damage to the Bankers Trust building, and yet it was never in danger of collapse. NYC skyscrapers are highly redundant structures, built for hurricane winds.

Your belief that Wikileaks would release documents on 9/11 id inconsistent with the fact. Assange has declared his hostility to the truth movement, and I don't blame him for adopting that policy. I would expect that he's been deluged with hoax documents purporting to prove all kinds of nonsense about 9/11 and, afraid of being Dan Rathered, he's just ignoring all 9/11-related material.

Arcterus, you react angrily to the suggestion that you haven't watched Mohr's Vanity, but you provide no evidence that you have. And those who claimed that they waded through Mackey's fetid swamp provide no evidence that they found any particular thing of interest in it either.

 
At 03 July, 2011 14:41, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, the NIST reports are inadequate because they did not consider all the available information, and it can not be the best possible explanation when they failed to address the most baffling aspects of the collapses."

Says you.

"A subjective opinion that the buildings were close together is your favorite part? How scientific of you! Not! So you need to stand on the site to know how far 400 feet is? Also the point is irrelevant because NIST says that debris-induced structural damage played no part in collapse initiation"

The NIST is a valid resource or it isn't. You can't have it both ways.

"Look at the spectacular damage to the Bankers Trust building, and yet it was never in danger of collapse."

The Bankers Trust building was a different design than WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. It really is that simple. The Sheraton took a lot of damage from WTC2, but the reinforced end withstood thew force. No mystery.

"NYC skyscrapers are highly redundant structures, built for hurricane winds."

Whoopie!


"Your belief that Wikileaks would release documents on 9/11 id inconsistent with the fact. Assange has declared his hostility to the truth movement, and I don't blame him for adopting that policy. I would expect that he's been deluged with hoax documents purporting to prove all kinds of nonsense about 9/11 and, afraid of being Dan Rathered, he's just ignoring all 9/11-related material."

So Assange is in on the whole thing too? He would pass on the chance to bring down the entire United States Government because he doesn't like troofers? Maybe Assange doesn't like troofers because he knows they're full of shit.

"Arcterus, you react angrily to the suggestion that you haven't watched Mohr's Vanity, but you provide no evidence that you have. And those who claimed that they waded through Mackey's fetid swamp provide no evidence that they found any particular thing of interest in it either."

Yeah Arcterus, and we're still waitning for your review of "Transformers 3", and nobody here has proven that they've read the entire "Twilight" saga either so none of us has any credibility that it sucks. We should all hang our heads in shame.

 
At 03 July, 2011 15:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know if Assange is "in on it" or not, don't even know what "it" is. I said he would be afraid of being Dan Rathered, and so it makes sense that he would simply refuse 9/11 stuff.

Since lunatics like Kevin Barrett brag about harassing and alienating celebrities, I would not be at all surprised if Assange has had some very unpleasant dealings with people who represented themselves as truthers.

The issue was not failure to watch "Transformers", the issue was the demonstrable ignorance on the part of everyone here of the Mackey text that you and UtterFail claim to have read, and the hypocrisy of criticizing Gage for not having read it when you haven't read it yourselves.

 
At 03 July, 2011 17:51, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, you react angrily

Four words, and you're already wrong. I'm not angry. I just called you out on your bullshit.

to the suggestion that you haven't watched Mohr's Vanity

Wrong again. I was referring to the suggestion that NOBODY has watched Mohr, as well as similar claims you've made towards anything else that had too many words for you. I said nothing about myself.

but you provide no evidence that you have.

Again, I wasn't talking about myself individually. Many people on this site have made clear that they HAVE read/watched the materials you claim they haven't, and you've ignored it.

And those who claimed that they waded through Mackey's fetid swamp provide no evidence that they found any particular thing of interest in it either.

Blatant lie.

Yeah Arcterus, and we're still waitning for your review of "Transformers 3"

I am looking forward to hating Transformers 3.

 
At 03 July, 2011 19:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF and Gutterball claimed they read Mackey, but they're both liars and they provide no actual evidence that they did. Nobody is able to discuss any particular issue in the paper--they simply name Appendix D or page 4 as their favorite parts.

Nobody provides any evidence that they've watched Mohr. It's all bluff and bullshit from these guys here.

 
At 03 July, 2011 21:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF and Gutterball claimed they read Mackey, but they're both liars and they provide no actual evidence that they did. Nobody is able to discuss any particular issue in the paper--they simply name Appendix D or page 4 as their favorite parts."

...and there you go. What dickface is actually saying is that GB and I won't play his game any more. So without some report to whine about he will be left with having to support his arguments with actual evidence, which he nor any other troofer has.

"said he would be afraid of being Dan Rathered, and so it makes sense that he would simply refuse 9/11 stuff."

If by "bieng Dan Rathered" you mean presenting forged documents as true I don't see why that would stop Assange. The idiot called a press conference to show footage of an Apache strike that killed a couple of AP stringers. As it turned out they were traveling with men armed with RPGs, so instead of a war crime we just saw a sad incident. Assange just throws out a bunch of stuff to see what sticks, so far nothing has.

"I would not be at all surprised if Assange has had some very unpleasant dealings with people who represented themselves as truthers."

Translation: Assange met some troofers.

"The issue was not failure to watch "Transformers", "

So you admit you saw it. God you're a loser.

"the issue was the demonstrable ignorance on the part of everyone here of the Mackey text that you and UtterFail claim to have read, and the hypocrisy of criticizing Gage for not having read it when you haven't read it yourselves."

Point one: I read it. Gage is an idiot, and so are you.

Point two: GB and I are not the bafoons who are traveling the world spreading lies about 9/11. We don't have to prove anything because we aren't making a counter claim to the official story. We have the intellectual high ground.

Point three: This thread is not about Mackey which makes you in violation of your continued presence on this blog. Trolling is for 12 year olds, and the mentally ill.


Arcterus, like 9/11, you do not need to subject yourself to detailed viewing of Transformers to know what happens. Like 9/11, Transformers3 has a ego manic in a key leadership position ( the director), lots of explosions, fire, and stuff that doesn't make sense. Richard Gage would be the guy who starts a blog about how awsome Transformers3 is by criticizing the NY Times & Variety reviews of the movie instead of discussing the actual film.

 
At 03 July, 2011 23:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 04 July, 2011 06:55, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you seem to miss the fact that it is precisely because I wish to expose my "delusions" to rebuttal that I come here.

No, you come here because you're desperate for attention and we give it to you.

And I don't get any rebuttal. I get bluff, lies, venom, and calls for banishment--all typical bushbot tactics.

Speaking of delusions, I love how Brian thinks anyone who doesn't believe in truther nonsense is a Bush supporter. I guess Matt Taibbi and Bill Maher are "bushbots", huh Brian?

 
At 04 July, 2011 06:57, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, the NIST reports are inadequate because they did not consider all the available information, and it can not be the best possible explanation when they failed to address the most baffling aspects of the collapses.

Brian, the reason you're "baffled" by the collapses is that you're too dumb to understand them, not that NIST didn't explain them. There's a reason you're an unemployed janitor and not the chair of the engineering department at Stanford. You're an idiot, as well as being an ignoramus, mentally ill, and a liar.

 
At 04 July, 2011 07:01, Blogger Ian said...

So to sum up, Brian comes here and claims he has no delusions, and then proceeds to babble endlessly about them: bushbots, baffling aspects of the collapse, Assange is afraid of being "Dan Rathered" (that's a really good one).

And he manages to throw in a reference to his sexual obsession with Kevin Barrett, while babbling about the man he so desperately loves, Willie Rodriguez, in the other thread. Now we just need a "widows" post....

 
At 04 July, 2011 07:04, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody provides any evidence that they've watched Mohr. It's all bluff and bullshit from these guys here.

Well you've never watched it just like you won't read Mackey. You're terrified of what's contained in it, so you ran away squealing and crying.

 
At 04 July, 2011 12:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, right--you and GutterBall won't play my game any more. Won't even pretend to support your claims with evidence. There is plenty of evidence of free-fall collapse, molten steel, and a dishonest report.

I never said I watched "Transformers". You have provided no evidence that you read Mackey. It seems you don't know what's in it.

Your notion that an unscientific, dishonest, and downright fraudulent official report is "the intellectual high ground" is a real hoot. Especially coming from somebody who claims he's getting a geology degree and doesn't know what the heat of fusion is. You guys let the government lie to you to sell you a war that bankrupted us just like it bankrupted the USSR.

Ian, your belief that pointing out your bushbot tactics is the same as calling you a Bush supporter shows how simple-minded you are.

