Friday, July 15, 2011

More Mohr

Discussing the fires in Building 7:

He's far too generous to the Troofers in describing this series as "Not a Debunking"; of course most of what the movement says about 9-11 and particularly Building 7 is a heaping pile of bunkum.

I'm sure Brian will moan about how bored he is. I suppose when you're used to listening to a dynamic presenter like Box Boy Gage, Tony Robbins would seem dull.

Many more videos by Chris here. Excellent job of "rebuttal."

Labels: , ,

162 Comments:

At 15 July, 2011 11:51, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

He's far too generous to the Troofers in describing this series as "Not a Debunking" -Fat Scurrilous

You say that because you've never understood what 'debunking' means. Assertions aren't evidence, dipshit. You've still never been able to explain the GA of the "collapse", and neither has anyone else. Carry on, fat pussy.
You're fooling no one.

 
At 15 July, 2011 12:00, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

LOLI like Mohr and have corresponded with him personally. However, I find his "not a debunking" playing into the truther mindset a bit. They constantly try to manipulate language to suit their own ends (eg-symmetrical, footprint, peer review, debunking, etc). In this case they try to dismiss all the relevant criticism as a personal attack which they refer to as "debunking". Trtuthers play these word games to force-fit their beliefs as something meaningful while trying to make genuine logic and science appear irrelevant. Smacks of the Nazi approach to academics (eg- Nazi Biology, Nazi Physics, etc). Nothing but word play.

 
At 15 July, 2011 12:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I think Mohr has the Truthers cornered and stumped because they can't cope with someone who says: "Not a debunking".

Of course Pat Cowardly has no idea what the meaning of the words "not a debunking" stands for and that's why he's blabbering like an idiot.

 
At 15 July, 2011 12:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"has no idea what the meaning of the words "not a debunking" stands for..." -HasNoAnswers

It means that Mohr, Chewy Defense (waqo) and Screwy Pretense (Fat Curley) have no explanation for the GA during 7's 'collapse', and even after 10 years, you pretend it's not an issue, demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Keep making fools of yourselves. It's humorous to me.

 
At 15 July, 2011 13:36, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

No response, no attempt to point out exactly where Mohr (or Curley, for that matter) 'debunks' anything. Just more of the same from the pretengineers at SLC.

Might as well ask Hugh P. Curley for his opinion at this point. You'll probably get a more intelligent answer, flatline and all.

 
At 15 July, 2011 16:38, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You've still never been able to explain the GA of the "collapse"

And only an idiot would think that kind of flawed logic means something.

1. asking questions means nothing, in a real logical argument you present facts or reasoned explanations. Questions only means YOU don't know something IE you are ignorant.

2. the explanation of the collapse has been given time and time again. if YOU can't understand the explanation the onus is on you to increase your intelligence (if you can) until you do understand, not for us to attempt to dumb things down to truther level.

 
At 15 July, 2011 16:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Cowardly.... Explain exactly why the GA of the "collapse" in your rather stunted thinking implies something out of the ordinary for the event?

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

There's this itty bittie issue called the first law of thermodynamics? Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:31, Blogger roo said...

The library is closing for the night and they have to kick all the vagrants out....so we probably won't get to hear Brian's theory.

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"There's this itty bittie issue called the first law of thermodynamics? Don't worry your pretty little head about it."

Doesn't apply. Heat exchange is out, and the internal energy created by gravity on the damaged structure did not exceed the actual damage to the structure.

Quit citing thermodynamics, dipshit, it doesn't apply.

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:33, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"It means that Mohr, Chewy Defense (waqo) and Screwy Pretense (Fat Curley) have no explanation for the GA during 7's 'collapse', and even after 10 years,"

Neither do you, Skippy.

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh, so the laws of thermodynamics don't apply? So to inject a bit of rare true irony here I'll say that's probably the smartest argument you ever made on this board.

Right. Who needs the laws of thermodynamics when the buildings are mostly air, and this piledriver just fell out of the sky and whomped the building down so fast justlikethat so it never had a chance to whomp back. And besides there were jumbo jets! Jet fuel exploshuns! Flaming carpets! And no fireproofing! And Newton is so 17th century.... So who cares?

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:52, Blogger Arcterus said...

The collapse of the towers is perfectly consistent with the first, second, third, and fourth laws of thermodynamics, and you're a retard for thinking otherwise. That is all.

 
At 15 July, 2011 18:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course the collapse of the towers is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. It cannot be otherwise. It is the official reports about the collapse of the towers that violate the laws of thermodynamics.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

No response, no attempt to point out exactly where Mohr (or Curley, for that matter) 'debunks' anything.

"This is such an important issue."

-- Jon Goldsphincter, chained to a fence, speaking to the one person stupid enough to join him

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:16, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"It is the official reports about the collapse of the towers that violate the laws of thermodynamics."

No. They do not.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:30, Blogger Ian said...

There's this itty bittie issue called the first law of thermodynamics? Don't worry your pretty little head about it.

Yes, Brian, we remember the last time you posted a bunch of laughably wrong nonsense about the first law of thermodynamics. We all started laughing at your utter ignorance and you started squealing and called us "girls".

You don't have to bother with it again.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:32, Blogger Ian said...

Who needs the laws of thermodynamics when the buildings are mostly air, and this piledriver just fell out of the sky and whomped the building down so fast justlikethat so it never had a chance to whomp back. And besides there were jumbo jets! Jet fuel exploshuns! Flaming carpets! And no fireproofing! And Newton is so 17th century.... So who cares?

And the squealing begins in earnest. Poor Brian, nobody takes his insane babbling seriously.

Of course the collapse of the towers is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. It cannot be otherwise. It is the official reports about the collapse of the towers that violate the laws of thermodynamics.

False.

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:37, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, you're the one who babbles about flaming carpets, not us. Maybe you should learn to read your own posts?

 
At 15 July, 2011 19:52, Blogger Ian said...

BTW, I never failed to be amused by how upset Brian gets when watching videos like this. Brian obviously thinks the world should listen to his every word and that he will one day be recognized for his genius. Instead, the world listens to people like Chris Mohr while laughing at Brian. It drives Brian nuts.

 
At 16 July, 2011 00:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Captain Crackpot squeals, "...Of course the collapse of the towers is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. It cannot be otherwise. It is the official reports about the collapse of the towers that violate the laws of thermodynamics."

After arguing that the collapse of the twin towers is inconsistent with the laws of thermodynamics, and to now claim that the collapse of the towers is consistent with the laws of thermodynamics, is perfectly consistent with your continued pattern of contradicting yourself when the aforesaid contradiction serves your idiotic propaganda, goat fucker.

You're an insane liar who should be institutionalized, Captain Crackpot.

Asshole.

 
At 16 July, 2011 08:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Assertions aren't evidence, dipshit. You've still never been able to explain the GA of the 'collapse', and neither has anyone else."

False.

I've explained the 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration on numerous occasions (the building fell through the lobby's five story atrium--which was nothing but air). That my perfectly logical explanation for the 2.5 seconds of gravitational acceleration doesn't fit your idiotic controlled demolition theory is irrelevant. Like all "truthers," you ignore all evidence that doesn't fit your cockamamie demolition theory.

The only person you're fooling is yourself, Mr Sock Puppet.

 
At 16 July, 2011 08:41, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian talks about the laws of thermodynamics as if he really understands it. He could never explain exactly what about the event defies the law, or why a controlled demolition would allow it.

The fact the man has been and will always be in the janitor level of people shows what sort of loser you are dealing with.

 
At 16 July, 2011 08:50, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So these idiots don't understand the force of potential gravitational energy. You could try and explain it to them but because all truthers are not very bright people it would never sink in, and like Brian they would throw out a science sounding word like the law of thermodynamics that they also don't fully understand, but it sounds good.

 
At 16 July, 2011 09:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Early on the afternoon of September 11th 2001, following the collapse of WTC 1 & 2, I feared a collapse of WTC 7 (as did many on my staff). The reasons are as follows: [1] Although prior to that day high-rise structures had never collapsed, The collapse of WTC 1 & 2 showed that certain high-rise structures subjected to damage from impact and from fire will collapse. [2] The collapse of WTC 1 damaged portions of the lower floors of WTC 7. [3] WTC 7, we knew, was built on a small number of large columns providing an open Atrium on the lower levels. [4] numerous fires on many floors of WTC 7 burned without sufficient water supply to attack them. For these reasons I made the decision (without consulting the owner, the mayor or anyone else - as ranking fire officer, that decision was my responsibility) to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone. Approximately three hours after that order was given, WTC 7 collapsed. Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit." -- Dan Nigro, 29th Chief to lead the New York City Fire Department, 23 September 2007.

That's expert testimony, Mr. Sock Puppet (aka, dust boi). Fire Chief Dan Nigro predicted the collapse of building 7 approximately three hours before the collapse occurred. Nigro's decision "...to clear a collapse zone surrounding the building and to stop all activity within that zone" saved the lives of countless rescue and fire personnel. Thus, there's no mystery, and the collapse of building 7 was clearly anticipated by the FDNY.

FAIL.

 
At 16 July, 2011 10:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

It means that Mohr, Chewy Defense (waqo) and Screwy Pretense (Fat Curley) have no explanation for the GA during 7's 'collapse', and even after 10 years, you pretend it's not an issue, demonstrating your lack of knowledge. Keep making fools of yourselves. It's humorous to me.

My, much squealing from a pig who clearly doesn't understand anything.

