Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Something We Can Agree Needs Investigation

Is the phone-hacking scandal involving the Murdoch empire.

Mr Murdoch arrived in London yesterday, wearing a Panama hat and clutching a final copy of the News of the World, in a bid to save his crumbling organisation after the phone-hacking scandal saw the 168-year-old paper axed.

But he flew straight into another storm as it was claimed 9/11 victims may have had their mobiles tapped by News of the World reporters. And there was more bad news when it was revealed nine reporters ­allegedly at the centre of the phone scandal and claims of police corruption could face jail, along with three officers.


As you can imagine, this story has caused a firestorm of commentary from the Truthers, those self-appointed representatives of the family members. Here's a legitimate conspiracy, involving people who died on 9-11 and corrupt government officials. Surely this is a prime opportunity for the Truth Movement to coalesce around a story and push their agenda forward.

Or not. The 9-11 Blogger post on the story by Matt Naus (he of book-burning fame) has a grand total of four comments so far, three of which concern his misleading title of "9/11 Victims Phones Tapped For Details in the Days Before 9/11/01 ?" In fact, the phones were not tapped, what appears to have happened is that reporters from News of the World tried to get phone records of the victims, not nearly the same thing.

Truth Action? Inaction. No mention of this story whatsoever. 9-11 Truth News copied a Sydney Morning Herald article a week ago, with no commentary added. Jon Gold did post a paragraph about it in the comments on another copied newspaper report.

Today, Sen. Frank Lautenberg released a statement pertaining to the allegation that Fox hacked 9/11 family members’ phones. He said, “any violation of these innocent victims must be taken seriously and acted upon immediately.” I agree. Like preventing real justice and accountability for what happened. That violation should be acted upon immediately.


Of course compared to the Truthers' lack of discussion about Remember Building 7 spokesman Manny Badillo's arrest on charges of having sex with somebody under 16, the Troofers response to this news story has been relatively verbose and active.

Labels: , , , ,

195 Comments:

At 19 July, 2011 11:21, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Of course those Truth idiots will say alot of insane things about the story, like:

"This is the proof we need that the U.S. Govenment was behind the worst act of terrorism on 9/11."

Or....

"If they can tap into the phones, that must mean they were covering up for the 9/11 Families who were in on it.

Or something to that effect.

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:25, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

The Fat Gossip is now complaining that others aren't gossiping enough? Wow, Pat. How lonely must you be, that you would want more people discussing people's sexual acts with adolescents?

Any idea yet on why Sunder said free-fall would be impossible with WTC 7? No?

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Any idea yet on why Sunder said free-fall would be impossible with WTC 7?

Because Ground Zero wasn't inside a vaccum.

Just about how many brain cells have you damaged in the past 10 years from using drugs?

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:51, Blogger zendingo said...

sort of off topic but in the theme of "something we can agree needs investigation...."
any update on the Bruce Ivins anthrax "conspiracy"?
DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the anthrax attack


any thoughts? or is the case closed?

If Ivins was indeed responsible for the attacks, did he have any assistance? Did anyone else at the Army lab or elsewhere have any knowledge of his activities prior to, during, or shortly after the anthrax attacks? . . . It appears increasingly likely that the only significant bioterrorism attack in history may have originated from right within the biodefense program of our own country. The implications for our understanding of the bioterrorism threat and for our entire biodefense strategy and enterprise are potentially profound. - Alan Pearson, Director of the Biological and Chemical Weapons Control Program at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.

 
At 19 July, 2011 11:55, Blogger flyingswan said...

Thought you might like this:
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=17950&pid=230872&st=0&#entry230872
Jim Fetzer showing how little agreement there is as to what 911 truth might actually be.

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:00, Blogger Jon Gold said...

Pat forgot about this effort on the part of Kristen Breitweiser that pointed out, “…as someone who has tried to pique the interest of both Congress and the Justice Department to investigate various issues over the course of the past 10 years to no avail, I wonder: what exactly does it take to get Congress and the Department of Justice interested in an issue. Because with regard to Murdoch-gate and 9/11 victims, ironically, it would seem the bar is pretty low.” [...] “…if all it takes are allegations made in the media to spark a fire in the “seat” of Congress, then I’d like to re-direct their attention along with Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, Attorney General Eric Holder, and President Obama to this month’s Vanity Fair article written by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan, “The Kingdom and the Towers." He also neglected to mention that Kristen's effort is mentioned in my facts piece, but what can ya do?

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:07, Blogger ConsDemo said...

Jon Gold, Kristen Breitweiser isn't claiming the US attacked itself on 9/11 as the dishonest and stupid twoof movement does.

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:07, Blogger zendingo said...

the real DOJ casts serious doubt on its own claims about the anthrax attack link, sorry for the other.