I didn't run away from anything, least of all Willie Turdriguez. I've watched the first two segments of Mohr, which is probably more than anyone else here has. The first segment is long-winded and soporific. The second is full of errors: 72 foot trusses, left out gusset plates, 90,000 liters, "painted on" fireproofing. How can these errors be innocent when they all act to exaggerate the weakness of the building and the strength of the fires?

 
At 04 July, 2011 13:02, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"There is plenty of evidence of free-fall collapse, molten steel, and a dishonest report."

Nope. Show us independant evidence from a credible source. Troofer research is not credible.

"Your notion that an unscientific, dishonest, and downright fraudulent official report is "the intellectual high ground" is a real hoot."

You and your butt-sniffing, glue-huffing troofer friends think it's fraudulent and inscientific. Normal people are fine with it.

"Especially coming from somebody who claims he's getting a geology degree and doesn't know what the heat of fusion is."

Gosh, that hurts. Your academic credits are what exactly?

Gage has a PhD in Theology, which means his whole academic career is based on reseacrhing and spreading myth and mythology. He is no different than the Catholic Church persecuting Galileo.

"You guys let the government lie to you to sell you a war that bankrupted us just like it bankrupted the USSR."

The US was already on the road to bankruptcy long before 9/11.

Your theory that 9/11 was staged so that we could invade Aghanistan is just silly. Afghanistan was the last place on earth the government wanted to be in any way shape or form. There is nothing there that cannot be found elsewhere, and its people are ass-backward hicks. We went to war there because Al Qaeda was there and now that Al Qaeda is somewhere else we're starting our draw-down.

No US government conspiracy, just unfortunate events.

"I never said I watched "Transformers". You have provided no evidence that you read Mackey. It seems you don't know what's in it."

You haven't offered any proof that you have not watched "Transformers 3", you freak.

 
At 04 July, 2011 14:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, the overwhelming evidence of molten steel is documented in the youtube video "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers". There were reports from Dr. Geyh, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Ghoniem, and Dr. Malloy, among many others.

The only reason normal people are fine with the NIST report is because they've never read it, they don't know what's in it, and they don't know what's not in it. Most of you here are positively misinformed about what's in it.

Dr. Griffin is a retired professor of philosophy with much work in epistemology, which makes him very well qualified to identify the holes in the official arguments.

Afghanistan is key to control of Central Asia, which Zbigniew Brzyzynski had identified as the key to global domination. It was also known to contain much mineral wealth, and had been (until Taliban outlawed the opium trade) the source of 85% of the world's opium. We needed to be in Afghanistan to keep the Chinese and the Russians out, and to dampen their relationship with Iran.

I never said I did or didn't watch "Transformers". You claimed I'd admitted I watched it, and that it proved I was a loser. I don't have to prove anything. You do.

 
At 04 July, 2011 14:57, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

my favorite paqrts of this:

brian cites a theologian, one established in post modernism at that, as a person qualified to to criticize a scientific study.

brian cries that its not a paper when he cant even cite papers accurately himself.

brian continues to misrepresent astaneh-asl. remember how he noted finding core columns buckled?

 
At 04 July, 2011 15:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 04 July, 2011 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, Dr. Griffin as an expert epistemologist is eminently qualified to point out the internal contradictions in scientific studies. It doesn't matter how "sciency" your studies are if they contain logical fallacies. Any argument to the contrary is a fallacious argument from authority.

I can cite papers. Mackey's "white paper" is not a paper. At 134,000 words it's a book. And since he admits he's not a good writer and since clearly he never bothered to consult an editor, the sheer arrogance of expecting people to read such a heap of crap speaks poorly to his credibility. Same thing with Mohr. Since the first segment of his video is repulsive, and the second segment is full of obvious errors, who does he think he is?

I don't misrepresent Dr. Astaneh-Asl. I say he said he saw "melting of girders at World TRade Center" and that's what he said to PBS.

 
At 04 July, 2011 16:28, Blogger Arcterus said...

Arcterus, like 9/11, you do not need to subject yourself to detailed viewing of Transformers to know what happens.

I don't know, I feel like I have a masochistic obligation to. I mean, destroying my childhood aside, Transformers 2 was one of the worst movies I'd ever seen in my life, and for some reason I feel like that makes me compelled to see Transformers 3 as well.

 
At 04 July, 2011 16:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

Well if you want to see a bad movie, you ought to consider seeing Mr. Mohr's.

 
At 04 July, 2011 17:09, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, the overwhelming evidence of molten steel is documented in the youtube video "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers". There were reports from Dr. Geyh, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Ghoniem, and Dr. Malloy, among many others."

So your independant source is a troofer video? Fail.

"Afghanistan is key to control of Central Asia, which Zbigniew Brzyzynski had identified as the key to global domination."

Really? Because no occupying force in Afghanistan ever controlled Asia or even the locals going back to Alexander the Great.Brzyznski isn't as smart as he thinks he is.

"
We needed to be in Afghanistan to keep the Chinese and the Russians out, and to dampen their relationship with Iran"

The Russians weren't going back to Afghanistan. The Chinese seem to be able to go where they please. They're in Iraq now, so why would Afghanistan be any different?

"I never said I did or didn't watch "Transformers". You claimed I'd admitted I watched it, and that it proved I was a loser. I don't have to prove anything. You do."

You have yet to offer proof either way. Obviously you are hiding something. We demand the truth.

 
At 04 July, 2011 19:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

The sources in the video are CNN, NBC, Fox, NOVA, BBC, National Geographic, New Scientist, William Langewiesche, the New York Times, the Berkeleyan, the Johns Hopkins website, the MIT website, the Notre Dame website.

As to Afghanistan, we were talking about the motivations for wanting to go there. Suddenly you have changed the subject to whether it was smart or not. The Russians have invested heavily in Iran, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't have done the same in Afghanistan if we weren't there. The Chinese too have invested in Iran, but they're not likely to get heavily involved in Afghanistan as long as a US puppet is in charge.

 
At 04 July, 2011 19:47, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your belief that pointing out your bushbot tactics is the same as calling you a Bush supporter shows how simple-minded you are.

Squeal squeal squeal!

There is plenty of evidence of free-fall collapse, molten steel, and a dishonest report.

No, there's your delusions, and I've already pointed out that nobody cares what a liar, lunatic, and imbecile like you thinks of the reports.

 
At 04 July, 2011 19:50, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, the overwhelming evidence of molten steel is documented in the youtube video "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers". There were reports from Dr. Geyh, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Ghoniem, and Dr. Malloy, among many others.

See what I mean?

 
At 04 July, 2011 19:51, Blogger Ian said...

Afghanistan is key to control of Central Asia, which Zbigniew Brzyzynski had identified as the key to global domination. It was also known to contain much mineral wealth, and had been (until Taliban outlawed the opium trade) the source of 85% of the world's opium. We needed to be in Afghanistan to keep the Chinese and the Russians out, and to dampen their relationship with Iran.

And then the real fun begins when Brian starts babbling about international relations on about the level one would expect from a paranoid lunatic failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

Keep it coming, Brian. I have some popcorn heating up.

 
At 04 July, 2011 22:20, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The sources in the video are CNN, NBC, Fox, NOVA, BBC, National Geographic, New Scientist, William Langewiesche, the New York Times, the Berkeleyan, the Johns Hopkins website, the MIT website, the Notre Dame website."

And they're all out of context.

"The Russians have invested heavily in Iran, and there's no reason to think they wouldn't have done the same in Afghanistan if we weren't there."

The Russians are not welcome in Afghanistan. They have not forgotten the actocities committed by the Soviet Army in the 1980s. While we are not happy with the Russian relationship with Iran we have done nothing substancial to stop them. China has already made overtures to Afghanistan, but they now have to wait to see how the country resolves/dissolves after the US draw-down. China will wait, and we won't care like we didn't before 9/11.

"As to Afghanistan, we were talking about the motivations for wanting to go there."

No, YOU were talking about motivations. You need to sell the lie that the US had interests in Afghanistan that required a staged attack on 9/11 to justify an invasion. Nobody in the real world was talking about Afghanistan as a destination for economic trade in the 1990s. All of the troofer boogy men (Haliburton, the Bin Laden Corp) had access to Afghanistan already, they could have set up shop easily with the blessing(through bribes) of the Taliban. It's like the lie of the mythical pipeline, it never happened except in troofer-world.

"Suddenly you have changed the subject to whether it was smart or not. "

No, just if you were smart or not.

"Ian, your belief that pointing out your bushbot tactics ..."

Dude, it's AUTOBOTS. Why are you denying that you have not seen the movie. You are such a Decepticon.