OINK OINK OINK

 
At 16 July, 2011 10:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

have no explanation for the GA during 7's 'collapse'

Don't you mean it's YOU that doesn't have an explaination?

WTC7's collaspe was due to:

#1: WTC1 debris hitting it.

#2: Unfought fires on multiple levels.

#3: Weakening of the steel in the fires.

#4: A gravity induced global collapse resulting in total structural failure.

Don't fuck with me you asshole, I'm a firefighter!

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:11, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

no explanation for the GA during 7's 'collapse', and even after 10 years, you pretend it's not an issue,

Fire and gravity alone explain WTC7's collapse. It's all in the NIST report. Have an adult read it to you.

 
At 16 July, 2011 12:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your persistently ignorant belief that Newton wrote the 1st law of thermodynamics disqualifies your opinion.

Ian, I didn't post anything wrong about the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your belief that "the world listens to people like Chris Mohr" is a hoot. The video has 68 views.

UtterFail, I'm sorry you lack the intelligence to sort out the problems with the 1st law of thermodynamics and the collapse.

The collapse must obey the laws of thermodynamics. They hold even for buildings that are mostly air and that get hit by airplanes. The collapse of the WTC appears to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics unless you hypothesize energy inputs--such as structural disruption by incendiaries and/or explosives to make it go faster.

You really should share your amazing theory about WTC7 with NIST. How could it be that they were so totally baffled for so many years when the answer was so simple?

You might want to investigate the construction of the 5th floor before you share your theory with them, and don't expect them to be hospitable to it because the only way to accomplish that would be through use of explosives.

DK, I have explained many times that the rapid collapse appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics and should be investigated. NIST's evasive treatment of this issue is very mysterious.

WAQo, you don't know what you're talking about. NIST says that structural damage from debris played no part in collapse initiation. NIST has provided no evidence that those wimpy office fires weakened the
steel. Furthermore, if the fires had weakened the steel, NIST's collapse mechanism of thermal expansion could not happen, because the beams would buckle before they moved the girder.

RGT, have you read the NIST report on WTC7?

 
At 16 July, 2011 14:28, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

DK, I have explained many times that the rapid collapse appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics

And YOU are a mere janitor and have the mental capacity to prove it. so yes the event would seem odd to an idiot like you.

And incendiaries did cause the towers to fall, tons of office building contents all set alight in a fraction of a second, and all over up to six floors creating intense heat in a short amount of time.

You will note truthers are made up of people like you, the idiot class, that is why your cause is doomed, you haven't got quality people on your side, failed professors, theologians and guys like you and Willie R loser janitors.

 
At 16 July, 2011 15:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, you should actually study the issues about which you so confidently proclaim.

Yes, no doubt your fantasy that jet fuel sprayed all over six floors instantly ignited an irresistible inferno is quite compelling to an artistic personality like yourself.

Consider that office fires burn at most 20 minutes in an area before the fuel is consumed. So id the fires were as big as you say, they would have burned out in 20 minutes. The fact that the north tower burned fo2 102 minutes shows that the fire was not as big as you claim.

I have noted that in this forum the higher the IQ (Invective Quotient) a post has, the less factual its assertions are.

 
At 16 July, 2011 15:04, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, have you read the NIST report on WTC7?

Cover-to-cover? Hell no. Very few psychologically normal people have.

 
At 16 July, 2011 15:57, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Yes, no doubt your fantasy that jet fuel sprayed all over six floors instantly ignited an irresistible inferno is quite compelling to an artistic personality like yourself.

So some conspiracy theorist site told you office fires can only burn for 20 minutes and being a moron you believed it? In spite of the fact the fire were seen to be burning very hot at the time of collapse. In spite of the fact fire do not have to be actively burning to have weakened the steel stucture, you do know once steel has been heat stressed or is sagging or buckling it loses load carrying ability.

Really bugs you an artist like myself id so much smarter that a lousy janitor like you. But than who is not smarter than a truther.

 
At 16 July, 2011 16:11, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

So Brian, if you are not the janitor you said you were, what exactly do you do?

I am a very skilled artist, because I love it.

I also design a build complex web sites because it pays so well, I like the challenge of high tech creation. it's the geek in me.

I am also a very skilled technical illustrator who has a great combination of science, tech education so I can created visual representations of complex mechanical concepts.

All stuff a loser like you would never even know where to start with. So Brain you are well suited to menial jobs in keeping with your minimal intellect.

 
At 16 July, 2011 16:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...UtterFail, I'm sorry you lack the intelligence to sort out the problems with the 1st law of thermodynamics and the collapse."

Projecting your foibles again, goat fucker?

You've already proven that you have no idea what you're talking about. You know about as much about the laws of thermodynamics as everything else that emerges from your keyboard--nothing. On the other hand, I have a 4.0 grade average over two years of physics for scientists and engineers under my belt. And all the whining and lying in the World on your part will never change that fact. You, on the other hand, by your own admission FAILED a course in economics, a social science, which is infinity easier to pass than a course in physics, calculus, chemistry or computer science. As a result, you're a college drop out; thus, you'll always be a failure in the world of academics. And an academic failure such as yourself will always be unqualified to debate the hard science of 9/11.

All you have is uninformed naysaying, which isn't "science" at all. The buildings violate the laws of thermodynamics when it suits your never-ending stream of lies, and the buildings conform with the laws of thermodynamics when it suits your never-ending stream of lies. Thus, you lie about the events of 9/11 and contradict yourself with abandon, which is proof positive that you have nothing but contempt for the reader.

FAIL.

Finally, building 7 fell through the five-story tall Atrium, which consisted of nothing but air. There's nothing mysterious at all about the 2.25 seconds gravitational acceleration. Unless, of course, you're a college dropout who prefers to spend his time lying about the events of 9/11.

 
At 16 July, 2011 16:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Hey, Brian's library branch is open on Saturdays.

 
At 16 July, 2011 16:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

It must be Internet access day for liars, insane college dropouts and vagrants at the library. I wonder if he sexually harasses the librarians?

 
At 16 July, 2011 17:41, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I didn't post anything wrong about the 1st law of thermodynamics.

False.

Your belief that "the world listens to people like Chris Mohr" is a hoot. The video has 68 views.

Well, regardless, nobody listens to you. You're an unemployed janitor who is reduced to babbling about invisible widows here because you keep getting banned at truther sites, say nothing of reputable journals...

DK, you should actually study the issues about which you so confidently proclaim.

Brian, we do. The fact that a failed janitor and liar like you who believes in magic thermite elves disagrees with us is irrelevant.

 
At 16 July, 2011 17:43, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, you spent another Saturday posting dumbspam all over the internet, and it leaves me with one question:

Have the widows had their questions answered yet?

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 16 July, 2011 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, don't flatter yourself. I didn't say you were an artist. I said you had an artistic personality--meaning you tend to invest a lot of emotion and imagination in your beliefs.

NIST told me that office fires burn in one place only 20 minutes before it's all burned up.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

NIST doesn't have steel samples to support its claims that heat weakened the steel.

"But than who is not smarter than a truther."

Now there's a quotable line.

 
At 16 July, 2011 18:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the buildings have to conform with the laws of thermodynamics. Everybody knows this. You are trying to play a semantic game you're too poorly educated to pursue.

You'll quit embarrassing yourself with your atrial collapse theory for WTC7 when you study the 5th floor.

 
At 16 July, 2011 18:19, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Consider that office fires burn at most 20 minutes in an area before the fuel is consumed. So id the fires were as big as you say, they would have burned out in 20 minutes. The fact that the north tower burned fo2 102 minutes shows that the fire was not as big as you claim."

WTF are you even saying?

If the average office fire burns for 20 mintues (which is horseshit), and the North Tower burned for 102 minutes then how does that make the fire smaller? Even if your fucked up "20 minute fire" theory is correct you still have to multiply 20 times the number of offices.

Where your logic fails (in this case) is that neither WTC tower was an "average" office fire. They were fires started by a passenger jet crashing into them. So different rules apply.

"MGF, your persistently ignorant belief that Newton wrote the 1st law of thermodynamics disqualifies your opinion."

Actually no it doesn't. Maybe I think Newton invented Fig Newtons, and wrote most of Led Zepplin's music too. It doesn't matter. I'm not the one slinging shit about nanothermite, controlled demolition, and mounting expensive witch-hunts - you are. Yet you have no proof. Due to your mental condition you have chosen to believe liars and con-men because you cannot help yourself.

The Truth movement has kicked you out at every level because of your character flaws stemming from your mental state. Your continued activity on the 9/11 front is a result of your need to prove everyone wrong, both the troofers and the debunkers, and that leads you into an insane spiral as you contradict yourself each day as you agrue both sides against the other.

The truth is that on 9/11/2001 Al Qaeda hijacked four airliners, flew three into buildings in NYC and Washington D.C., and flew the last one into a field to prevent being retaken by the passengers.

 
At 16 July, 2011 18:23, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"NIST told me that office fires burn in one place only 20 minutes before it's all burned up.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807"

...and here you go contradicting yourself again. Either the NIST report is crap or it's not. If it's crap you can't cite it, if it's accurate then shut up.

Dumbass.

 
At 16 July, 2011 18:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, the buildings have to conform with the laws of thermodynamics. Everybody knows this. You are trying to play a semantic game you're too poorly educated to pursue."