 
At 19 July, 2011 12:08, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

At least asking Pat the difficult questions is a good way to get him to shut his fat mouth on these threads. He's never had a good answer, and never will. That allows meaningful discussion to take place between scholars like WAQ and GB... oh, wait a second... never mind!

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

CD, any reference such as Ms. Breitweiser's to Saudi participation in the attacks implies, at the least, Bush administration imposition of a massive coverup with continuing cooperation of the Democrats to this day--treasonous behavior raising reasonable suspicions that the so-called intelligence failures before 9/11 were not honest incompetence at all.

As to Manny's troubles, what do you expect people to say?

"Poor Manny, let's bake him a cake!"

"I always knew he was a goof."

"He wuz framed!"

He's innocent until proven guilty and we don't have enough information to comment beyond that.

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Mrs. Breitweiser is going on with her life and she said that it was Middle Eastern terrorists that killed her husband.

And just calling people a liar, just because she said it, makes you calling her a liar.

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't call her liar. Saudis were Middle Easterners last time I checked. Did anybody ever tell you you're not very bright?

 
At 19 July, 2011 13:27, Blogger Pat said...

Flying Swan,

Fetzer and Hightower do a very good job with that post. As usual, the Truthers do terrific debunking on the parts of the conspiracy theory on which they don't agree. Unfortunately, Fetzer's as kooky as they come, and Hightower's associated with Rediscover 9-11, a site dedicated to proving the Jooos did 9-11:

http://rediscover911.com/

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Any idea yet on why Sunder said free-fall would be impossible with WTC 7? No?
"

If WTC7 fell at "Free-Fall" speed there might be an issue, yet it didn't.

Thanks for playin'...

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Oh, and if Newscorp hacks voicemail accounts of 9/11 victims there should be full criminal prosecution, and crippling civil damages awarded.

It is refreshing to discuss reality here once in a while.

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, video analysis shows that WTC7 fell in free fall for the first 100 feet.

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:35, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

He also neglected to mention that Kristen's effort is mentioned in my facts piece, but what can ya do?

Jesus, Jon. Does everything have to be about you?

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Any idea yet on why Sunder said free-fall would be impossible with WTC 7?

It doesn't matter. The issue is dead. Move on.

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why is it dead? Because, as WAQo apparently believes, of wind resistance?

 
At 19 July, 2011 14:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why is it dead?

NIST subsequently identified a fire-driven collapse scenario consistent with 2.5s of gravitation acceleration. Sunder's initial statement was therefore wrong. That disposes of the issue.

Truthers often try to defeat facts by fixating on early, less accurate statements. File this one alongside Barnett's "evaporated steel" and Astaneh's "melted girders".

 
At 19 July, 2011 15:06, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Oh, and if Newscorp hacks voicemail accounts of 9/11 victims there should be full criminal prosecution, and crippling civil damages awarded.

Yes. And I think that's why there's relatively more attention being given to the matter. Cell phone tampering and records leaking implicate specific crimes by specific people. "Accountability", "Saudi Complicity", "Dishonest Investigations", etc. are little more than Troofers' feelings.

 
At 19 July, 2011 15:59, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"NIST subsequently identified a fire-driven collapse scenario consistent with 2.5s of gravitation acceleration. Sunder's initial statement was therefore wrong. That disposes of the issue."

an obvious lie by a desperately credulous fool. How was the fire-driven collapse 'consistent' with free-fall? Did you read the report, or look at the sims? Tell us EXACTLY where the 'consistency' is and where they identified it, RGT. Otherwise, let the adults talk.

 
At 19 July, 2011 16:13, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

How was the fire-driven collapse 'consistent' with free-fall?

What do you mean?

 
At 19 July, 2011 17:04, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, video analysis shows that WTC7 fell in free fall for the first 100 feet."

Nope.

 
At 19 July, 2011 18:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, NIST did not provide any details of this alleged "fire-driven collapse scenario collapse scenario consistent with 2.5s of gravitation acceleration."

All they did was shift the zero point of the clock forward three seconds. Sort of like "No, son, you were not born three weeks after I married your mother. The marriage process actually began almost a year before that."

The issue is not disposed of by simply declaring an earlier start point. NIST has to tell us what kind of invisible weakening was going on that caused the structure to pop like a balloon.

"Saudi Complicity" for starters involves the three princes who died within a week of each other, Princess Haifa, Prince Turki al Faisal, anyone mentioned in the current VF article, anyone named in the redacted sections of the joint Congressional/Senate Inquiry, and those who supported the al Qaeda agents in San Diego. These people have names.

"Dishonest Investigations" involves specific dishonest acts of people like Philip Zelikow to throw the investigations off track. Who made the decision to exclude FEMA investigators from Ground Zero? Who decided to "scoop and dump"? Who decided to recycle the steel before experts could examine it? Who decided not to investigate for explosives? Who decided to ignore the molten steel? Who decided to cut off the collapse investigation at the point of collapse initiation? Who decided to ignore the collapse of the persistent core?