:))

 
At 04 July, 2011 22:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, none of the sources are out of context. You are a liar, given to inventing your facts to suit your ideology.

Afghanistan wasn't the point. Its value as a base from which to deny the Russians and the Chinese control over the oil-rich 'stans was.

 
At 05 July, 2011 11:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Shut the fuck up, goat molester.

 
At 05 July, 2011 15:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I think Brian has breached his agreement about going off topic on every thread there is on SLC.

Ban him!

 
At 05 July, 2011 16:50, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, none of the sources are out of context. You are a liar, given to inventing your facts to suit your ideology.

More squealing. It must be tough to be pwn3d everywhere you go, eh Brian?

Afghanistan wasn't the point. Its value as a base from which to deny the Russians and the Chinese control over the oil-rich 'stans was.

That's right, which is why, 10 years on, we now control Kazakhstan.

Brian, I remember you told us about how the US is going to invade Canada to control its oil supplies. How is that working out? Have you warned Ottawa about the invasion fleet assembling on Lake Superior?

 
At 05 July, 2011 17:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said the US is going to invade Canada. You are a liar.

 
At 05 July, 2011 18:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Afghanistan wasn't the point. Its value as a base from which to deny the Russians and the Chinese control over the oil-rich 'stans was."

Bullshit. We have more oil here in California than whateverhtefuck you mean by "'stans".

"MGF, none of the sources are out of context. You are a liar, given to inventing your facts to suit your ideology."

You're the one who refuses to discuss the issue of Transformers 3. You refuse to offer proof of not having seen it. Why? What are you hiding?

 
At 05 July, 2011 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, don't you know how to google?

California has less than 3.5 billion barrels of onshore oil reserves. Kazakhstan alone has 30 billion. Iran has 138 billion more. You make up your facts.

 
At 05 July, 2011 18:35, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said the US is going to invade Canada. You are a liar.

False. You said the US would invade Canada to seize the tar sands of Alberta.

Your problem, Brian, is that you're so stupid/insane, that you don't realize how ridiculous you sound when you really let what you're thinking out. Then everyone laughs at you and you pretend you never said it.

That's why you try to pretend you're not petgoat. You've been laughed at too many times for "meatball on a fork".

 
At 05 July, 2011 18:36, Blogger Ian said...

California has less than 3.5 billion barrels of onshore oil reserves. Kazakhstan alone has 30 billion. Iran has 138 billion more. You make up your facts.

Which is why we have a huge military presence in Kazakhstan and Iran right now....

 
At 05 July, 2011 19:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said what you claim. I am tired of your stupid distortions. What seems to escape you is that if we have airbases in Afghanistan, it is not necessary to have troops in Iran or Kazakhstan. Last time I checked, the US was also using an airfield in Uzbekistan.

 
At 05 July, 2011 19:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said what you claim.

False.

I am tired of your stupid distortions.

I'm not distorting anything, petgoat.

What seems to escape you is that if we have airbases in Afghanistan, it is not necessary to have troops in Iran or Kazakhstan.

Well, it escapes me the same way "meatball on a fork" escaped me. It's because only a crazy ignorant liar like you could come up with it.

Last time I checked, the US was also using an airfield in Uzbekistan.

That's nice.

So how about the build-up on Lake Superior for the invasion of Canada? Have you warned the Canadian government? What are you waiting for?

 
At 05 July, 2011 19:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what is your point? Do you deny that we have air bases in Afghanistan?

 
At 05 July, 2011 19:36, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what is your point? Do you deny that we have air bases in Afghanistan?

We have air bases in Afghanistan.

Otto von Habsburg died yesterday at age 98.

Andrew McCutchen was left off the NL All-Star team despite being one of the top 3 players in baseball this season.

Are there any other random facts you want to list, Brian?

 
At 05 July, 2011 20:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I am tired of your stupid distortions."

Really? No kidding?

Tell us more about "elemental barium" at Ground Zero--you pathological liar.

 
At 05 July, 2011 20:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, they're not random facts. Our air bases in Afghanistan establish military dominance of the Iran/Pakistan/x-stan region. That's the point.

UtterFail, it's not very smart of you to spam your ignorance on all the threads. If you'd had freshman inorganic chemistry you'd know about elemental analysis.

 
At 05 July, 2011 20:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I've forgotten more about inorganic and organic chemistry than you'll ever know "Mr. Elemental Barium at Ground Zero."

You're a liar and an ass.

 
At 05 July, 2011 20:58, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, they're not random facts. Our air bases in Afghanistan establish military dominance of the Iran/Pakistan/x-stan region. That's the point.

Ah yes, they're all the same: Pakistan, Iran, Kazakhstan. That's why you're the chair of the department of International Relations at Stanford.

Oh wait, you're a failed janitor and lunatic.

So Brian, are you as outraged as I am by Andrew McCutchen not being picked for the All-Star game?

 
At 05 July, 2011 22:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"California has less than 3.5 billion barrels of onshore oil reserves. Kazakhstan alone has 30 billion. Iran has 138 billion more. You make up your facts."

California also had 10.13 billion barrels of oil untapped offshore. The US has a total of 85.9 billion barrels of oil offshore.

This is according to SF Gate on July 22, 2008. Bloomberg says that it's been 40 years since measurements and estiments were made about California's onshore reserves so nobody really knows.

I didn't make up anything, you're just a moron.

 
At 05 July, 2011 23:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

The offshore reserves aren't proven, and even if CA did have 10 billion bbl offshore, their reserves are nothing near Kazakhstan's 30 billion bbl and you're making up your facts again, Mr. geologist.

You said CA had more oil than the 'stans. You were making it up.

 
At 05 July, 2011 23:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody's prepared to discuss the errors in Mohr's video, because none of you know enough about 9/11 to even recognize the glaring errors in it.

I'm sure glad Chris Mohr is not a truther, 'cause he would be an embarrassment if he were.

 
At 06 July, 2011 05:05, Blogger Ian said...

The offshore reserves aren't proven, and even if CA did have 10 billion bbl offshore, their reserves are nothing near Kazakhstan's 30 billion bbl and you're making up your facts again, Mr. geologist.

Nobody cares, petgoat.

How about baboon reserves? In the future, the number of modified attack baboons a country can produce will be its most critical asset.

Nobody's prepared to discuss the errors in Mohr's video, because none of you know enough about 9/11 to even recognize the glaring errors in it.

Poor Brian, he's so upset that nobody takes him seriously. He ends up reduced to squealing about how we don't know anything about 9/11, which is hilarious given how much dumbspam he posts about how he's "baffled" by the collapse.

I'm sure glad Chris Mohr is not a truther, 'cause he would be an embarrassment if he were.

Brian, Chris Mohr is not a truther because he's not or lunatic. You are both, so of course you believe in 9/11 truth nonsense.

 
At 06 July, 2011 23:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody's prepared to discuss the errors in Mohr's video, because none of you know enough about 9/11 to even recognize the glaring errors in it.

I'm sure glad Chris Mohr is not a truther, 'cause he would be an embarrassment if he were.

 
At 08 July, 2011 05:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat molester! Tell us more about "glaring errors"--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

"...UtterFail, I never said barium oxide was found at Ground Zero. You're a liar." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line," 07 July, 2011 23:23.

Really? No kidding?

You never claimed that "barium oxide was found at Ground Zero"?

What's this, goat molester?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Tell us more about "glaring errors," Pinocchio.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Stop it, goat fucker. You're killing me! I'm going to die laughing!

Beyond parody.

 
At 08 July, 2011 09:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 July, 2011 09:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your inability to grasp simple logic makes me greatly doubt that you ever knew how to program computers.

I did not say that barium oxide was found at Ground Zero, I disputed your claim that it was not--a claim that you have not substantiated.

I don't know if barium oxide was found at Ground Zero or not--and neither do you. And I don't care, because the issue is meaningless except insofar as it demonstrated your ignorance, dishonesty, and irrationality. Your persistent and erroneous belief that barium is a necessary component of thermate or thermite is just plain stupid.

 
At 08 July, 2011 10:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...I did not say that barium oxide was found at Ground Zero, I disputed your claim that it was not--a claim that you have not substantiated."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, goat fucker?

Proof that barium oxide was not found at Ground Zero

Once again, you're caught lying through your terracotta teeth.

FAIL

Here's a link to Table 1 of the USGS's Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

Table 1 provides a detailed breakdown of categorized collected spectra found at Ground Zero. Notice that the section titled "Mineral Material" shows one entry for barite. This is the only barium-based compound found in the Atlas. Hence, only barite was found at Ground Zero, as I have pointed out repeatedly.