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument

Who said the buildings don't have to conform to the laws of thermodynamics? I said that you don't understand enough about the laws of thermodynamics to make a determination one way or the other. You have neither the education or the brains to make such a determination. All you are capable of is parroting fools like Richard Gage and Jim Hoffman. You have never proven that NIST's argument violates the laws of thermodynamics, any more than you're "proven" that NIST's conclusions violates any other law of physics.

Learn to read and stop resorting to straw man arguments, Pinocchio. Your inability to read proves that you're a poorly educated college drop out. All you have are lies, obfuscation, misdirection tactics and logical fallacies.

The goat fucker squeals, "...You'll quit embarrassing yourself with your atrial collapse theory for WTC7 when you study the 5th floor."

Squeal squeal squeal.

Uh huh. Yeah, right. You've never "proven" that my argument is in error, and, once again, you've utterly failed to explain your position on this matter. Of course, you refuse to explain your position BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT I'LL INSTANTLY TEAR YOUR ARGUMENT TO SHREDS. And for the same reason, you refuse to provide hyperlinks to substantiate your lying propaganda. You know I'll tear your specious argument to shreds.

The only person who's embarrassing himself is you, goat fucker. You have no evidence, no facts, and the laws of physics, of which you are completely ignorant, prove you're wrong.

FAIL.

 
At 16 July, 2011 18:52, Blogger Billman said...

So has the troof movement won thier day, yet?

No? Still spouting retarded delusions after almost 10 years with nothing to show for it but arrests, divorces, and butthurt comments on this website?

Shocking...

 
At 16 July, 2011 18:55, Blogger Ian said...

So has the troof movement won thier day, yet?

No? Still spouting retarded delusions after almost 10 years with nothing to show for it but arrests, divorces, and butthurt comments on this website?


Don't worry. Brian Good will have his "meatball on a fork" and his "rake on rake" models published in a journal of engineering any day now. As he told us nearly 5 years ago, "Just you wait, gentlemen!"

 
At 16 July, 2011 19:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, NIST tells us that office fires consume all the fuel in any particular area in 20 minutes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf

Thus if you have an office fire that burns on one floor for 102 minutes then in the absence of other evidence you must suppose that only 20% of the floor was burning at any given time.

According to Gene Corley, the jet fuel burned up in 60 seconds. Charcoal lighter fluid is the same thing as jet fuel. It's not magic super dooper stuff like perchlorate. It's just kerosene.

Asking me for proof when we haven't even had a proper investigation yet is kind of silly. The official investigations had five years and $35 million and they can't prove their claims.

I don't contradict myself. I'm sorry that you don't understand nuance but it's not my fault. The truth movement has not kicked me out. When it costs $25 in gas and bridge tolls to go to a meeting, and when the meetings are not very productive, I stay home.

And your belief that I can't use NIST's own data to show how NIST is FOS is just plain loony.

 
At 16 July, 2011 19:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Says the unemployed failed janitor, sex stalker, logic cesspool, compulsive liar and fool who wears women's underwear.

 
At 16 July, 2011 19:19, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, NIST tells us that office fires consume all the fuel in any particular area in 20 minutes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf


Wait, I thought the NIST report for dishonest, incompetent, and unbelievable? Don't you tell us that every day? Now you're citing it.

Thus if you have an office fire that burns on one floor for 102 minutes then in the absence of other evidence you must suppose that only 20% of the floor was burning at any given time.

False.

According to Gene Corley, the jet fuel burned up in 60 seconds. Charcoal lighter fluid is the same thing as jet fuel. It's not magic super dooper stuff like perchlorate. It's just kerosene.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 16 July, 2011 19:22, Blogger Ian said...

Asking me for proof when we haven't even had a proper investigation yet is kind of silly. The official investigations had five years and $35 million and they can't prove their claims.

So your claims about fires burning in one place for only 20 minutes are unproven. Good to have that cleared up.

I don't contradict myself. I'm sorry that you don't understand nuance but it's not my fault. The truth movement has not kicked me out. When it costs $25 in gas and bridge tolls to go to a meeting, and when the meetings are not very productive, I stay home.

Yup, I suppose $25 is more than you can get when your only source of income is collected cans. Plus, you spend so much time on the internet posting dumbspam that I doubt you can actually gather up that many cans.

And your belief that I can't use NIST's own data to show how NIST is FOS is just plain loony.

Yup. Let's just call it even and say that the NIST report is reputable, no matter what unemployed janitors and liars like you say.

 
At 16 July, 2011 19:25, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, it's been almost 10 years since 9/11. When do you plan on having "meatball on a fork" and "rake-on-rake" published in a journal? When do you plan on getting the widows questions answered? When are you going to get us a new investigation.

I don't want to tell you how to do things, but I feel that posting endless dumbspam on this blog isn't doing much to get the above accomplished.

 
At 16 July, 2011 19:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian, you forgot to ask Mr. "Meatball on a fork" and "Rake-on-rake" if he was high on gasoline, glue or LSD when formulated that cockamamie "theory."

%^)

 
At 16 July, 2011 21:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, NIST tells us that office fires consume all the fuel in any particular area in 20 minutes.

http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807"

It's a dead link, so I doubt they tell us that.

"Thus if you have an office fire that burns on one floor for 102 minutes then in the absence of other evidence you must suppose that only 20% of the floor was burning at any given time."

In the absence of other evidence? Do you mean like a shreaded 767? How long does the NIST say a 767 with a full load of fuel will burn?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say 80 minutes. You know, seats, passengers, tires (will burn for hours), luggage, and the aluminum airframe all take time to burn.

"According to Gene Corley, the jet fuel burned up in 60 seconds"

The video evidence shows different, thus you are full of shit.

"Asking me for proof when we haven't even had a proper investigation yet is kind of silly. The official investigations had five years and $35 million and they can't prove their claims."

They have explained the events as well as possible. They don't have to prove anything. The troofers make counter claims expecting the government to respond, the problem is that they're full of shit, and driven by political theology not fact.

"I don't contradict myself. "

...and yet you aslo wrote this:

"You really should share your amazing theory about WTC7 with NIST. How could it be that they were so totally baffled for so many years when the answer was so simple?"

...and then this:

"the rapid collapse appears to violate the first law of thermodynamics and should be investigated. NIST's evasive treatment of this issue is very mysterious."

...and this:

"NIST has provided no evidence that those wimpy office fires weakened the
steel. Furthermore, if the fires had weakened the steel, NIST's collapse mechanism of thermal expansion could not happen, because the beams would buckle before they moved the girder.

RGT, have you read the NIST report on WTC7?"

...and yet you wrote this:

"NIST told me that office fires burn in one place only 20 minutes before it's all burned up.
http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807"

...and :

"And your belief that I can't use NIST's own data to show how NIST is FOS is just plain loony."

You contradict yourself three times in this thread alone. No wonder Carol thinks you're a nut job.

 
At 16 July, 2011 22:18, Blogger paul w said...

Asking me for proof...is kind of silly. I...contradict myself. I...don't understand. The truth movement has...kicked me out. I stay home...plain loony.

To understand Brian, one has to read between the lines.

 
At 17 July, 2011 05:45, Blogger TANSTAAFL said...

WAQ, I hope you don't mind, but I "borrowed" your WTC7 collapse explanation.

I'm irrirating a conspiritard on an unrelated web site, and yours was a nice compact statement of the facts.

 
At 17 July, 2011 12:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, surely you're only pretending to be so dumb that you can't recognize that a dishonest and unbelieveable report can be assembled by its authors from honest constituent parts.

Utterfail, the persistence of the lower core of Tower 2 suggests that the meatball model was correct.

MGF, if you google the url http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NCSTACMeetingMinutes121807.pdf
you'll get the document where NIST says office fires burn at most 20 minutes in any one place.

It also appears in NCSTAR 1-6D, page 329--don't you remember?

The 767 didn't have a full load of fuel. It had less than half a load. FEMA said the jet fuel burned off in 60 seconds. Shyam Sunder said it burned off in less than ten minutes.

Your claim that NIST has explained as well as possible is absurd. They didn't even try to explain the molten steel, the pulverization of the concrete, what brought down the core, or the collapses' symmetry and totality and speed.

I guess you're going to have to explain how your quote-mined stuff is contradictory. I guess a lot of stuff looks contradictory to someone who lives in a black and white world.

TANSTAAFL, it's easy for WAQo to be concise 'cause he makes up his facts. He doesn't know what he's talking about. NIST says that structural damage from debris played no part in collapse initiation. NIST has provided no evidence that those wimpy office fires weakened the steel. Furthermore, if the fires had weakened the steel, NIST's collapse mechanism of thermal expansion could not happen, because the beams would buckle before they moved the girder.

 
At 17 July, 2011 13:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"FEMA said the jet fuel burned off in 60 seconds. Shyam Sunder said it burned off in less than ten minutes."

So it "burned off" between 60 seconds and ten minutes. It was still devastating to the structure and the people inside.

One of the many reasons you fail on this subject is that you minimize, or fail to account for the impact of the aircraft on each tower. The crashing of the jets into each tower was the cause of their collapse - period. It is fair to state that 100% of the buildings of the WTC "Twin Tower" design collpased after the impact of a singe 767. Identical buildings, identical planes, and identical outcomes (with minor differences).

There was no controlled demo, no nanothermite, and no molten steel in the way you describe it.

The 9/11 conspiracy myths are politically motivated witch-hunts.

 
At 17 July, 2011 13:37, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I guess a lot of stuff looks contradictory to someone who lives in a black and white world."

Nope, just a world of logic and reason.