Video analysis shows that WTC7 came down at freefall in the first 100 feet. If you don't like that, then do your own video analysis.

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

"Who made the decision to exclude FEMA investigators from Ground Zero? Who decided to "scoop and dump"? Who decided to recycle the steel before experts could examine it? Who decided not to investigate for explosives? Who decided to ignore the molten steel? Who decided to cut off the collapse investigation at the point of collapse initiation? Who decided to ignore the collapse of the persistent core? "

You forgot "Who put the Bop in the Bop-Shu-Bop-Shubop?" and " WHo put the Ram in the Ramalama Ding Dong?"

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

"Saudi Complicity" for starters involves the three princes who died within a week of each other"

...and why do you think they died within a week of eachother?

"These people have names."

Puddin Tame?

"All they did was shift the zero point of the clock forward three seconds. Sort of like "No, son, you were not born three weeks after I married your mother. The marriage process actually began almost a year before that.""

I'm guessing that you've never actually had sex with another person before.

"Video analysis shows that WTC7 came down at freefall in the first 100 feet. If you don't like that, then do your own video analysis."

I did, it didn't fall at free-fall speed because free-fall speed is whatever speed you want it to be. What you don't see is the inside of the building collapse first, creating a gap that the top of the building fell into.

 
At 19 July, 2011 19:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Why did they die? Obviously because they knew too much. But Prince Turki didn't die, even though he met with Osama bin Laden two months before 9/11. And Princess Haifa didn't die, even though she wrote checks that wound up benefiting those who supported the San Diego (alleged) hijackers. And a lot of other people didn't die. Or face investigation--or even face proper questioning when they left the country.

Free fall acceleration (not speed) is an objective known quantity. It varies slightly from place to place around the globe (as a geology expert such as yourself must know) because of variations in the gravitational field. It's not "whatever speed you want it to be".

You pretend to be a scientist but you're only a clown.

 
At 19 July, 2011 20:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You pretend to be a scientist but you're only a clown."

I don't pretend to be a scientist, I'm a college student.

"Free fall acceleration (not speed) is an objective known quantity."

Is it?

"It varies slightly from place to place around the globe (as a geology expert such as yourself must know) because of variations in the gravitational field.""

I know that gravitational force varies around the globe. How fast something falls has more to do with its shape, mass, and resistance. WTC7 design coupled with the specific structural damage and fires brought it down. It fell in segments, and didn't fall at an anomalous speed.

You are making something out of nothing.

 
At 19 July, 2011 21:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you're not a scientist after 4 years of studying science, you're never going to be one.

A fall at gravitational acceleration is anomalous because, as Dr. Sunder pointed out, that would imply that there was no structural resistance whatsoever. That can not happen unless the structure is removed through artificial means.

 
At 19 July, 2011 21:53, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, NIST did not provide any details of this alleged "fire-driven collapse scenario collapse scenario consistent with 2.5s of gravitation acceleration."

It's all here. Begin reading at "In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall...". The explanation is simple and well documented. No artificial removal of support is required.

Until intentional assistance by the Saudi government can be shown, "Saudi Complicity" is just empty speculation. "Dishonest Investigation" is no better; it simply ascribes malevolent motives to unnamed people. It's fantasy.

 
At 19 July, 2011 23:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, your "no investigation until proven guilty" posture is noted. Until the 28 pages from the joint inquiry are released, we can assume that there's a coverup, and everything I've heard about it suggests that the coverup is benefiting the Saudis.

I've never seen that writeup before, but it's just as I've heard it described. Typical NIST sleight of hand. They take their 2.5 seconds of free fall and extend the time period before and after making 5.9 seconds that, in total, is not free fall--even while admitting that phase 2 of the three phases is 2.25 seconds of free fall. They're just playing semantic games, refusing to admit they were wrong. It's like claiming it took me an hour to run a mile... 40 minutes eating dinner, 8 minutes running the mile, and 2 minutes picking up the newspaper.

 
At 20 July, 2011 13:15, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"If you're not a scientist after 4 years of studying science, you're never going to be one."

Oh if I had rich parents I'd do college full time. Even then a M.A. takes about 5 to 6 years depending on the program.

Still beats wasting an education in philosophy or theology.

You're educational background is what exactly?

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:02, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I didn't call her liar.

Oh yes you did Captain Obvious!

Did anybody ever tell you you're not very bright?

Only you Captain Obvious, besides you're not very bright at researching anything. Youre researching (if you can call it that) sucks big time.

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Why is it dead? Because, as WAQo apparently believes, of wind resistance?

Air & Structural resistence cancel out free fall. Sorry but you fucking lose Captain Obvious.

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:05, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Video analysis shows that WTC7 came down at freefall in the first 100 feet.

Air resistence combind with Structural resistence cancels out free fall.