You'll also notice that aluminum oxide is absent from the table. Thus, there's not a scintilla of evidence for the use of thermite, thermate or "nanothermite" at Ground Zero.

Check and mate

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your repeated spamming of multiple threads with material I've already shown to be erroneous is getting quite tiresome.

 
At 08 July, 2011 12:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't shown anything to "erroneous."

All you've done is ignore the evidence against you and resort to logical fallacies in a futile effort to squirm out of the trap YOU made for yourself--you insane psychopath.

Seek psychiatric intervention, squirrel bait.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pick one thread for your barium nonsense and I will show exactly where your lazy research and lousy logic has led you astray.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You've already been proven wrong, goat fucker. I've also proven, for the thousandth time, that you're a compulsive liar.

All you have at this point in your defense are logical fallacies.

And now you're resorting to spamming the threads up to 200 posts so we can't link back to the posts that prove you're a liar.

Thus, as they say, YOUR GOOSE IS COOKED. So put a fork in it, goat fucker, you're done.

BAN.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

So there you go just linking to your own posts again. You're playing three-card monte.

Your barium stuff is based on illogical assumptions, erroneous inferences, and the quote-mining of documents you appear to misunderstand.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Why do you always lie, Brian?" -- Pat Curley.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Face it, goat fucker, you have utterly failed to convince anyone of anything. All you've managed to do is annoy us with your dumbspam and never-ending stream of lies, obfuscation and logical fallacies.

 
At 08 July, 2011 13:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...So there you go just linking to your own posts again. You're playing three-card monte...Your barium stuff is based on illogical assumptions, erroneous inferences, and the quote-mining of documents you appear to misunderstand."

Another 100% fact-free pack of lies.

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit.

FAIL.

 
At 08 July, 2011 14:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Originally we were discussing a USGS paper that reported on an elemental analysis in which barium was barium--whether it was oxide, nitrate, sulfate, the test could not tell because the samples were burned first. That's what an elemental analysis does. Interestingly, the USGS writeup contradicts its own data in Figure 4, but apparently UtterFail can't recognize that even when it's repeatedly pointed out to him.

More recently UtterFail introduced another USGS paper into the discussion which did a more sensitive analysis and reported the presence of barium sulfate. This is not surprising, as it's found in drywall.

He lies about what I said, he lies about what he said, and even after he's been corrected he continues to spam multiple threads with his erroneous and dishonest interpretations of things he doesn't understand. He doesn’t even read the papers.

He leaps to the irrational conclusion that if barium sulfate was found as reported in the particle atlas, that proves that there's no barium oxide. If he would bother to read the paper he's quote-mining, he would notice that the second paragraph notes that the list is not exhaustive, and "it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

And the whole argument is pointless because barium is not a necessary component of thermate or thermite, and so its absence would be meaningless even if UtterFail could demonstrate it, which he can't.

 
At 08 July, 2011 14:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

You leaps to the irrational conclusion that if barium sulfate was found as reported in the particle atlas, that proves that there's no barium oxide. If you would bother to read the paper, you'll see that the second paragraph notes that the list is not exhaustive, and "it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

The whole argument is pointless because barium is not a necessary component of thermate or thermite, and so its absence would be meaningless even if you could demonstrate it, which you can't.

Your barium saga is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 
At 08 July, 2011 14:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker resorts to the same logical fallacy as though it was never exposed and squeals, "...If you would bother to read the paper, you'll see that the second paragraph notes that the list is not exhaustive, and 'it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas.'"

Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

Wikipedia writes, "...Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

You're on the ropes and sinking fast, goat fucker. All you have are logical fallacies and lies.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

The goat fucker squeals, "...The whole argument is pointless because barium is not a necessary component of thermate or thermite, and so its absence would be meaningless even if you could demonstrate it"

False.

"...Thermate combines aluminum/iron oxide (thermite) with barium nitrate (29%) and sulfur (typically 2% although more sulfur could be added)." -- Steven E. Jones

http://domains.googlesyndication.com/apps/domainpark/domainpark.cgi?client=ca-dp-bodis01us_3ph_js&ref=&output=html&s=worldtradecentertruth.com

Wikipedia writes, "...The composition by weight of Thermate-TH3 (in military use) is 68.7% thermite, 29.0% barium nitrate, 2.0% sulfur and 0.3% binder (such as PBAN)."

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

Show me your alleged analogs of thermite, and I'll use the USGS Particle Atlas to prove that thermate analogues were not used a Ground Zero.

Go for it, Pinocchio.

And I DEMAND direct links to the data sheets for your alleged "thermate analogues." Your opinion doesn't count. After all, you're a PROVEN compulsive liar.

No link, no cigar--you lying felcher.

By the way, your "barium is not a necessary component of thermate" argument is another argument from ignorance.

And for the thousandth time, aluminum oxide is evidence of a thermite reaction, not barium oxide/nitrate--you babbling retard.

Get it through your thick skull--you pseudo-educated cretin.

 
At 08 July, 2011 14:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the only way you can maintain your delusions is to lie about what I'm saying. I am not asserting a proposition. You are. The argumentum ad ignorantiam is yours.

Your continued conflation of TH-3 with thermate and thermite in general is ignorant and tiresome.

Your belief that aluminum oxide is not associated with a thermate reaction is a real hoot.

You're a waste of time.

 
At 08 July, 2011 15:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, babble like an idiot.

Why are you incapable of answering direct questions?

Where are the datasheets for the thermate analogues--you lying bastard?

Put up, or shut up, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you'd read the doc version of Jones's paper you'd see the analogues. And you'd see that barium is specific only the the TH-3 version of thermate, and not to other versions.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, why are you incapable of answering a direct question?

I said I want the datasheets.

I don't want troofer theories. Troofer theories are a circle jerk. I want the God damned datasheets FROM A CREDIBLE SOURCE.

No datasheets, no cigar.

You're blowing SMOKE up our collective ass.

Either produce the relevant datasheets, or STFU.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are very confused about barium and aluminum in thermate, and until you do your homework you're in no position to make demands.

I wouldn't want your cigar.

 
At 08 July, 2011 16:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

I don't see the hyperlinks to the alleged "thermate analogue" datasheets.

Why? Are you lying to us again, Pinocchio?

Instead, you're babbling nonsense and trying to change the subject.

FAIL.

Again, where are the datasheets for the alleged "thermate analogues"--you lying bastard?

Put up, or shut up, goat fucker.

 
At 08 July, 2011 17:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

If you compose one more nonsense post without producing the alleged "thermate analogue" datasheets, YOU FORFEIT THE DEBATE BY DEFAULT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PRODUCE THE RELEVANT DATA TO SUBSTANTIATE YOUR IDIOTIC ARGUMENT.

So what's it going to be, goat fucker?

Put up, or shut up, asshole.

 
At 08 July, 2011 18:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

So here you go again with one of your phony tests. Like the Chain Rule calculus test. Remember that one, idiot?

NWOR

 
At 08 July, 2011 19:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE GOAT FUCKER CANNOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS ARGUMENT WITH FACTS.

FAIL
.

Once again, you lose, goat fucker.

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

You are very confused about barium and aluminum in thermate, and until you do your homework you're in no position to make demands.

Dr. Jones's thermate paper (the .doc version that you won't read and are incompetent to search electronically) names some barium analogues that can be used as oxidizers: KMnO4 and zinc nitrate. Metal oxides CuO and MoO3 can be substituted for iron oxide. Wikipedia names also oxides of chromium, manganese, boron, silicon and lead. There are many youtubes about copper thermite.

Your "No barium = no thermite" claim is silly. (You have denied making the claim but you stated it quite clearly 6/29 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread when you said: "NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate.")

If you really want to know, instead of just be bitchy (which is what you're best at and pretty much all you're good at), you might consult "Pyrotechnic Chemistry" by K. Kosanke.

 
At 09 July, 2011 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

To get back on topic--does anyone have anything to say about the Chris Mohr videos? The introductory video was so soporific it's hard to avopid the conclusion that they made it as repulsive as possible so nobody would watch the videos. But I soldiered on and watched the second one, which was so full of errors that it would have been extremely embarrassing if Mohr was a truther.

It seems that when Mackey wrote his book he couldn't get any help from anybody who could actually write, and it seems that Mohr couldn't get anybody who actually knows anything about 9/11 to watch his video. Why are the debunkers so incompetent?

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Dr. Jones's thermate paper (the .doc version that you won't read and are incompetent to search electronically) names some barium analogues that can be used as oxidizers: KMnO4 and zinc nitrate. Metal oxides CuO and MoO3 can be substituted for iron oxide. Wikipedia names also oxides of chromium, manganese, boron, silicon and lead. There are many youtubes about copper thermite."