 
At 17 July, 2011 13:39, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"They didn't even try to explain the molten steel, the pulverization of the concrete, what brought down the core, or the collapses' symmetry and totality and speed."

None of that happened, so no need to explain it.

 
At 17 July, 2011 16:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 July, 2011 16:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, You asked me how long NIST says a 767 with a full load of fuel would burn, obviously in the belief that it would burn a long time. I told you. It has less than half a load of fuel, and it burned off in considerably less than ten minutes. FEMA says 60 seconds. That's how the people who shaped the NIST report operate. If it's 60 seconds, they'll say "less than ten minutes"
which is not a lie, but it's misleading.

Obviously the structural damage from the crashing airplanes did not bring the buildings down--if it had, they would have fallen immediately.

Since one plane hit the broad side of the core head on and the other hit the narrow side of the core at an angle, to claim that the differences in the two situations were minor is myopic.

You are offering only a logically fallacious "argument from credulity" that does not address the speed, symmetry, or totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the core, or the molten steel.

Molten steel was testified to by a couple of dozen witnesses. Are you calling Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson liars? Are you calling Dr. Ghoniem a liar?

You make up your facts.

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, we're calling you a liar. And, in fact, you are a liar.

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm not a liar, UtterFool. I note that you failed to respond to the point that the persistence of the lower core of Tower 2 suggests that petgoat's meatball model was correct.

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Molten steel was testified to by a couple of dozen witnesses."

Bullshit!

It's not possible to "eyeball" molten metal and determine that it's "molten steel." Only an assay can make that determination.

None of the witness you cite--Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson--are qualified to make that determination. Only a metallurgist or a chemist can make that determination--and they can only arrive at a conclusive determination after an assay is performed on the molten metal.

FAIL.

Furthermore, you're seriously proposing to us that clean up workers and fire fighters sprayed water on molten steel? You're out of your LSD addled mind.

Steam explosions in steel foundries have occurred on numerous occasions when water was accidentally poured onto molten steel, or visa versa. The steam explosion is so violent that the roof of the foundry is sure to be blown off the building. Spraying water on molten steel would have resulted in the immediate death of any clean up worker or fireman who was foolish enough to make such a fatal mistake.

FAIL.

You're full of shit up to your eyebrows, goat fucker.

Now go play in the middle of US highway 101--you scurrilous liar.

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'm not a liar, UtterFool. I note that you failed to respond to the point that the persistence of the lower core of Tower 2 suggests that petgoat's meatball model was correct."

Why should I respond to unsubstantiated lies and drivel, "petgoat" (or whatever you're calling yourself this week, Pinocchio?)

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, surely you're only pretending to be so dumb that you can't recognize that a dishonest and unbelieveable report can be assembled by its authors from honest constituent parts.

Brian, who said the NIST report is unbelievable or dishonest? You? Nobody cares what you think since you're a liar and failed janitor who believes in nonsense about the WTC collapses.

They didn't even try to explain the molten steel, the pulverization of the concrete, what brought down the core, or the collapses' symmetry and totality and speed.

See what I mean?

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:53, Blogger Ian said...

Obviously the structural damage from the crashing airplanes did not bring the buildings down--if it had, they would have fallen immediately.

Right. The fires weakening the steel is what caused the towers to come down. This is not difficult for those of us who are not unemployed lunatics.

You are offering only a logically fallacious "argument from credulity" that does not address the speed, symmetry, or totality of collapse, the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the core, or the molten steel.

Brian, MGF also didn't address the presence of burnt baboon fur or radiation in the debris cloud either. Why do you think that is?

Molten steel was testified to by a couple of dozen witnesses. Are you calling Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson liars? Are you calling Dr. Ghoniem a liar?

No, we're calling you a liar for lying about what these people said.

You make up your facts.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 17 July, 2011 17:54, Blogger Ian said...

I'm not a liar, UtterFool.

So you're admitting that you're petgoat? Because you cite the "meatball on a fork" nonsense in the same post, and since you're petgoat, claiming otherwise is a lie.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum, and I've seen molten plastic, and I do't think it's difficult to distinguish among them. I don't see why the witnesses should not be considered qualified, since they include PhDs in engineering. You are simply lawyering for the defense of a willfully incompetent investigation.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. He knows a melted girder when he sees it. Are you arguing that there were lead girders at the WTC? Plastic?

No, FDNY did not spray water on molten steel. They sprayed it on the pile. There is a video of a cleanup captain ordering water away as a girder was lifted out, because it would make too much steam.

Ian, 1500 architects and engineers consider the NIST report unsatisfactory.

The meatball model is not nonsense at all. The persistence of the core in WTC2 proves that.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, I note that you failed to respond to the point that the persistence of the lower core of Tower 2 suggests that petgoat's meatball model was correct.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:17, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, 1500 architects and engineers consider the NIST report unsatisfactory.

False. You're the only one who finds it unsatisfactory, because you're an ignorant lunatic.

The meatball model is not nonsense at all. The persistence of the core in WTC2 proves that.

See what I mean?

Also, Brian, do you now admit that you are petgoat?

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The compulsive lair squeals, "...I note that you failed to respond to the point that the persistence of the lower core of Tower 2 suggests that petgoat's meatball model was correct."

UtterAsshole, why should I respond to unsubstantiated, and unscientific drivel?

The goat fucker lies, "...I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum, and I've seen molten plastic, and I do't think it's difficult to distinguish among them."

Of course you don't "think it's difficult to distinguish among them", because you're a compulsive liar.

You couldn't distinguish "molten steel" from your ass, liar.

"...No, FDNY did not spray water on molten steel. They sprayed it on the pile."

See what a liar you are, goat fucker?

Yeah, riiiiiight! I guess Archimedes principle was suspended at Ground Zero.

You're a liar and a fool.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

" snug.bug said...
UtterFail, I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum, and I've seen molten plastic, and I do't think it's difficult to distinguish among them."

Yes, however - YOU - did not see them at Ground Zero. Neither did the people you insist upon misquoting.


"Obviously the structural damage from the crashing airplanes did not bring the buildings down--if it had, they would have fallen immediately."

The structural damage AND FIRE from the planes brought down the towers. Period. That the did not fall immediately is immaterial - they fell.

Identical buildings hit by identical aircraft responded indentically. This is not rocket science.

"Since one plane hit the broad side of the core head on and the other hit the narrow side of the core at an angle, to claim that the differences in the two situations were minor is myopic."

Actually, dumbass, it makes my point. WTC2 fell first even though it was hit second. Why? Because it was hit lower and off center. Had the plane struck maybe 30 floors lower the tower would have dropped on the spot or within minutes of impact. As I said, identical towers hit by identical aircraft, and both collapsed. Had there been 50 identical towers hit by identical planes it is safe to say that all 50 would have gone down.

Logic, Brian, logic.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

Lie to us again and tell us that clean up workers at Ground Zero where able to stand a mere 24 feet above "molten steel," the temperature of which is 2750 degrees F, without their lungs being incinerated and their bodies fried to a crisp. And when you're done, tell us more about how the clean up workers magically avoided the "molten steel" without a thermal map. Tell us more about the suspension of Archimedes principle at Ground Zero, while the clean up workers sprayed water on "molten steel."

Asshole.

 
At 17 July, 2011 18:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, do you deny that the entire core of WTC2 stood for some time after the rest of the towers had fallen?


MGF, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley, said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Are you calling him a liar?

You said "The crashing of the jets into each tower was the cause of their collapse - period. It is fair to state that 100% of the buildings of the WTC "Twin Tower" design collpased after the impact of a singe 767."

When I showed that was wrong you say "The structural damage AND FIRE from the planes brought down the towers."

I've shown that to be extremely doubtful so how about you admit that structural damage AND FIRE AND INCENDIARIES brought down the towers.

You go on from one absurd claim to even wilder non-falsifiable fantasies about airplane strikes lower down, and bigger sample sizes. You don't even make sense in freshman chemistry and physics.

UtterFail, the insulating dust protected cleanup workers from the molten steel, but that insulating dust did not stop their boots from melting and did not stop NASA from recording surface temperatures of 1341 F.

The Archimedes principle has nothing to do with spraying water on the debris pile. Thanks for demonstrating the "emperor's clothes" principle.

 
At 17 July, 2011 19:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

UtterAsshole lies, "...the insulating dust protected cleanup workers from the molten steel, but that insulating dust did not stop their boots from melting and did not stop NASA from recording surface temperatures of 1341 F."

False. That's got to be the stupidest pile of crap you've ever written--and that's quite and accomplishment considering the source. There's not a shred of evidence for the claim that the clean up worker's boots melted. That's a troofer myth. And dust could NEVER protect the clean up workers from the intense heat produced by "molten steel."

You make up your "facts."

"...The Archimedes principle has nothing to do with spraying water on the debris pile. Thanks for demonstrating the "emperor's clothes" principle."

Archimedes principle has everything to do with it--you clueless moron. The water would have poured down onto the "molten steel," and a violent steam explosion would have ensued.

It's no wonder that you're college dropout. After all, you're a physics illiterate asshole, compulsive liar and sex predator who wears women's underwear.

FAIL.

 
At 17 July, 2011 19:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You can always tell when the goat fucker's back is against the wall because the crap flows like Niagara Falls.

 
At 17 July, 2011 19:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And you don't need "molten steel" to explain the 1400 degree F temperatures found at Ground Zero. Nor is "molten steel" necessary to explain why the fires burned for months.