Thanks for playing Captian Obvious!

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

A fall at gravitational acceleration is anomalous...

So what happened to Issac Newton was "anomalous" because you can't stand the fact that gravity caused those buildings to collpase and not your imagined explosives?

Man, you suck at everything Captain Obvious.

 
At 20 July, 2011 14:39, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

MGF,

Let's just say you went through college and got your degree in subjects you liked, espeically history.

I would offer you to debate Capt. Obvious, I mean Brian Good, in a web video (if Brian has one) and post it on YouTube uneditted. I want to see Capt. Obvious squirm like he does on here.

Hell I'd like anyone to just debate Brian and put every comment he makes on here onto video and on YouTube. Call it: "Brian Good's Folly" or "The Misadventures of Capt. Obvious"

 
At 20 July, 2011 15:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, maybe if you'd studied more philosophy in college you would have a better handle on what you don't know, and then you wouldn't have such funny ideas.

 
At 20 July, 2011 17:24, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"...if you'd studied more philosophy..."

LULZ!

 
At 20 July, 2011 17:41, Blogger paul w said...

maybe if...studied more...wouldn't have such funny ideas.

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

 
At 20 July, 2011 19:04, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

we can assume that there's a coverup

You can if you like.

I've never seen that writeup before, but it's just as I've heard it described. Typical NIST sleight of hand.

No idea what that's supposed to mean. I think you're just startled that the explanation is so simple and that you missed it for three years. That may also be why it left Pat Cowardly speechless (not an easy task).

 
At 20 July, 2011 19:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you deny that a redaction is, by its very nature, a coverup?

I've known about that NIST sleight-of-hand for years. I just never read the actual text before. Everything the truthers were saying about it was true.

They took a block of time of 2.25 seconds that they admit is freefall, they added seconds on the beginning of it, they added seconds on the end of it, and they deny it's freefall. They argue like Ian does.

 
At 20 July, 2011 21:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Do you deny that a redaction is, by its very nature, a coverup?

Yes. Redaction is omission; coverup is concealment. One may implicate the other but they're hardly equivalent. If the missing material really described Saudi complicity, this conspicuous redaction would be a pretty stupid way to cover it up.

They took a block of time of 2.25 seconds that they admit is freefall, they added seconds on the beginning of it, they added seconds on the end of it, and they deny it's freefall.

I've read that sentence like 50 times now and I can't figure out what snug's objecting to.

 
At 21 July, 2011 01:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

What I'm objecting to is that the wrote a statement that allows people like you to deny that it's freefall when the statement admits that it's freefall for 2.25 seconds.

It's a lot like a redaction that's not a coverup because redaction is dumb.

Whatever the redacted 28 pages are, the total lock on it gives the lie to claims that 9/11 couldn't be an inside job because somebody would have talked.

 
At 21 July, 2011 06:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What I'm objecting to is that the wrote a statement that allows people like you to deny that it's freefall when the statement admits that it's freefall for 2.25 seconds.

The video shows 2.25 seconds of free fall acceleration. You're apparently hoping for some other amount. You'll need to do your own analysis rather than wish the facts away.

 
At 21 July, 2011 08:45, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, maybe if you'd studied more philosophy in college you would have a better handle on what you don't know, and then you wouldn't have such funny ideas.

My funy idea about you is dressing you up in a chicken costume, make you parade around Ground Zero holding up a sign that says: "I chickened out on Willie Rodriguez and I'm a sex predator."

Now that would be funny because that's what you are.

 
At 21 July, 2011 08:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

sleight-of-hand

Doesn't Brian know how to spell SLIGHT right?

Sounds like he's sleighing his own words to death.

 
At 21 July, 2011 09:07, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

2.25 seconds that they admit is freefall

This'll shatter Brian's delusions about his "2.25 seconds of free fall" theory:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 seconds. The theoretical time for free fall (i.e., at gravitational acceleration) was computed from:

T=2H/G

where t = time, s; h = distance, m (ft); and g = gravitational acceleration, 9.81 m/s2 (32.2 ft/s20. This time was approximately 3.9 seconds. Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collaspe, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time."


So not only is Brian lying about the computed time, but he's exaggerating that the start of collapse for WTC7 was "quicker", when in reality it was 40 percent longer.

And let the backpeddling from Brian commence in 5...4...3...2...1...

 
At 21 July, 2011 09:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

So not only is 5.4 seconds longer than 2.25 seconds of theoretical free fall. This indicates that the 5.4 seconds it took to begin collaspe initiation was longer than Truthers expected. Thus the 5.4 second free fall speed still indicates that it gravitational acceleration and not due to "magical and imaginary explosives".

 
At 21 July, 2011 09:28, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Also if you read beyond page 44 of this link:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

You will see that structural resistence played an important part of slowing the collaspe of WTC7 down through gravitational force.