Jones paper is not evidence, it's conjecture. You can't show me ANYONE who manufactures the stuff, which is evidenced by your complete failure to produce a simple datasheet for "thermate analogues."

Thus, you have utterly failed to provide evidence for the existence of "thermate analogues." Again, conjecture is not evidence. Wikipedia also fails. They can provide not one hyperlink to substantiate their assertions.

FAIL

Furthermore, Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra doesn't substantite your argument, either. None of the byproducts one would expect to find from such a "thermate analogue" reaction are listed in the USGS particle atlas. Thus, the list you provide PROVES NOTHING.

FAIL.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Try again, liar, and this time provide real evidence, not conjecture unsupported by facts or reality.

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I correct you and correct you and correct you. You won't learn, and you continuie to spam the threads with your ignorance.

Your own list cites particles of iron, zinc, lead, zirconium, and molybdenum that are consistent with the byproducts of thermite.

The paper says in Paragraph 2:
"It is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

The list is not complete, and for you to continue to cite it as evidence of a lack of thermitic byproducts is ignorant.

If you would bother to take a peek into Kosanke's book "Pyrotechnic Chemistry" you would see that you have been very foolish.

Chapter 8, p. 18 cites a thermite reaction temp of 4382 K, well above the boiling point of aluminum oxide.

P. 19 tells us that titanium and zirconium (both of which appear in your particle atlas) are sometimes used to enhance the incendiary effect. It also names 7 different alloys that can be used for fuels, and 6 metals: Al, Mg, Ca, Ti, Si, B.

P. 20 lists the following oxidizers: oxides of Pb, Cu, Mn, Fe, CR, Si, Mo, W, and B.

 
At 09 July, 2011 10:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 11:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...The paper says in Paragraph 2:
"It is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html."


Logical fallacy: Argument from ignorance.

Wikipedia wrote, "...Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance", is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa)."

How many times must I point this out, goat fucker?

Clearly, you're the one who consistently fails to learn--you brain-dead cretin.

FAIL.

And argument from ignorance is not "evidence"--you lying sack-of-shit. It's intellectual dishonesty.

FACT: None of the byproducts one would expect to find from such a "thermate analogue" reaction are listed in the USGS's particle atlas. Thus, the list you provide PROVES NOTHING.

FAIL.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 09 July, 2011 11:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

GoofBall, your repetitive flipping is tiresome. Yours is the argument from ignorance. You claimed that lack of barium nitrate samples in the USGS atlas proved that there was no thermite used. That is the very definition of an argument from ignorance.

I do not claim that barium byproducts were there or not there. I claim I don't know, and I claim you don't know. That is not an argument from ignorance.

In fact many of the metal particles in your atlas are consistent with thermitic reactions of some kind or other. Iron, zinc, lead, zirconium, and molybdenum.

Your arguments from bald and ignorant assertion are silly.

 
At 09 July, 2011 12:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...GoofBall, your repetitive flipping is tiresome. Yours is the argument from ignorance. You claimed that lack of barium nitrate samples in the USGS atlas proved that there was no thermite used."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

False.

How many times have I pointed this out to you, jackass? The following is a thermite reaction:

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

Do you see barium nitrate? The answer--you God damned liar--is NO.

Thus, barium nitrate is NOT a byproduct of a thermite reaction. Now, stop MISREPRESENTING MY ARGUMENT--you lying sack-of-shit.

FAIL

"...I do not claim that barium byproducts were there or not there. I claim I don't know, and I claim you don't know. That is not an argument from ignorance."

False.

I do know--and the USGS's particle atlas substantiates my argument. You have NO EVIDENCE for the presence of thermate, thermite, "nanothermite" or a "thermate analogue"--ZIP. NADA. ZILCH.

Thus, your argument is an argument from ignorance, because you're trying to convince us that absence of evidence is "evidence."

FAIL.

"...In fact many of the metal particles in your atlas are consistent with thermitic reactions of some kind or other. Iron, zinc, lead, zirconium, and molybdenum."

False.

That's your opinion, which is unsupported by evidence. Not one of the iron, zinc, lead, zironium or molybdenum spectra are consistent with the byproducts of a "thermate analogue" reaction.

A usual, you make naked assertions, and offer not one iota of evidence to substantiate your argument.

FAIL.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 09 July, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, so there you go lying about your own argument again. You said 6/29 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread: "NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate."

UtterFail, it is YOU that is claiming that absence of evidence is evidence. YOU claim that the USGS study does not show thermite byproducts, and you claim that as evidence that there's no thermite. That's an argument from ignorance--classic, pure and simple.

And you're wrong. The particle atlas shows particles of iron, zinc, lead, zirconium, and molybdenum--all consistent with thermitic reactions. If you're going to claim that they're not, you'll have to show why they're not.

 
At 09 July, 2011 12:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're a despicable bullshitter, goat fucker.

First, you tried to pass off evidence of "barium" in the USGS's particle Atlas spectra as evidence of barium nitrate or barium oxide. When I pointed out to you that barite (BaSO4) was the ONLY barium-based compound found in the dust at Ground Zero, you tried to pass off the lack of evidence as evidence logical fallacy as a valid argument(Argument from Ignorance).

You're a charlatan and a liar.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 09 July, 2011 12:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 July, 2011 13:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...UtterFail, it is YOU that is claiming that absence of evidence is evidence. YOU claim that the USGS study does not show thermite byproducts, and you claim that as evidence that there's no thermite. That's an argument from ignorance--classic, pure and simple."

This is proof positive that you're an idiot, goat fucker. It also proves that you're incapable of learning, even when I give you a direct link to a Wikipedia article.

This is a thermite reaction:

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

The byproducts are solid aluminum oxide (Al2O3(s)) and molten iron (Fe(l)). The presence of iron spheres in the dust IS NOT conclusive evidence of a thermite reaction. You must also demonstrate evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide. The USGS's particle atlas PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT THAT ALUMINUM OXIDE WAS NOT FOUND IN THE WTC DUST. Therefore, it is BULLSHIT to claim that thermite was present at Ground Zero, or to claim that thermite was used to demolish the WTC.

Show me the aluminum oxide, goat fucker.

You can't?

Then STFU, because, once again, you

FAIL.

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...And you're wrong. The particle atlas shows particles of iron, zinc, lead, zirconium, and molybdenum--all consistent with thermitic reactions."

Bullshit.

The presence of "iron, zinc, lead, zirconium, and molybdenum" is not proof of a thermitic reaction anymore than the presence of "barium"--which turned out to be barite (BaSO4), not barium oxide or barium nitrate--is proof of a thermate reaction. In fact, you have never demonstrated that you know what the byproducts of a thermate reaction are, let alone the chemical formulas that would add weight to your 100% fact-free argument.

FACT: I proved you're a liar who makes up the facts as you go along. For example, when you claimed that the presence of "barium" at Ground Zero was evidence of "a thermate reaction." That claim, however, turned out to be false, when I proved that barite (BaSo4) was the only barium-based compound found at Ground Zero. Thus, why should we believe ANYTHING you say, or any claim you make? You're a proven liar and you have no credibility.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 09 July, 2011 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, your straw man arguments are dishonest. I have not claimed that there are or are not barium byproducts in the dust because I don't know, and it doesn't matter if there were or weren't. You however are claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, which is the argument from ignorance fallacy.

You're not even reading my posts. The thermite reaction proceeds at 4382 K, well above the boiling point of aluminum oxide.

You're missing the fact that the USGS particle atlas is incomplete. The paper says in Paragraph 2:
"It is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2005/1165/508OF05-1165.html

The list is not complete, and for you to continue to cite it as evidence of a lack of thermitic byproducts is persistently, willfully, and stupidly ignorant.

The iron, zinc, lead, and molybdenum in the particle atlas are consistent with the byproducts of thermite. I'm not claiming that they're proof.

You have never proved that barium sulfate was the only barium compound present at Ground Zero, and your belief that you have only shows your incompetence.

Give it up, GutterBall. Your ignorance, your laziness, your dishonesty and your inability to admit that you're wrong are just a recipe for humiliation, frustration, and unhappiness.

 
At 09 July, 2011 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFool, your straw man arguments are dishonest. I have not claimed that there are or are not barium byproducts in the dust because I don't know...[blah][blah][blah]."

You just won't stop lying, will you, goat fucker?

What's this, Pinocchio?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

Thus, anyone can see that you're a liar.

The goat fucker lies, "...You're missing the fact that the USGS particle atlas is incomplete. The paper says in Paragraph 2:
'It is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas.'"