Used automobile tire dumps have caught fire and burned for months--that's the nature of hydrocarbon-rich fires. There was more than enough elevator hydraulic fluid and other hydrocarbon-rich sources at Ground Zero to explain this phenomenon.

Once again, you FAIL, UtterAsshole.

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, You mistake your own ignorance for evidence. "60 Minutes" featured testimony from Margie Edwards at Ground Zero to the effect that boots were melting. See 3:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGR6NfGhww

Are you calling Margie Edwards a liar?

As to Archimedes' Principle, it's pretty obvious that your authorities are lying to you and you're too lazy to check. Shame on you, liar.

 
At 17 July, 2011 20:59, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, learn to read: we're calling you a liar. We don't care what you have to say about "molten steel" because everything you post here is a lie.

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

nwor

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

UtterAsshole squeals, "...Are you calling Margie Edwards a liar?"

Yes, she is a liar.

If the clean up workers were walking on the pile and the heat from the pile was "melting" their boots, the heat would have been unbearable, if not life threatening. Idiot.

UtterAsshole squeals, "...As to Archimedes' Principle, it's pretty obvious that your authorities are lying to you and you're too lazy to check. Shame on you, liar."

More gobbledygook, gay boi?

You know about as much about "Archimedes' [SIC] Principle" as you understand about everything else related to 9/11--nothing.

There was no "molten steel" at Ground Zero--and you can quote mine Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson until you're blue in the face, but we know that you're a liar. And we've proven that you're liar over-and-over again.

You're a shameless liar. You lie about "molten steel," and you lie about the danger that spraying water on the pile would represent for the clean up crews.

As I've proven over-and-over again, you're a shameless liar with all the intellectual integrity of a street-walking crack whore.

And notice that you refuse to address the points I made concerning hydrocarbon-rich fires. That's because, once again, I 0wn your lying ass.

Asshole.

FAIL.

 
At 17 July, 2011 22:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Mr. Limp-Dick-Fingers says Margie Edwards is a liar on the basis of his alleged FORTRAN skills. Also Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson are liars, according to you.

Is that the best you can do? "It's a conspiracy, I tell you! The witnesses are all lying!"

I am willing to confront Condi Rice, Shyam Sunder, Willie Rodriguez, or Kevin Barrett and call them out as liars to their faces. You, Mr. Mr. Limp-Dick-Fingers, hide behind a phony alias and lie about your credentials.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

UtterAsshole squeals, "...So Mr. Limp-Dick-Fingers says Margie Edwards is a liar on the basis of his alleged FORTRAN skills. Also Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson are liars, according to you."

FORTRAN is for washed up old farts--like you, Asshole. And I never said that Dr. Astaneh [SIC], Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson are liars, I called YOU a liar. Learn to read, 'tard.

"...I am willing to confront Condi Rice, Shyam Sunder, Willie Rodriguez, or Kevin Barrett and call them out as liars to their faces. You, Mr. Mr. Limp-Dick-Fingers, hide behind a phony alias and lie about your credentials."

Says the lying liar and college dropout who wears women's underwear, knows nothing about the physical sciences and can't solve a simple chain rule calculation.

So seeing that you're such a complete failure in life, what makes you so arrogant? Did Richard Gage tell you that you give the best toothy blowjob in Northern California?

"...Hi! I'm Brian Good, and I gobble more man goo than Elton John and Senator Barney Frank combined. INSIDE JOB! 9/11 truth!"

Loser.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah, FORTRAN is for limp-fingered old farts like you, UtterFail.

OK, if Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo, and Leslie Robertson are not liars, then YOU-- who claims that they did not testify molten steel--are a liar.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

According to Chris Mohr, Leslie Robertson replied to an e-mail and explained that he never claimed "molten steel" was found at Ground Zero. He misspoke at Stanford University. He meant to say "molten metal." The remainder of your evidence is quote mined trash, which, as a proven compulsive liar, is your standard operating procedure.

You should stick to "technology" that you're qualified to operate--brooms, toilet bowl cleaner and an adjustable wrench. After all, FORTRAN is likely to make that microcephalic gob of shit on your shoulder's explode.

Loser. Asshole.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

If Chris Mohr says Leslie Robertson explained that he never claimed "molten steel" was found at Ground Zero then either Mr. Robertson or Mr. Mohr is lying. It's on video. He says he say "like a little river of molten steel".

Who exactly says Leslie Robertson misspoke, and when did they say it?

Dr. Astaneh, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, and FDNY Captain Ruvolo all testified to molten steel.

Your are in hysterical denial of reality.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...Who exactly says Leslie Robertson misspoke, and when did they say it?"

Answer: Chris Mohr.

That Robertson misspoke at Stanford University is obvious to anyone with an IQ in excess of the temperature of warm spit--which always excludes a college dropout who wears women's underwear.

Mohr was emphatic--Robertson flatly denied making such a claim. Thus, he must have misspoke at Stanford University.

And if you'd spend some time watching Mohr's video's rather than lying constantly and polluting this blog with troofer bullshit, you'd know that I'm telling the truth.

Liar. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...Your are [SIC] in hysterical denial of reality."

Who's hysterical, Pinocchio?

Let's see, I make a post at 17 July, 2011 22:37 after taking a 2 hour and 15 minute break to complete some work that's due tomorrow morning, and you reply to my comment within 11 minutes--and I'm "hysterical"?

Projecting your foibles again, goat fucker?

You're the one who's hysterical, goat fucker. Proof? Obviously, you sit at your computer refreshing your browser like a paranoid women, scanning for comments in reply to your never-ending stream of bullshit. You're so mentally ill that you honestly believe getting the last word in proves that you "won" the "debate."

Idiot. Liar. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 17 July, 2011 23:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

So where did Mohr say that Robertson denied it?

There's video showing Robertson making the claim of a "little river of molten steel".

That you think we should believe the claims of an anonymous internet poster that Robertson denies it shows you to be incompetent to perceive reality.

 
At 18 July, 2011 00:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 July, 2011 00:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...So where did Mohr say that Robertson denied it?...There's video showing Robertson making the claim of a "little river of molten steel"...That you think we should believe the claims of an anonymous internet poster that Robertson denies it shows you to be incompetent to perceive reality."

Incompetent? That's your middle name--you limp-wristed homo who wears women's underwear.

Right here--you fucking jerkoff:

And I quote:

"...For example, Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer and designer of the twin towers, is quoted as saying 'as of 21 days after the attack, molten steel was still running.' When asked about this quote, however, Leslie Robertson briefly explained in a personal e-mail, that quote 'I have no recollection of having made any such statements, nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge,' close quote."

Part 8 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Molten Iron/Steel?

Notice that Leslie Robertson admits, that as a structural engineer, he doesn't "have the required knowledge" to make the distinction between molten metal and "molten iron/steel."

Now quote mine and twist that statement beyond recognition--you lying, arrogant, incompetent asshole.

Idiot. Liar. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 00:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Mr. Robertson claims he does not recall making the statement in October, 2001 that molten steel was running. And then we have video in April, 2002 where he says he says he saw "like a little river ot molten steel".

So where does that leave you?

 
At 18 July, 2011 00:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker whines, "...So where does that leave you?"

Squeal squeal squeal.

As I predicted, you'll respond with spin and bullshit.

To answer your idiotic question, fucktard, it leaves me vindicated. And proves that you're a lying idiot, who doesn't do his homework.

As I said above, Robertson misspoke at Stanford University--which isn't all that hard to believe when you consider his advancing age.

The fact remains that he flatly denies claiming that "molten steel" was found at Ground Zero.

Read it again, asshole, until you get it through your thick skull:

"...For example, Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer and designer of the twin towers, is quoted as saying 'as of 21 days after the attack, molten steel was still running.' When asked about this quote, however, Leslie Robertson briefly explained in a personal e-mail, that quote 'I have no recollection of having made any such statements, nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge,' close quote."

Part 8 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Molten Iron/Steel?

And as I've pointed out repeatedly, Robertson doesn't have the academic background to make the distinction between molten metal and "molten steel"--and neither does Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Father Malloy, Dr. Geyh, Captain Ruvolo or you. Only an assay can prove conclusively that molten steel was found at Ground Zero.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Idiot. Liar. Jerkoff. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 00:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Mr. Robertson was reported to have said a month after 9/11 that molten steel was running. A few months later he said it again and it's on video. And we're supposed to believe your claims that he didn't say it?

Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melting of girders. What do you think those girders were made out of, smart guy? Lead girders?

Your demands for conclusive proof when none of the witnesses had the power to compel the taking of samples is quire disingenuous.

 
At 18 July, 2011 01:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...And we're supposed to believe your claims that he didn't say it?"

Logical fallacy: Straw man argument.

I never said that he didn't say it--you illiterate liar. I said that HE MISSPOKE. Get it through your thick skull--you illiterate, lying sack-of-shit. Here's what I wrote--you idiot:

"...He misspoke at Stanford University. He meant to say 'molten metal.'"

Once again, we can see that you're an insane, illiterate liar who relies on straw man arguments to smear his opponent.

Learn to read--you fucking degenerate.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Idiot. Liar. Jerkoff. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 01:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Dr. Astaneh-Asl saw melting of girders."

Squeal squeal squeal.

For the thousandth time, the steel didn't "melt"--you fucking idiot. It eroded, as was pointed out by three scientists who are fully-qualified to make the determination--that is, Drs. Barnett, Beiderman and Sisson to be specific.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Idiot. Liar. Jerkoff. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know he misspoke? How can you misspeak about something like that? It's like saying you went to Chicago when really you went to Cleveland. Do you mean he was wrong? He thought it was steel and it wasn't? How do you know he was wrong? How does he know he was wrong?