Thus proving once and for all that Brian aka Captain Obvious, is a no good cheating son of a bitch liar.

 
At 21 July, 2011 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I wasn't hoping for any particular amount of freefall at all. Any amount of freefall is impossible in a natural collapse, as Dr. Sunder pointed out, because it means there's no structural resistance at all.

I'm just disgusted that NIST lies about it by claiming that freefall is not freefall if you start the clock early.

WAQo, I know how to spell slight, and I know how to spell sleight. If you knew how to google, you'd know how to spell both.

Good on you for finding the NIST lie where they claim that 2.25 seconds of actual, not theoretical, freefall is not freefall.

You know in the final draft they also removed the claim that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles".

 
At 21 July, 2011 12:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

The topic of this thread is an actual conspiracy of 9/11 victims voice mail accounts - possibly - being hacked by News of the World.

I find it fascinating that Pat"Cosmo" Cowardly and Brian "Free-Fall" Goode can't be bothered with it. Why is that? Not sexy enough? There is a palpable villian in Rupert Murdoch/News Corp who owns Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. If anything this should be the Troofer's most solid pillar of fact - that one of the most powerful media resources may have violated the law to cover a story.

If they hacked the victim's voice mail then it's not much of a stretch to think that they could have hacked the accounts of investigators as well. What does Murdoch really know? Has he used information to blackmail the FCC,Parliment and the US Government?

That's where my inner conspiracy nut-job wants to go with this story. The thing that stands in the way is that - like all conspiracies - it's out in the open. Somebody talked, somebody leaked vital info to the press and law enforcement. Then that person "killed himself" [I used parentheses for spooky dramatic affect].

The troofers should be popping the methadone and celebrating. At last an actual conspiracy by a powerful global corporation that's real! Plus it's 9/11 related!

Yet they're not.

We're stuck listening to Brian's free-fall bullshit and lack of basic science skills.

Good thing the troofers are so vigilant.

 
At 21 July, 2011 12:28, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I would offer you to debate Capt. Obvious, I mean Brian Good, in a web video (if Brian has one) and post it on YouTube uneditted. I want to see Capt. Obvious squirm like he does on here."

Anytime.

 
At 21 July, 2011 12:43, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"maybe if you'd studied more philosophy in college you would have a better handle on what you don't know, and then you wouldn't have such funny ideas.
"

What ideas are those? Brian is a posterboy for Francis Bacon's "Four Idols". He's not interested in te truth, he (and the troofers) are only interested in their version of the truth.

Maybe as a forber conspiracy loon I'm like the subject of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave"...

None of that changes the fact that on 9/11 19 Al Qaeda operatives hijacked four passeger jets, and flew them into buildings in NYC and Washington D.C. (with the fourth one crashing as the passengers tried to retake the plane).

The only philosophy that applies is Occam's Razor. Google it if you need to.

 
At 21 July, 2011 14:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 July, 2011 15:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sorry that we don't speculate and theorize enough for your tastes. Seems to me that we don't have enough information to have any discussion at all. The British Tabloids make allegations, News Corp denies them, the FBI is investigating, and that's all we know.

Was Fox News going after the grieving widows, trying to catch them carousing with hero janitors and conspiracy theorists? Let me know when you find out.

You're a fine one to talk about a lack of science skills, Mr. never-heard-of-heat-of-fusion, and California-has-more-oil-than-Kazahkstan, working on a geology BS in a school that doesn't offer a geology BS.

If you're a former conspiracy loon then that explains your attitude a lot. There's no drunk worse than a dry drunk, and no ome more self-righteous than an ex-smoker.

Occam's razor applies to physical objects, not to human perversity.
Explain golf with Occam's razor. It can't happen. Too many elements, too complicated. It must be rocks rolling downhill. They do that, you know, all by themselves.

If the police were allowed to wield Occam's razor like debunkers do, they'd never have to admit to any crime at all. Just a bunch of lunatics who can't keep track of their stuff; and suicides picking unusual times, places, and methods for killing themselves.

 
At 21 July, 2011 16:55, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Explain golf with Occam's razor. It can't happen. Too many elements, too complicated."

No. Golf boils down to this: Try to hit the ball as close to the hole as you can with each swing. The fewer strokes the higher your score.

I take it you suck as golf too.

"I'm sorry that we don't speculate and theorize enough for your tastes. Seems to me that we don't have enough information to have any discussion at all. "

When has that ever stopped you or the other troofers?

"Too many elements, too complicated. It must be rocks rolling downhill. They do that, you know, all by themselves. "

Rocks don't roll by themselves. When you see a rock(or rocks) falling it's because of hundreds, thousands, or millions of years of being subjected to forces of nature (rain, wind, earthquakes, etc).

"If you're a former conspiracy loon then that explains your attitude a lot. There's no drunk worse than a dry drunk, and no ome more self-righteous than an ex-smoker."