No, a qualifying statement does not prove the document is incomplete. And after all these years, the USGS's particle atlas has NEVER been updated.

Thus, once again, you're making an Argument from Ignorance.

You're not going to get away with it, goat fucker. YOU WERE CAUGHT RED-HANDED LYING WHEN YOU MISREPRESENTED "BARIUM" AS BARIUM NITRATE. IN FACT BARIUM NITRATE/OXIDE WAS NOT PRESENT AT GROUND ZERO, AS THE USGS PARTICLE ATLAS PROVES BEYOND A DOUBT. BARITE (BaSO4) IS NOT BARIUM OXIDE/NITRATE--PERIOD.

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...The iron, zinc, lead, and molybdenum in the particle atlas are consistent with the byproducts of thermite."

No, they are NOT "consistent with the byproducts of thermite." You have NO aluminum oxide; NO barium oxide, and have even less evidence that the compounds found at Ground Zero--be they iron, zinc, lead, or molybdenum--are consistent with a thermate reaction. Furthermore, you have offered ZERO evidence to substantiate your argument. Your opinion is not evidence.

FAIL.

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...You have never proved that barium sulfate was the only barium compound present at Ground Zero...[blah][blah[blah]."

Bullshit.

I have demonstrated CONCLUSIVELY that barite (BaSO4) was the only barium-based compound found in the WTC dust, and the USGS's particle atlas substantiates my argument. The primary source, beside normal background barite, was computer monitors.

As always, your never-ending stream of lies

FAIL.

You're a psychopath.

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

Your persistent confusion reflects your logical incompetence. Do you understand the difference between "not guilty" and "innocent"?

You claimed there was no barium oxide. I pointed out that your data do not support that opinion. That does not mean I say there was barium oxide. I don't know and I don't care. But you're trying to make a case based on something that just isn't true.

Your own source says the list is not complete, and you lie and say it is complete.

You are making the argument from ignorance, claiming that the absence of evidence is proof of absence. I am claiming only that your claims are not justified.

Your claims about barium sulfate are meaningless, because barium is not necessary to either thermate or thermite, and because the iron, zinc, lead, and molybdenum in the particle atlas are consistent with the byproducts of thermite.

Give it up, GutterBall. Your ignorance, your laziness, your dishonesty and your inability to admit that you're wrong are just a recipe for humiliation, frustration, and unhappiness.

 
At 10 July, 2011 08:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...That does not mean I say there was barium oxide."

Then why did you say there was barium oxide, liar?

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

You're such a lying psychopath, that you'll continue to lie when the evidence against you stares you right in the face.

FAIL.

"...Your claims about barium sulfate are meaningless, because barium is not necessary to either thermate or thermite, and because the iron, zinc, lead, and molybdenum in the particle atlas are consistent with the byproducts of thermite."

That's your unqualified, unsprofessional and UNSUBSTANTIATED OPINION, goat fucker. And so far, you've utterly failed to substantiate your opinion.

Your opinion--and especially the opinion of a PROVEN LIAR--is not evidence.

FAIL.

Now, where is your evidence for the presence of barium oxide?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

I've asked you a hundred times to show me the barium nitrate/oxide and you can't show it to me. All you have IS YOUR OPINION, and the opinion of a proven liar is worthless. Now stop wasting my time, goat fucker, and provide real evidence, or STFU.

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 09:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said there was barium oxide. There's no reason for me to comment on barium at all, except to point out that your allegations that it is absent are meaningless because barium is not a necessary component to thermate or thermite.

If you would bother to take a peek into Kosanke's book "Pyrotechnic Chemistry" you would see that you have been very foolish.

Chapter 8, p. 18 cites a thermite reaction temp of 4382 K, well above the boiling point of aluminum oxide and barium oxide both, so expecting to find the stuff in the dust is silly.

P. 19 names 7 different alloys that can be used for fuels, and 6 metals: Al, Mg, Ca, Ti, Si, B.

P. 20 lists the following oxidizers: oxides of Pb, Cu, Mn, Fe, CR, Si, Mo, W, and B.

Kosanke names a whole lot of recipes for thermitic mixtures, showing that barium is not a necessary component.

I've been saying all along that your quixotic quest for barium is just silly, meaningless, meshugenah.

What does Chris Mohr have to say about barium?

UtterFail, you are just like the nutsiest of the truthers. You, like they, are constantly coming up with the answer to the mystery, the key to the problem, ironclad proof of your beliefs. And then when you're shown to be wrong, you refuse to admit it.

 
At 10 July, 2011 09:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...I never said there was barium oxide."

Yes, you did claim there was barium oxide at Ground Zero:

"...You continue to demonstrate your incompetence in chemistry when you claim that the USGS data does not show barium oxide." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 07 July, 2011 13:45.

You also lie and claim that

"...Aluminum oxide is a vapor at the temperature of reaction." -- The goat fucker, "Not Just Another in the Long Line", 09 July, 2011 16:14

False.

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

Source: http://www.csub.edu/~agebauer/CHEM150/Stoichiometry_practice.pdf

Wikipedia wrote, "...Further, the low density of the aluminium oxide formed as a result of the reaction tends to cause it to float on the iron"

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Thus, aluminum oxide is a solid at reaction temperature--your never-ending lies notwithstanding.

You've lied repeatedly. Thus, not one word you've written can be trusted. Once again, you

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 09:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker continues to lie, "...P. 19 names 7 different alloys that can be used for fuels, and 6 metals: Al, Mg, Ca, Ti, Si, B....P. 20 lists the following oxidizers: oxides of Pb, Cu, Mn, Fe, CR, Si, Mo, W, and B."

Yet, you can't show me a datasheet for "thermate analogues" and you can't show me anyone who produces the stuff.

Only TH-3 thermate can be verified.

Thus, it is prudent to look for barium oxide as evidence of a thermate reaction.

Again, here's a link to the USGS's particle atlas. Show me the barium oxide, goat fucker.

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

You can't?

Then STFU.

Once again, you

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 10:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

You just keep posting the same lies. I never said there was barium oxide. There's no reason for me to comment on barium at all, except to point out that your unproven claims that it is absent are meaningless because barium is not a necessary component to thermate or thermite.
Barium oxide boils at 2000C and the thermite reaction takes place at 4382 K. Do the math if you can.

The USGS particle atlas is incomplete. It says so in paragraph 2 of the writeup.

Barium is irrelevant, datasheets are irrelevant. It's not like anyone went to a fireworks factory to buy 30 tons of custom-made titanium thermate.

 
At 10 July, 2011 10:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yes, you did lie, as I proved above.

You also lie about the temperature of a thermite reaction.

4382 degrees K is equal to 7427.93 F, which equals 4108.85 degrees C.

But that claim is false. The temperature of a thermite reaction is ~2500 degrees C. The boiling point of aluminum oxide is 2977 degrees C.

Thus, you're lying. Aluminum oxide is NOT vaporized at reaction temperatures.

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 10:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Barium oxide boils at 2000C..."

Yes, and what did I tell you, asshole?

Elemental barium does not exist in the presence of oxygen. It's immediately oxidizes on contact with air. Thus, you are left with barium oxide.

Once again, you FAIL.

Idiot.

 
At 10 July, 2011 10:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, thermite reacts at 4382 K.
If you don't believe it, take it up with Messrs. Fischer and Grubelich. Unlike you, they have had freshman chemistry.

I never said elemental barium exists in the presence of oxygen. Of course since barium is not a necessary component of thermite or thermate, there's no point in discussing it.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, thermite reacts at 4382 K."

False.

4382 degrees K is equal to 7427.93 F, which equals 4108.85 degrees C.

But that claim is false. The temperature of a thermite reaction is ~2500 degrees C. The boiling point of aluminum oxide is 2977 degrees C.

Thus, you're lying. Aluminum oxide is NOT vaporized at reaction temperatures.

Once again, you FAIL--you scurrilous liar.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

And citing a textbook that can't be accessed on-line is meaningless. If we can't link to the data, DON'T CITE IT AS EVIDENCE. You are NOT a credible witness, you're a proven compulsive liar. Thus, the evidence you present isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Although the reactants are stable at room temperature, they burn with an extremely intense exothermic reaction when they are heated to ignition temperature. The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment."

http://www.answers.com/topic/thermite

Thus, you're a liar.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Thermite grenades rely on a chemical process between metal powders and oxides to create high temperatures, with no explosion. Commonly, Aluminum and Iron (III) Oxide are used in the reaction. Thermite can reach temperatures an upward of 2500°C (4500°F), and is often used to melt through a wide range of things extremely quickly."