Did anyone ever do an assay on this "molten metal" and determine that it was not steel? It couldn't have been aluminum, because molten aluminum is silvery and can not be mistaken for molten steel. Has anybody reported molten aluminum at Ground Zero?

Why would an engineer assume that it was steel if it was not?

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders and you have no evidence that he did not. You are irrationally and dishonestly conflating Dr. Astaneh's girders with the samples from the FEMA report, and you have no evidence that they are the same. And even if they are the same, the agency of the "erosion" you keep babbling about was intragranular melting. That's melting. More than melting, it's evaporation. The NYT said so, attributing the comment to Dr. Barnett, and he has never said that was wrong. Dr. Barnett has also not corrected the writeup at the WPI website which characterizes the issue as "The Deep Mystery of the Melted Steel".

You are simply in hysterical denial, frantically lawyering to defend your illusions,

 
At 18 July, 2011 10:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...How do you know he misspoke?"

Squeal squeal squeal.

If you can't figure it out after all the rock-solid evidence I've presented above, goat fucker, I certainly can't help you.

As always, you're 180 degrees out of phase with reality.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Beyond parody.

Idiot. Liar. Jerkoff. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 10:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now you'll excuse me, goat fucker. After all, unlike you, I have a real career and mountains of work to complete.

Idiot. Liar. Jerkoff. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

You haven't presented any rock-solid evidence. All you've presented is hand-waving hysterical denial.

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:25, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley, said he saw "melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Are you calling him a liar?"

No, I'm calling YOU a liar for misquoting him.

"I've shown that to be extremely doubtful so how about you admit that structural damage AND FIRE AND INCENDIARIES brought down the towers."

You haven't shown jack shit.

The "Truth" is that the WTC was structurally sound from 1972 & 1973 up until 8:46 am, and 9:03am on 9/11/2001 and when they were stuck by 767s.

There were no incendiaries. I know this because:

1. - There is and never will be evidence of thermite use in either tower nor WTC7.

2. Know there is no evidence because of the THOUSANDS of people who worked the pile at Ground Zero who did not see anything resembling thermite use (remember, Many police, firefighters, FBI,FEMA, and your average steel worker have had prior military experience, and nobody at NYFD or NYPD would have stayed quiet about finding it if there had been any)

3. You and the troofers thnk there was thermite, and you guys are idiots.

4. Using controlled demo in conjunction with crashing aircraft into the buildings is just a piss-poor concept. Too many things can go wrong, and thermite is just a fucking stupid component to try to use in demolition. As a former conspiracy nut-job myself I'm offended by this idea because it is so fucking stupid. Where's the cleverness? Where's the diabolical genious? Seriously?

5. Thermite became the go-to boogyman for the troofers only after they realized that no explosions could be heard as WTC7 or either tower went down. In controlled demo the charges are loud. So they switched to thermite because it is quiet - not because it was logical, not because it worked, but just because without thermite the controlled demo concept turned to shit.

You came to the Truth movement in 2006, late as usual, not because you believe any of it, but because you found a group of soft-brained people you could take advantage of.

You are a conman and a liar.

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't misquote anybody and you are dishonest to make that claim without even checking. A simple google search ... Astaneh melting of girders ... brings up the statement: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

"I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

It's no surprise that you're having a hard time getting through college when you're such a lousy scholar.

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...You haven't presented any rock-solid evidence. All you've presented is hand-waving hysterical denial."

Who's hysterical, Pinocchio?

Let's see, I make a post at 17 July, 2011 22:37 after taking a 2 hour and 15 minute break to complete some work that's due tomorrow morning, and you reply to my comment within 11 minutes--and I'm "hysterical"?

Projecting your foibles again, goat fucker?

You're the one who's hysterical, goat fucker. Proof? Obviously, you sit at your computer refreshing your browser like a paranoid women, scanning for comments in reply to your never-ending stream of bullshit. You're so mentally ill that you honestly believe getting the last word in proves that you "won" the "debate."

The hysterics are yours and yours alone, goat fucker.

As I pointed out above, Leslie Robertson misspoke at Stanford University. In fact, he flatly denied making the claim that "molten steel" was found at Ground Zero. And I quote:

"...For example, Leslie Robertson, a structural engineer and designer of the twin towers, is quoted as saying 'as of 21 days after the attack, molten steel was still running.' When asked about this quote, however, Leslie Robertson briefly explained in a personal e-mail, that quote 'I have no recollection of having made any such statements, nor was I in a position to have the required knowledge,' close quote."

Part 8 Gage's Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked): Molten Iron/Steel?

Leslie Robertson plainly admits that he "was [not] in a position to have the required knowledge" to determine whether "molten steel" was present at Ground Zero. As I've pointed out repeatedly--you brain-dead sex predator--only an assay can determine conclusively if "molten steel" was present at Ground Zero.

Stick to defending your fellow sex predator, Manny Badillo, under your sock puppet handle, "Pat Cowardly." Clearly, as a psychotic sex predator and unemployed college dropout, you're not qualified to debate the scientific evidence as concerns the events of 11 September 2001.

Now go play in the middle US highway 101--you women's underwear sporting freak.

Idiot. Liar. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...It's no surprise that you're having a hard time getting through college when you're such a lousy scholar."

Squeal squeal squeal.

Says the unemployed janitor, vicious sex predator and college dropout who wears women's underwear.

Beyond parody.

 
At 18 July, 2011 11:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You haven't presented any rock-solid evidence. All you've presented is hand-waving hysterical denial.

And all you can do is whine and moan how we managed to get the truth out of you about lying. All you can do is accuse people of things you do, that is your weakness.

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures.

He says the steel didn't melt.

Also......

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.

He completely contradicted himself by saying there was no melting of girders then goes to say that he "saw" the girders "melt" at Ground Zero.

See Brian, not only do you lie, but you quote-mine the fuck out of everything. What a fucking loser!

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, how is it that Leslie Robertson is able to misspeak exactly the same twice in a few months? The presence of molten steel is corroborated by others--PhD structural engineers, NYT reporters, Father Malloy, and FDNY Captain Ruvolo.

If Mr. Robertson wished to be clear about this he could round up some people that attended his speech in October and he could have them come forward and say "he did not say anything about molten steel". Obviously he does not want to be clear about it. For him to deny that he said it without explaining that he misspoke at Stanford very much brings his basic honesty into question.

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian, what do you know about honesty? You know nothing about being honest and yet you accuse people of doing what you're doing.

You haven't been honest with everyone here Brian. All you can do is sit at the computer, type up whatever's in your narrow mind, then type out what you're thinking. You know, thinking out loud only creates problems for yourself. Noones to blame for your mistakes but you and only you.

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

WAQ, thanks for your post. Good work.

Here's something to contemplate. Again here's Dr. Astaneh-Asl's quote:

"...Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl

Question: why would Dr. Astaneh-Asl claim that "'melting' should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders", and in the next sentence claim that "I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."?

The answer is obvious: The last sentence is a typo--an error on the part of PBS.

Obviously, the last sentence should read as follows: "I saw NO melting of girders in World Trade Center."

As you can see, either the goat fucker is dumb as a fence post, or, more likely, he's lying through his terracotta teeth. This explains why the goat fucker is so careful to deliberately omit the first three (3) sentences of Dr. Astaneh-Asl's testimony.

Beyond parody.

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No problem Bill!

 
At 18 July, 2011 12:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Hurry, goat fucker, HURRY! Bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of dumbspam!

 
At 18 July, 2011 17:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Allow me to pile on...



"I didn't misquote anybody and you are dishonest to make that claim without even checking. A simple google search ... Astaneh melting of girders ... brings up the statement: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html"

Once again you cite a link that undermines your position. Can anybody be as stupid as you are? The title:

"Collapse of Overpass in California Becomes Lesson in Construction

An overpass near the Oakland-San Francisco Bay Bridge collapsed last month after a gasoline truck crashed into a guardrail and burst into flames. For an engineering professor, the incident has turned into a lesson for building safer structures."

Anybody want to take a wild guess about what the lesson is?

I'll give you a hint - fire weakens steel, and can cause structures to collapse.

Way to go, shit4brains.

It gets better:

" At 3:40 a.m., on the last Sunday in April, a gasoline truck crashed into the guard rail on a major California freeway near the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and burst into flames. The fire was so intense, it caused an overpass to collapse."

... then the good doctor says this:

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed. In both of them, I feel that we, as engineers, if we had looked at them and learned the lessons, we could really apply these lessons to build safe structures."

Let me repeat the good part..."In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed."

Both meaning the WTC and the freeway.

I'm sure it gets better, oh wait, it does!!:

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Here, it most likely reached about 1,000 to 1,500 degrees. And that is enough to collapse them, so they collapsed. So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders. I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center."

Bwahahahahahahaha! Oh what the hell Brian? You misquote thisguy right and left. Can't you read? What kind of brian damage do you have anyway?

Then there's this gem:

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength."

What? No! Really? Shocked, I'm shocked I say! Shocked!

Then there's this:

"SPENCER MICHELS: Astaneh has been lobbying policymakers to draw lessons from this accident. He thinks double-decker freeways at critical junctures should be redesigned, using more fire-resistant steel and paint, which are already in use in Japan, or coating the steel girders with concrete, which can work as a fire retardant.

ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Now we are rebuilding just the same way (inaudible) because we want to get this catastrophe out of our way. This is disaster in the Bay Area. Yesterday, I spent two hours on traffic, OK? So what we should do is, let's build this as fast as we can, but we have to identify critical bridges. We have to identify where structures are too close to my bridge, to steel bridges."

So what we have here is the government dragging its feet on safety. Where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, all of those safety warnings ignored after the 1993 WTC bombing (yes, they implemented a lot, but they found excuses to lag on the expensive stuff. Let's not forget all of the security recommendation ignored about airline security.

Oh Brian, your mental failing is so painful ( and fun) to watch

 
At 18 July, 2011 17:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 July, 2011 17:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, as usual you make up your facts.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html
If you would bother to read the transcript you will see that Dr. Astaneh-Asl is making a distinction between the girders at the Oakland freeway fire and the girders at the WTC. He is saying the Oakland freeway girder did not melt--and of course they didn't melt. He's an intelligent, educated man, and an engineer and he knows that gasoline can not melt steel--not even when the steel is totally without fireproofing and you burn 8000 gallons of gasoline in half an hour in open air with plenty of oxygen.

But he's pointing out that girders at the World Trade Center did melt. If you would bother to watch the video, you would see that the transcript is correct.

Also note that there was no "progressive collapse". The top roadway fell down on the lower roadway, and despite the enormous dynamic load of the upper roadway freefalling 30 feet, the lower roadway did not collapse. Nor did the collapse progress sideways from column to column like WTC7's allegedly did, pulling down a mil of roadway.

 
At 18 July, 2011 18:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

When I return to my home from my customer's corporate headquarters this evening, rest assured that I'm going to rip your argument to shreds.

I sincerely hope that you're ready to retire your blogger handle, because you don't stand a chance.

T-minus 5 hours and counting until total goat fucker meltdown...

 
At 18 July, 2011 18:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 July, 2011 18:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

What corporate HQ would that be? Jimmie's Garden Service?

It's not an argument, it's an irrefutable fact. Dr. Astaneh-Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

 
At 18 July, 2011 18:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You pull your "facts" out of your ass, as you're about to learn the hard way.

 
At 18 July, 2011 18:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...What corporate HQ would that be? Jimmie's Garden Service?"

No, since you're a college dropout, that would be your former employer.

 
At 18 July, 2011 19:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...It's not an argument, it's an irrefutable fact."

Isn't it also a fact that Dr. Astaneh-Asl said, "[t]hose are lightweight buildings. There was no need for explosives to bring them down"?

A Berkeley Engineer Searches for the Truth About the Twin Towers' Collapse.

Can you say cognitive dissonance, Mr. Compulsive Liar?

 
At 18 July, 2011 19:17, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"If you would bother to read the transcript you will see that Dr. Astaneh-Asl is making a distinction between the girders at the Oakland freeway fire and the girders at the WTC"

No he's not, doofus.

He said this:

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH, University of California, Berkeley: In both of them, basically, the fire was the reason why steel got soft and weak and collapsed."

You've flat out lied again. Your mental illness precludes your from even discussing this topic me thinks.

"He is saying the Oakland freeway girder did not melt--and of course they didn't melt."

Actually that IS what he said. What is your problem with the truth, Brian. This isn't the NIST report, it's a simple evaluation of a news event. If you can't understand this article there is no way you can understand NIST.

"He's an intelligent, educated man, and an engineer and he knows that gasoline can not melt steel--not even when the steel is totally without fireproofing and you burn 8000 gallons of gasoline in half an hour in open air with plenty of oxygen."

Funny, that's what the nice man with the cool beard just said in the article that you linked to.

"But he's pointing out that girders at the World Trade Center did melt. "

No, they were weakened, and that's all that was needed. The nice man with the nice beard said:

"ABOLHASSAN ASTANEH: Yes. When steel gets to 1,000 degrees, it loses its strength."

So yet again you post a link that make you look like an ass. Wow, just wow...

 
At 18 July, 2011 19:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 July, 2011 19:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders of the World Trade Center. And UtterFail lied when he said he didn't.

 
At 18 July, 2011 19:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

On the contrary, Pinocchio, you lied when you claimed that Dr. Astaneh-Asl is qualified to make a determination which is the sole domain of a fully-qualified metallurgist.

You pull your facts out of your ass, as you're about to learn the hard way.

T-minus 3-1/2 hours and counting until total goat fucker meltdown...

Idiot. Liar. Asshole. Loser.

 
At 18 July, 2011 20:39, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders of the World Trade Center. And UtterFail lied when he said he didn't."

No he didn't and no he didn't...

 
At 18 July, 2011 22:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 July, 2011 01:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Dr. Astaneh was selected by the NSF to study the steel of the WTC. He is qualified to know whether a girder is steel or lead.

MGF, you are all sinking to Ian's level (of cource it wasn't very far for you, but there was some difference). The PBS transcript clearly shows that Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders. And the NOVA transcript, despite Ian's persistent and repeated lies, shows that Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the towers came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

(I had to break into the library to send this.)

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders of the World Trade Center.

Are you Dr. Astaneh? Did you see "melting" of WTC girders? Can you look through smoke, steel and concrete to see the girders melting? Are you an asshole with no intelligence?

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The PBS transcript clearly shows that Dr. Astaneh said he saw melting of girders.

However your intepretantion of Dr. Astaneh's statement, you can't deny that he said:

"So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders."

Not only are you quote-ming Dr. Astaneh, but you're also lying about him "confirming" that the girders melted inside the WTCs.

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Astaneh's statement, you can't deny that he said:

"So the word "melting" should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders."

MEANS THAT DR. ASTANEH IS SAYING THAT THERE WAS NO MELTING OF GIRDERS IN THE OAKLAND BRIDGE FIRE NOR MELTING OF THE WTCS GIRDERS.

WHICH MEANS BRIAN THAT YOU'RE LYING. WHINING AND CRYING ABOUT IT ONLY PROVES HOW RETARDED YOU ARE.

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you're lying. Dr. Astaneh says quite clearly that there was no melting of girders at Oakland. He says quite clearly that he "saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." Anybody can listen to the audio and recognize that you're lying, just as anybody can listen to the audio of the NOVA interview and see that Ian is lying about Dr. Sunder's statement that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 19 July, 2011 17:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The article you've tragically linked to says that fire weakens steel and causes structures to collapse.

Bottom line.

So once again you've driven into a wall that you built. Cool.

 
At 19 July, 2011 17:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

The article I linked showed what I said it showed: that Dr. Astaneh-Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

There is no resemblance between the girders at the Oakland freeway fire and the girders at the WTC. The Oakland freeway girder did not melt; gasoline can not melt steel--not even when the steel is totally without fireproofing and you burn 8000 gallons of gasoline in half an hour in open air with plenty of oxygen.

But girders at the World Trade Center, where 11,000 gallons of jet fuel was scattered over 5 floors and, according to Gene Corley, burned up in 60 seconds, did melt. How did an office fire melt steel? Those fire-retardant carpets and desks sure must burn hot, huh?

Also note that there was no "progressive collapse" at Oakland. The top roadway fell down on the lower roadway, and despite the enormous dynamic load of the upper roadway freefalling 30 feet, the lower roadway did not collapse. Nor did the collapse progress sideways from column to column like WTC7's allegedly did, pulling down a half mile of roadway. Gee, why not?

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you're lying

Oh so Capt. Obvious thinks that I'm Dr. Astaneh because he thinks I'm "lying". Well my name isn't Dr. Astaneh is it?

Dr. Astaneh says quite clearly that there was no melting of girders at Oakland.

And you figured this out because....

He says quite clearly that he "saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

How can Dr. Astaneh see through the dust and steel debris to see those girders "melting"?

Anybody can listen to the audio and recognize that you're lying, just as anybody can listen to the audio of the NOVA interview and see that Ian is lying about Dr. Sunder's statement that the towers fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

You think that I'm Dr. Sunder because you think I'm him and are "lying". Dr. Astaneh was taling about the EXTERIOR PANELS and not the entire building.

And the link to prove that it's you that is lying is right here:

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Truther Question: "6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?"

Dr. Sunder's Response: "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2. These elapsed times were based on: (1) precise timing of the initiation of collapse from video evidence, and (2) ground motion (seismic) signals recorded at Palisades, N.Y., that also were precisely time-calibrated for wave transmission times from lower Manhattan (see NCSTAR 1-5A)."

And since you beleive that Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh are lying, then it's you that's the real liar.

Since you got your ass handed to you Capt. Obvious, why don't you fucking leave it alone? YOU FUCKING LOST THE DEBATE WITH ME, PERIOD! STOP CRYING ABOUT IT YOU FUCKING CRYBABY!

 
At 20 July, 2011 16:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 20 July, 2011 16:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I guess you don't meet very many foreigners in Johnsville.

Obviously Dr. Astaneh is using the gerund phrase not as a verb but to say that he saw girders that had melted. Sometimes foreigners employ eccentric diction because they are not confident of their plurals or tenses.

Dr. Sunder was not talking about panels, as anyone who actually listens to the recording can determine. "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."

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

You really really need to stop relying on lying debunker sites for your "facts". Do your own research.

I didn't say they were lying. I said you were lying. Are you One with the universe?

 
At 21 July, 2011 09:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Obviously Dr. Astaneh is using the gerund phrase not as a verb but to say that he saw girders that had melted. Sometimes foreigners employ eccentric diction because they are not confident of their plurals or tenses.

Captain Obvious is not only a big time liar, but also a racist too.