Oh I'm way worse as far as you and the troofers are concerned. I know the game, I know how you guys play, I know your stratagies, and I can use them against you.

Rule 1: If there is no conspiracy - make one up. If there is an element of mystery shape it to fit your theory.

Rule 2. Your theory must fit a political agenda that says a powerful group controls things. How much they control depends on how big your conspiracy needs to be.

Rule 3. If you repeat a lie enough it becomes the truth.

Rule 4. Repeat your lie every chance you get.

Rule 5. If there are official reports - tear them apart. Most people will never read them so there is no need to quote them accurately.

Rule 6. If someone calls you on misquotes attack them, and question their qualification to even discuss the subject.

Rule 7. Enlist seemingly qualified professionals who, because of the 10% rule, share your ideology. People are impressed by social tags like PhD, M.A., and people who wore a badge once. Don't worry, you still do not have to offer any concret evidence of your own, all you have to do is hide behind your small stable of "experts".

Rule 8. Repeat your lies.

Rule 9. Create a counter story. Blurry photos and videos can be used as "evidence" in the court of public opinion. When actual experts shred your evidence, claim they are part of the cover-up. Remember, there is no reason that you cannot include yourself and your group as victims of the conspiracy.

Rule 10. You need a set of connected villians. Use 3 Degrees of Kevin Bacon as a model. You need to link your villians to eachother and : The military idustrial complex, Jews, the CIA, British Intelligence, Big Oil, and the mass media.

Rule 11 (optional). Chicks who buy into conspiracies will probably have sex with you. It will be lousy, uninspiring sex, but you get to stick your weenie into a vagina (first time for everything, right?). If you can't score after one of your cuases rallies you're probably a sad-sack loser like Brian,

 
At 21 July, 2011 16:57, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

or cause...

 
At 21 July, 2011 17:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

Golf is acres and acres of enormously expensive real estate, manicured greens, carts, clubhouses, vast social networks. And misusing Occam, you reduce it to hitting balls with sticks--proving my point.

 
At 21 July, 2011 18:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Golf is acres and acres of enormously expensive real estate, manicured greens, carts, clubhouses, vast social networks."

None of which has anything to do with the actual game.


"And misusing Occam, you reduce it to hitting balls with sticks--proving my point."

They're called clubs, and golf is about hitting a little white ball with a club into a hole. I didn't say it was easy.

If you can't grasp golf then how can you think you can grast NIST?

Learn when to shut up, skippy.

 
At 21 July, 2011 19:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 July, 2011 21:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

It absolutely has to do with the actual game. That's my point. When's the last time you saw a guy hitting golf balls on the beach? You're making Occam work for you by denying reality.

If nature prefers the simple solution and if human behavior followed that rule, and if golf is about hitting balls with sticks then you should see people hitting balls with sticks all over the place. You don't. Instead they spend vast sums on high-priced real estate and employ armies of gardeners and spend vast sums on lawn food. Is that simple? Human behavior is complex, contradictory, and perverse and does not follow Occam's Rule.

 
At 22 July, 2011 05:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Human behavior is complex, contradictory, and perverse and does not follow Occam's Rule.

You should put that on your blogger profile.

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

WAQo, I know how to spell slight, and I know how to spell sleight. If you knew how to google, you'd know how to spell both.

If you knew how to google, you'd know that you're wrong about what you've been saying.

Good on you for finding the NIST lie where they claim that 2.25 seconds of actual, not theoretical, freefall is not freefall.

They never stated that the collapse started "2.25 seconds" and they never did lie. 5.4 seconds is a little bit slower than what you've been saying, so you're the one that's been lying to whole time. Squeal all you want, you're still wrong Captian Obvious.

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 July, 2011 08:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sure they lied. They said "the average time for the upper 18 stories to collaspe, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time," knowing that idiots like you would say "See, no free fall!" even while they admit that there was a 2.25 second period of actual non-theoretical freefall in the middle of the arbitrary time interval they chose.

They moved the goal posts to distract from the issue of the impossibility of freefall. It's like they say "Yes, you put the ball into the net, but that doesn't count as a goal 'cause you didn't bring it into this cafe down the street."

They admitted that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall, they admitted that freefall means there's no structure below, and they tacked extra seconds onto the beginning and end of the freefall timeframe so they could claim that it wasn't freefall.

It's like a criminal claiming: "But 99% of the time I'm not robbing anybody, so when you average all that out, I'm not a robber."

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:06, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Sure they lied. They said "the average time for the upper 18 stories to collaspe, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time," knowing that idiots like you would say "See, no free fall!" even while they admit that there was a 2.25 second period of actual non-theoretical freefall in the middle of the arbitrary time interval they chose.

You'd have to prove that they "lied", you'll have to contact NIST and report back to me. 5.4 seconds isn't free fall and they never stated that it started at 2.25 seconds, the 2.25 seconds is your lie, not NISTs.