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Thermite_Grenade

Thus, you're a liar.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, thermite reacts at 4382 K. If you don't believe it, take it up with Messrs. Fischer and Grubelich. Unlike you, they have had freshman chemistry.

Where's your data sheet supporting your claims? Wikia? What's that? Upwards of 2500 certainly is consistent with 4382 K.

 
At 10 July, 2011 11:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, thermite reacts at 4382 K."

YOU ARE A LIAR.

Here's a link to the Google web page you're misrepresenting.

The same textbook, titled Pyrotechnic Chemistry
By K. Kosanke, B. J. Kosanke, etc., reads as follows:

"...The characteristics that distinguish a thermite reaction are:

[1] An almost complete absence of gaseous products after combustion

[2] A high reaction temperature (typically 2000-3000 degrees C..."


Source: Google Books: Pyrotechnic Chemistry.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE CAUGHT RED-HANDED MISREPRESENTING YOUR ALLEGED "SOURCE."

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

Once again, you

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 12:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This is why the goat fucker NEVER provides a link to substantiate his argument. HE KNOWS THAT IF HE DOES PROVIDE A LINK THAT I'LL CATCH HIM MISREPRESENTING HIS SOURCE.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Come on, scumbag, lie to us again--you piece-of-shit.

 
At 10 July, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it would really help if you would read my corrections before you spam your nonsense over all the threads.

I didn't misrepresent anything. The source says exactly what I said.

The book (chapter 8, p. 18) cites a paper by Fischer and Grubelich which calculates a reaction temperature of 4382 K for thermite.

The book's own calculations result in a reaction temp of 4770 K.

"Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" by Ngoc Ha Nguyen1 and John Z. Wen cites even higher reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

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

That's right, goat fucker, when you're caught lying, CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

You didn't mention thermite analogues, you said--and I qoute: "...thermite reacts at 4382 K."

Not "Copper thermite, Tin thermite or Tungsten thermite."

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, thermite reacts at 4382 K."

YOU ARE A LIAR.

Here's a link to the Google web page you're misrepresenting.

The same textbook, titled Pyrotechnic Chemistry
By K. Kosanke, B. J. Kosanke, etc., reads as follows:

"...The characteristics that distinguish a thermite reaction are:

[1] An almost complete absence of gaseous products after combustion

[2] A high reaction temperature (typically 2000-3000 degrees C..."


Source: Google Books: Pyrotechnic Chemistry.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU ARE CAUGHT RED-HANDED MISREPRESENTING YOUR ALLEGED "SOURCE."

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

Once again, you

FAIL.

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

I didn't lie about or misrepresent anything. The source says exactly what I said.

The book (chapter 8, p. 18) cites a paper by Fischer and Grubelich which calculates a reaction temperature of 4382 K for thermite.

The book's own calculations result in a reaction temp of 4770 K.

It's pretty obvious that you've got some kind of learning disability. So here you are desperately trying to prove you're smart. Give it up. Go play your guitar. Go make dumb babies.

 
At 10 July, 2011 12:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 12:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Thus, your latest attempt to CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND MOVE THE GOAL POST FAILS.

Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie, lie and lie.

All you have are lies, goat fucker.

Once again, you

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

What gives you this compulsion to demonstrate your ignorance and irrationality, guy? And how come your wife lets you do it?

Once again, UtterFail, you are simply spewing data in the erroneous belief that it means something and that it will make some fool think you know something. It doesn't and you don't. You have thoroughly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.

The partical atlas is incomplete. It says so in the second paragraph. Thus the absence of any particular compounds among their samples means nothing. And since their tin sample contains quite a lot of oxygen and copper both, that suggests the presence both of tin oxide and copper oxide.

Don't you have something better to do than make an UtterFool of yourself all day?

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Copper thermite: 5718 K; Tin thermite: 5019 K and Tungsten thermite: 5544 K."

FALSE.

Pyrotechnic Chemistry By K. Kosanke, B. J. Kosanke, I. von Maltitz says no such thing.

You're lying.

Notice that the goat fucker will NOT produce a hyperlink to substantiate his assertion. Thus, he's lying and deliberately misrepresenting his alleged source.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Loser.

Asshole.

Liar.

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 13:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said Pyrotechnic Chemistry said that. You're lying to claoim that I did.

UtterFool, the particle atlas is incomplete and if you'd read the second paragraph you would know that.

"While the list of spectra provided is comprehensive, it is by no means complete. Therefore, it is likely phases and compounds will be identified in the future that are not listed in this atlas."

Also, I shouldn't have let you mislead me.

Tin oxide, copper oxide, and Tungsten oxide are the reactants in, not the products of, their thermitic reactions. Thus you would't expect to find them in the dust.

The harder you try to look smart, the dumber you look UtterFool. Give it up.

 
At 10 July, 2011 14:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 July, 2011 14:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

UtterFail, you make it worse and worse. You may as well retire your persona. Do you know what a contrary indicator is? That's you.

Copper thermite, tungsten thermite, and tin thermite all use aluminum just like iron thermite does. The metal oxide is the oxidizing agent; the reactant, not the product. Aluminum oxide and elemental metal are the result.

You're talking through your hat, and you're clearly not competent to read very simple scientific material that any layman should have no problem getting.

Why are you doing this? What do you get out of spewing nonsense? Are you Ian in drag?

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

False.

You're not only a liar, you're an idiot.

In the case of cupric oxide:

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

In the case of tungsten oxide:

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

In the case of tin oxide:

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

In each case, the product is aluminum oxide (al2O3).

So, once again, where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide, goat fucker?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

I'll tell you where your evidence for Al2O3 is, goat fucker. Its' up your ass.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction:

That's 3CuO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

In any case, you're still full-of-shit, goat fucker.

So, once again, where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide, goat fucker?

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

That's what I said, idiot. The oxidizer plus aluminum makes metal plus aluminum oxide. That's the opposite of what you claimed above, that the oxidizer (copper oxide, etc.) should be an end product.

You are just spraying fartwater to try to bury your incompetence. See, I have a lot of experience in dealing with bullshitters like you when I took down Willie Turdriguez, Craig Ranke, Kevin Barrett, and Rob Balsamo.

Aluminum oxide is a vapor at the reactions temperatures of thermite.
Your own paper says the catalog is not complete.

 
At 10 July, 2011 15:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Aluminum oxide is a vapor at the reactions temperatures of thermite."

False.

Fe2O3(s) + 2 Al(s) -> Al2O3(s) + 2 Fe(l)

Source: http://www.csub.edu/~agebauer/CHEM150/Stoichiometry_practice.pdf

Wikipedia wrote, "...Further, the low density of the aluminium oxide formed as a result of the reaction tends to cause it to float on the iron."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Thus, aluminum oxide is a solid at reaction temperature--your never-ending lies notwithstanding.

The goat fucker squeals, "...Your own paper says the catalog is not complete."

False.

The paper says "likely"; thus, the USGS's particle atlas has never been shown to be "incomplete," and the available spectra doesn't contain the aforementioned oxides.

Now answer the question--you God damned liar: Where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3), goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

You got the reactants mixed up with the products, Mr. Quantitative Analysis. The reaction temp of thermite is theoretically 4777 K, and the boiling point of aluminum oxide is 2977 C.

Other flavors of thermite have even higher reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

The paper says the list is not complete, and it was likely that other compounds would be discovered. Was the atlas project terminated because it was politically damaging? Probably.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...You got the reactants mixed up with the products..."

No, I did not. You have no evidence to support that assertion; thus, you're lying.

Where are your links to support the claim that Copper thermite reacts at 5718 K?

FAIL

Where are your links to support the claim that Tin thermite reacts at 5019 K?

FAIL

Where are your links to support the claim that Tungsten thermite reacts at 5544 K?

FAIL

So far all you've given us is your lying opinion. And the paper titled "Pyrotechnic Chemistry" doesn't support your assertion.

FAIL.

No link to support your assertions, no cigar.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

The thermite analog temps are given in "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" by
Ngoc Ha Nguyen1 and John Z. Wen

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:33, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not a link, goat fucker.

Where's the God damned link, goat fucker?

NOTE: The goat fucker will NEVER produce the link because he KNOWS that if he does, I'll prove he's lying.

Again, where's the God damned link, goat fucker?

 
At 10 July, 2011 16:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, if you're willing to admit that you can't find "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" on google then you're about as dumb as I think you are.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not a link, goat fucker.

Provide the link, or FORFEIT the debate.

End of story.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

FartWater makes STOOPID ultimatums.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

End of debate.