Dr. Sunder was not talking about panels...

Actually he was and you're calling him a liar. The NIST report he gave was about the EXTERIOR PANELS. So go fuck yourself you lying asshat.

You really really need to stop relying on lying debunker sites for your "facts". Do your own research.

LOL you claim that NIST is a "debunker site"? Wow, just wow! NIST is a scientific research lab and not just some internet website. I did my own research and Dr. Sunder said that it was the EXTERIOR PANELS that fell from both towers at 9 and 11 seconds. It's on the NIST FAQs sheet for everyone to read and it's in black and white.

I didn't say they were lying. I said you were lying. Are you One with the universe?

Still calling Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh liars? You've got nothing but false accusations and made up lies about people.

 
At 21 July, 2011 11:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, if you had bothered to watch the PBS clip, you'd see that Dr. Astaneh-Asl's English skills are poor. There's nothing racist about observing that. He manages to teach college in English at one of the best public universities in the world, while I couldn't even ask the way to the bathroom in Farsi.

Dr. Sunder was not talking about panels, and anyone who reads the transcript can see that you're lying. "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
Do your homework.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

You have no evidence for your belief that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs.

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, if you had bothered...

SQUEAL

Dr. Sunder was not talking about panels...

SQUEAL LIE SQUEAL

Yes he was you lying asshole!

DR. Sunder: "NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

You have no evidence for your belief that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQs.

And you have no evidence that the buildings came down at 9 & 11 seconds because you quote mined his statements.

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder never said those words. You must be getting your information from a lying debunker website. Those words are from the FAQs.

Dr. Sunder was not talking about panels, and anyone who reads the transcript from the NOVA interview can see that you're lying. "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds."
Do your homework.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

Anybody can be wrong, but anybody as obstinately wrong as you are is stupid, lying, or both.

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, Dr. Sunder never said those words.

SQUEAL LIE

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Dr. Sunder was not talking about panels

SQUEAL LIE SQUEAL

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Anybody can be wrong, but anybody as obstinately wrong as you are is stupid, lying, or both.

You're saying that Dr. Sunder is wrong, stupid and lying?

I can keep this up every day with you Captain Obvious, I know how much it gets under your skin to know that you're lying out your ass.

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

You can keep up all day, just repeating your lies. But repeating it can't make it true.

The NIST report wasn't talking about panels. The FAQs were.

Dr. Sunder wasn't talking about panels. The FAQs were.

You're bending the facts so that they make sense to you. I did that too, for years, so that the official story of 9/11 would make sense to me.

Then I started to look at the facts as they are, instead of as I warped them, and I joined the reality-based community.

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You can keep up all day, just repeating your lies. But repeating it can't make it true.

And I wonder who comes here everyday and doesn't have evidnce to support their crackpot theories? I know, Brian Good!

The NIST report wasn't talking about panels. The FAQs were.

The FAQs were asked by retards like you and it came straight from the NIST report. And it was the panels and not the entire building. Keep on squealing you asshole!

You're bending the facts

LOL, "bending" the facts from a peer-reviewed report isn't bending anything at all.

Then I started to look at the facts ... I warped them....

So you warped every fact that you had?

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

The FAQs say two contradictory things. They say panels came down in 9 seconds and they say the building came down essentially in free fall. People like you repeat the former and ignore the latter.

The FAQs imply that NIST did a detailed study from seismographic data showing the 9 seconds panel time. But I can't find any evidence of any such study. The NIST report doesn't give a time for panels striking the ground, and it says the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

You guys corrupt each other here. Ian lies blatantly and stupidly and then the rest of you see that God doesn't strike him dead and you start doing it too.

Paul w mangles quotes dishonestly and then the rest of youse start doing that.

 
At 23 July, 2011 09:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The FAQs say two contradictory things.

The FAQs don't lie because it was Truthers who asked the questions and they got the answers.

People like you repeat the former and ignore the latter.

Like what you've been doing the whole time, right? Repeating that the "entire" buildings came down @ 9 & 11 seconds and then you ignore the latter part where NIST was talking about the exterior panels. See, it works both ways!

But I can't find any evidence of any such study.

Because you're not going to find it because you're lazy.

You guys corrupt each other here

No, we just make you look like a total douche when you have a meltdown.

Paul w mangles quotes dishonestly and then the rest of youse start doing that.

SQUEALING

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, I don't understand the basis for your claim that the FAQs don't lie. What does the origin of the question have to do with the veracity of the answer?

I believe the FAQ lies. It implies that NIST did a detailed study of the time for panels to reach the ground. But there's not reason to do such a study, because everybody knows that external debris will reach the ground at the rate of freefall. And I can find no evidence in the reports that the did such a study.

So please, Mr. crack-head researcher, please find out where the NIST report says that the panels fell in 9 and 11 seconds--otherwise I am inclined to think that the FAQ lies and there was no such study.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. If he was wrong he should correct himself. He has not done so. The statement stands.

You're SQUEALING all right. My complaint of your quote-edits is not a squeal. It was a common Bush-bot tactic to accuse anyone who criticized the president of being a crybaby or a whiner. I'm not surprised to see those tactics turn up amongst the debunkers.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I don't understand the basis for your claim that the FAQs don't lie.

Because you'll never understand the FAQs on NIST and you'll never will.

I believe the FAQ lies.

Oh so now you believe that your religion is "right" all of a sudden?

please find out where the NIST report says that the panels fell in 9 and 11 seconds

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Below question #6:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds

That's a lie and you're making it up, he told NIST:

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

You're SQUEALING all right

My sentences are short and sweet while yours is long and pointless which is why you're squealing alot.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the FAQs are easy to understand, Even a doofus like you can understand them if he devotes a couple of weeks to their study,

The FAQs are not the NIST report. The FAQs imply that NIST did a study. There is no such study. Prove me wrong and show where NIST did a study of the time that panels hit the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

You are a attributing to Dr. Sunder a statement that he never made, and which instead an anonymous bureaucrat made.

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

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

He has never withdrawn or corrected that statement.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the FAQs are easy to understand...

I understand that they make a point and tell the truth.

The FAQs are not the NIST report...

Just because you think they aren't doesn't make you right.

You are a attributing to Dr. Sunder a statement that he never made

Dr. Sunder does say that it was the exterior panels and he was refering to them and not the entire building.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA

NOVA isn't NIST and yes there can be misspoken or misrepresened words after an investigation. Sorry but that doesn't prove anything.

He has never withdrawn or corrected that statement.

And he never withdrew nor corrected his NIST statement either. So you're pretty much fucked yourself.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the NIST statement was that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall". That's what Dr. Sunder told NOVA as well. The FAQs repeat the freefall statement, and add another one about falling panels to confuse the issue.

You are only spreading confusion, and you seem to be doing it deliberately. If truth were your goal, why would you need to blow smoke?

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the NIST statement was that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall".

The word "essentially" means:

Constituting or being part of the essence of something; inherent.

So bascially it was the "essence" of free fall but not really free fall.

You are only spreading confusion...

Confuciou says: "He who learns but does not think, is lost! He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger."

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for proving my point, NIST says the collapse was of the essence of freefall,

Don;t you think that if they wanted to say it was not freefall, they would just say so? That instead of saying "9 seconds" and "11 seconds" Dr. Sunder would say something like "14 seconds" and "18 seconds"?

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:12, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thanks for proving my point, NIST says the collapse was of the essence of freefall.

Didn't prove your point you moron.

The ESSENCE of free fall. The word ESSENCE means:

The intrinsic or indispensable properties that serve to characterize or identify something.

So it bascially says that it identifies it as being like in free fall.

Don;t you think that if they wanted to say it was not freefall, they would just say so?

Dr. Sunder and NIST said 5.4 seconds it took for partial collapse, so yes, they did say so.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

It doesn't matter if NIST said "63 cents", the fact remains that they acknowledged that stage 2 involved 2.25 seconds of freefall, and they acknowledged that freefall means no structural support whatsoever.

 
At 23 July, 2011 15:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oops, that should be a semicolon after "63 cents". Sorry about that.

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

the fact remains that they acknowledged that stage 2 involved 2.25 seconds of freefall, and they acknowledged that freefall means no structural support whatsoever.

Bet you can't explain to me why 5.4 seconds slowed down the free fall, can you?

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

5.4 seconds can't slow down the freefall. That's denying physical reality. If I fall 100 feet in 2.25 seconds, I fall 100 feet in 2.5 seconds, and the fact that I didn't fall in the seconds preceding the 2.5 seconds doesn't change that fact.

When you ring a bell, you ring the bell, and you can't average twenty years of non-ringing time with ten seconds of ringing and claim it didn't ring.

Youse guys are trying to create a world that is contrary to reality.

 
At 25 July, 2011 10:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

5.4 seconds can't slow down the freefall

Explain to me how the fuck did it go from 2.25 seconds to 5.4 seconds in over 3 seconds? Bet you can't cause you lack understanding!

That's denying physical reality.

Never said that I deny gravity, that's you denying gravity, not me.

If I fall 100 feet...

You'd be dead and we won't have to worry about your retardedness.

When you ring a bell, you ring the bell, and you can't average twenty years of non-ringing time with ten seconds of ringing and claim it didn't ring.

Funny, the Empire State Building survived a B-25 hitting it and it's still standing after all these years. That should ring a bell!

Youse guys are trying to create a world that is contrary to reality.

Whta do you know of reality Brian? Have you ever expierimented with anything in your life? No, you haven't, which is why you fail.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home