They moved the goal posts to distract from the issue of the impossibility of freefall. It's like they say "Yes, you put the ball into the net, but that doesn't count as a goal 'cause you didn't bring it into this cafe down the street."

5.4 seconds still isn't "free fall". Continue to squeal all you want, doesn't change a thing on the NIST report.

They admitted that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall, they admitted that freefall means there's no structure below, and they tacked extra seconds onto the beginning and end of the freefall timeframe so they could claim that it wasn't freefall.

The only thing they admitted was 5.4 seconds, which is by their calculations to be 40 percent slower than actual free fall. Squealing again I see.

It's like a criminal claiming: "But 99% of the time I'm not robbing anybody, so when you average all that out, I'm not a robber."

So you are a criminal?

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian's relatives:

Joan M Moskal
Lawrence Marshall Good
Karen M Good
Janice Sundquist Good
Edwin M Good

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Interesting to note that Brian lives around 5 sex offenders near his home.

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody said 5.4 seconds was freefall. 2.25 seconds is freefall, and NIST admits it, and then denies that there was freefall so fools like you can lie about it.

Your own reference says:
http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration.

 
At 22 July, 2011 09:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Nobody said 5.4 seconds was freefall. 2.25 seconds is freefall, and NIST admits it

Lying out your ass again Captain Obvious.

Here's the proof:

The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 seconds.

In Stage 2, the north face descended at gravitational acceleration.

It still was in stage one you retard:

Thus, the average time for the upper 18 stories to collaspe, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time.

So much for your "2.25 second free fall" theory. I just killed it a 2nd time!

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, NIST makes contradictory statements. Then the people who lie to gullible people like you quote-mine the reports. Then you conclude that since NIST said 5.4 seconds then they never said 2.25 seconds. But if you would bother to look at your own reference you'll see that both statements appear on the same page.

NIST says on p. 45 of NCSTAR 1A that Stage 2 was gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

The fact that they also say that 5.4 seconds is not 3.9 seconds does not change that.

Do your homework.

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, NIST makes contradictory statements.

No they don't you do!

Nowhere in this report does it state "2.25 seconds":

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

It only states, and I quote:

"The time that the roofline took to fall 18 stories or 73.8 m (242 ft) was approximately 5.4 seconds.


NIST says on p. 45 of NCSTAR 1A that Stage 2 was gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

And yet nowhere does it state that "2.25 seconds" on this report and anyone reading it can see that you're lying:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

The fact that they also say that 5.4 seconds is not 3.9 seconds does not change that.

It does change the fact that you're lying out your ass and you've gone back to backpeddling because you ran into your own wall.

Do your homework.

Again, fuck you!

 
At 22 July, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, no it doesn't state 2.25 seconds. It states (on p. 45) "between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s". That way they can confuse people like you.

Do your homework and maybe you can finish third grade.

 
At 22 July, 2011 17:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"It absolutely has to do with the actual game. That's my point. When's the last time you saw a guy hitting golf balls on the beach?"

About a week ago. He was working on his swing.

They also play Frisbee golf at CSUMB, which involves Frisbees into a basket instead of balls into a hole.

"If nature prefers the simple solution and if human behavior followed that rule, and if golf is about hitting balls with sticks then you should see people hitting balls with sticks all over the place. You don't. Instead they spend vast sums on high-priced real estate and employ armies of gardeners and spend vast sums on lawn food. Is that simple? "

Actually it is simple. To play a pleasant game of golf one needs a golf course. The course doesn't matter, only how well you play that day. One can spend $600 for 18 holes at Pebble Beach and score 73, then the next day spend $48 at Pacific Gove Municiple Golf Course and have a horrible game.

None of that changes the basics of the game.

 
At 22 July, 2011 18:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ah, science will simplify.

So nothing matters except: Can a 767 wing penetrate the perimeter columns of the World Trade Center?

Wow, you sound a lot like one of those no-planer nuts!

And look at you, invoking lots of complications like baskets instead of holes, pleasantness of the golf experience, $33 holes and all that. Occam demands simplicity!

Arabs hate us so the towers fall down. Basically that's your argument, right? Good enough for government work. Good enough to invade Iraq.

 
At 22 July, 2011 18:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course that gets to be a circular argument when 1) Arabs hate us because 2) we committed atrocities because 3) we think they did 9/11 because 4) they hate us.

But hey, that's good enough for gov't work too, huh? And it's worth trillions so who can argue with it?

 
At 22 July, 2011 20:37, Blogger Ian said...

Well, I step away from this blog for several days and to my surprise, Brian is posting endless dumbspam! Let's touch on some of the more amusing elements of it....

Why did they die? Obviously because they knew too much. But Prince Turki didn't die, even though he met with Osama bin Laden two months before 9/11. And Princess Haifa didn't die, even though she wrote checks that wound up benefiting those who supported the San Diego (alleged) hijackers.