You lose. No link, no cigar.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

So is Mr. IT admitting he can't find "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles" on google without my help?

No wonder he's so confused about 9/11! Why he'd think anybody wanted his shit-stained cigar I don't know.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Oh, I found the paper, goat fucker.

Too bad the data you claim is found in the document isn't there.?

In other words, you're misrepresenting your source.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

FartWater, thanks for further demonstrating your incompetence. You quoted a paper called "Molecular dynamics simulation of energetic aluminum/palladium core–shell nanoparticles". My paper was called "Theoretical Investigations on Diffusion Induced Thermite Reactions of Core-Shell Aluminum/Palladium Nanoparticles".

Are you sure the Russians aren't paying you to make debunkers look STOOPID?

 
At 10 July, 2011 17:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Your source is benthamscience.com?

Bentham Open?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now we know why you refused to provide a hyperlink.

FAIL

Who will you cite next? Steven E. Jones?

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Bentham Open?

You mean the same Bentham Open that published a computer-generated paper that's filled with nonsense?

CRAP paper accepted by journal.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

It's no wonder that after scouring the internet I couldn't find ONE SOURCE that corroborates the "Copper thermite: 5718 K, Tin thermite: 5019 K, Tungsten thermite: 5544 K" crap.

You're a fraud, goat fucker.

So goat fucker, do your lips move while you read?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Asshole.

Once again you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, when do you plan on retiring your blogger handle?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

By the way, goat fucker, how does it feel to know that your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 18:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

So GutterBall, how about instead of attacking the messenger you refute the fact of these reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

The source is:

Fischer SH, Grubelich MC. "Theoretical energy release of thermites, intermetallics, and combustible metals. Sandia National
Laboratories. Albuquerque NM 1998.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't need to refute anything, goat fucker. After all, it's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your propaganda.

FACT: The data you provide cannot be corroborated.

I have a better plan. How about YOU corroborate the data you present as "evidence."

Good luck, Pinocchio.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

So FartWater, how about instead of attacking the messenger you refute the fact of these reaction temps:

Copper thermite: 5718 K
Tin thermite: 5019 K
Tungsten thermite: 5544 K

Fischer SH, Grubelich MC. "Theoretical energy release of thermites, intermetallics, and combustible metals. Sandia National
Laboratories. Albuquerque NM 1998.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, where's your link?

Hiding something again, Pinocchio? Of course you are.

Again, it's not incumbent upon me to prove or disprove your propaganda.

So you can start with relevant links and quotations. Then I'll rip you to spreads.

So let's try again,shall we goat fucker?

In the case of cupric oxide:

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

In the case of tungsten oxide:

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

In the case of tin oxide:

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

(See what a nice guy I am, goat fucker? After all, I balanced the reactions just for you.)

In each case, the product is aluminum oxide (Al2O3).

So, once again, where's your evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide, goat fucker?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

I'll tell you where you evidence is, Pinocchio. It's in your ass.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're only repeating the obvious in an effort to cover up the fact that you got it backwards up above.

Aluminum oxide is a vapor at thermitic reaction temperature, FartWater.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

By the way, goat fucker, you're moving the goal post again. See how you are?

Asshole.

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Aluminum oxide is a vapor at thermitic reaction temperature, FartWater. At least you're no longer babbling about barium. Did you finally recognize that it's irrelevant?

 
At 10 July, 2011 19:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong on all counts, goat fucker. But then again, you're always wrong.

So where's your evidence, Pinocchio?

 
At 10 July, 2011 20:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm going to bed. After all, I've kicked your ass from one end of this forum to the other--and now you're wasting my time with more pseudo-science and readily verifiable nonsense.

If you ever decide to substantiate your propaganda with REAL EVIDENCE, as opposed to pseudo-science, let us know, Pinocchio.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL

 
At 10 July, 2011 20:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, anybody who reads upthread can see that you claimed that oxides of tin, copper, and tungsten were reaction products and now you're claiming the exact opposite.

I've provided links and evidence and your claim to the contrary is a blatant lie.

 
At 10 July, 2011 20:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, anybody who reads upthread can see that you claimed that oxides of tin, copper, and tungsten were reaction products and now you're claiming the exact opposite."

False. Where's your proof, Pinocchio?

"..I've provided links and evidence and your claim to the contrary is a blatant lie."

False.

But, then again, everything you say is FALSE.

 
At 10 July, 2011 21:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, I see UtterFail has deleted the posts where he claimed that oxides of tin, tungsten, and copper would be products of the reaction instead of reactants.

UtterFail claims he has had Quantitative Analysis but he doesn't understand stuff from freshman first quarter inorganic chemistry.

This whole barium kick he's been on has been a meaningless and fact-free wet fart.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...UtterFail claims he has had Quantitative Analysis but he doesn't understand stuff from freshman first quarter inorganic chemistry."

Let's examine your bullshit propaganda in detail, shall we, Capitan Crackpot?

For example,

3Cu + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Cu

Where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Where's the evidence for the presence of molten copper (3Cu)?

Copper-sulfide-01 is NOT evidence of molten Copper.

So, where's the molten copper?

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

FAIL.

W2O3 + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 2W

Where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Where's the evidence for the presence of molten tungsten (W)?

After all, no tungsten (molten or otherwise) was found at Ground Zero.

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

So, where's the molten tungsten?

FAIL.

3SnO + 2Al -> Al2O3 + 3Sn

Where's the evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide (Al2O3)? Where's the evidence for the presence of molten tin (Sn)?

Tin-rich particle is NOT evidence of molten tin.

Table 1. Categorized Collected Spectra.

So, where's the molten tin?

FAIL.

Three strikes and you're OUT!

There's not one scintilla of evidence for the presence of molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) or tin (Sn)--to say nothing of aluminum oxide (Al2O3).

Wow! Bush and Cheney are amazing. A guy who can't find his way through a door (Bushit), and his sidekick (Cheney), who can't shoot at a wild duck without injuring one of the members of his own hunting party, somehow managed to hide all that evidence of molten copper (Cu), tungsten (W) and tin (Sn). Wow! Just wow!

You're an idiot, Captain Crackpot. And you couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

Captain Crackpot lies, "...Oh, I see UtterFail has deleted the posts where he claimed that oxides of tin, tungsten, and copper would be products of the reaction instead of reactants."

False. Now you're making stuff up without the benefit of evidence.

Do you always lie and slander anyone who disagrees with you, Captain Crackpot?

FAIL.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you don't know what you're talking about. Thermite burns at 4382 K and aluminum oxide boils at 2977 C.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

And, true to pattern, you're lying about what you said before when you ignorantly claimed that oxides of tin, tungsten, and copper would be reaction products instead of reactants. You don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 10 July, 2011 23:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 July, 2011 00:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Thermite burns at 4382 K and aluminum oxide boils at 2977 C."

False.

4382 K = 4108.85 C = 7427.94 F.

Thus, you're lying.

Thermite burns at ~2500 degrees C.

Wikipedia wrote, "...The products emerge as liquids due to the high temperatures reached (up to 2,500 °C (4,530 °F) with iron(III) oxide)—although the actual temperature reached depends on how quickly heat can escape to the surrounding environment."

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

Thus, you're lying again, Captain Crackpot.

Once again, you FAIL.

And don't give me that crap about "nanothermite." Steven E. Jones' conclusions were proven FALSE because his experimental result's cannot be reproduced in a laboratory.

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

 
At 11 July, 2011 00:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...And, true to pattern, you're lying about what you said before when you ignorantly claimed that oxides of tin, tungsten, and copper would be reaction products instead of reactants. You don't know what you're talking about."

False.

Where's your evidence, Captain Crackpot?

Is slander all you have, Pinocchio?

Once again, you FAIL, Captain Crackpot.

 
At 11 July, 2011 09:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 11 July, 2011 12:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

You deleted the evidence. There is circumstantial evidence in the "Long Line" thread in my 12:57 post where I carelessly went along with your error, and my 13:18 where I recognized that I had erred on doing so.

You have a habit of saying really stupid and ignorant things, and then denying that you said them. An example is 6/29 16:37 in the "White Paper" thread when you put forth the "no barium, no thermite" argument.

You said: "NIST didn't test the thermite hypothesis because the USGS data showed no evidence for the presence of aluminum oxide or barium nitrate."

Later you denied that you had said such a dumb thing.

So you do all your chemistry in wikipedia? Do you have a wikipedia degree too, that anybody can edit? Fischer and Grubelich calculated a reaction temperature of 4382 K for thermite.

The Pyrotechnic Chemistry book's own calculations (Ch8. p. 18) result in a reaction temp of 4770 K.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home