And Brian trots out a new deranged conspiracy. This one will likely follow the trajectory of Brian's other loony ideas: 1, present as serious; 2, respond to the mockery and laughing of normal people by squealing and calling said normal people "girls"; 3, slowly stop talking about loony conspiracy theory over time; 4, deny ever bringing up said conspiracy theory in the first place.

Hey Brian, how come you never talk about the US invading Canada anymore?

 
At 22 July, 2011 20:39, Blogger Ian said...

Who made the decision to exclude FEMA investigators from Ground Zero? Who decided to "scoop and dump"? Who decided to recycle the steel before experts could examine it? Who decided not to investigate for explosives? Who decided to ignore the molten steel? Who decided to cut off the collapse investigation at the point of collapse initiation? Who decided to ignore the collapse of the persistent core?

Right. Also, who ignored the burnt baboon fur in the rubble? Who hid all the geiger counters when they could have checked the debris cloud for radiation. Who shut off the radars searching for alien spacecraft 2 hours before the attack?

These are very important questions too, Brian.

 
At 22 July, 2011 20:41, Blogger Ian said...

Golf is acres and acres of enormously expensive real estate, manicured greens, carts, clubhouses, vast social networks. And misusing Occam, you reduce it to hitting balls with sticks--proving my point.

Brian's been sniffing the good glue of late...

 
At 22 July, 2011 20:43, Blogger Ian said...

Arabs hate us so the towers fall down. Basically that's your argument, right? Good enough for government work. Good enough to invade Iraq.

Brian, I have to give you credit. Your pointless dumbspam in this thread has been your best in years. You were starting to get boring by recycling the same nonsense again and again.

Can you tell us more about golf and Ockham's Razor again?

 
At 23 July, 2011 00:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

So Ian's down to denying that golf involves acres and acres of enormously expensive real estate, manicured greens, carts, clubhouses, and vast social networks.

 
At 23 July, 2011 06:25, Blogger Ian said...

So Ian's down to denying that golf involves acres and acres of enormously expensive real estate, manicured greens, carts, clubhouses, and vast social networks.

Um.....no. I'm down to pointing out that you're a lunatic who is babbling about golf on a blog about 9/11 truth conspiracies.

 
At 23 July, 2011 09:26, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, no it doesn't state 2.25 seconds. It states (on p. 45) "between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s". That way they can confuse people like you.

Where does it say that on this link?:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Do your homework....

Fuck you Captain Obvious.

 
At 23 July, 2011 09:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The "2.25" seconds of "free fall" that Brian has indicated is shown on page 40 of this link:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

Brian has failed to show that the entire building fell in 2.25 seconds and I've shown that he's lying about it.

The failure of columns 77 & 78 of Truss 2 resulted in partial collapse of the building.

That is the only time where 2.25 seconds is indicated anywhere on the report.

 
At 23 July, 2011 09:41, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Also on that very link I mention, on page 41 you will see that the entire collapse initiation began at around 6.5 seconds.

So not only is Captain Obvious (Brian) lying about teh 2.25 seconds, he's lying about the whole collapse initiation of WTC7.

Come on Brian, let me hear you squeal like a pig, this time with more feeling.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you wouldn't know a metaphor if a basketball-sized one was hidden under your mattress.

WAQo, you are so confused about WTC7 it's ROFLMFAO!

It states (on p. 45) "between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s". That's the 2.25 seconds of "gravitational" acceleration, i.e. freefall.

By the time Phase 2 of the exterior's collapse happened columns 77 and 78 were long gone. You are making a fool of yourself. It's like you're claiming that a derringer was a buffalo gun, that's how confused you are.

I'm not lying about the 2.25 seconds of
freefall collapse. NIST acknowledges that on p. 45 of NCSTAR 1A. Is that squealie enough for you, Mr. "Deliverance"? Damn, you make Pennsylvanian country folk look bad.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you are so confused about WTC7 it's ROFLMFAO!

You think I'm "confused". HA! I'm not going on and on about the 2.25 seconds am I? Nope!

It states (on p. 45) "between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s". That's the 2.25 seconds of "gravitational" acceleration, i.e. freefall.

What page is that on?

By the time Phase 2 of the exterior's collapse happened columns 77 and 78 were long gone.

When a building collapses there are no "phases". No mention of "phases" in the report either. Just another made up word from you.

I'm not lying about the 2.25 seconds of freefall collapse.

Yes you are! When partial collapse of WTC7 was done it took 5.4 seconds for that part of the building to collapse. Then around 6.5 seconds the whole structural gave way and global collapse happened. Therefore you are lying and crying about it makes you look like a total loser.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Damn, you make Pennsylvanian country folk look bad.

And thanks to us Pennsylvania folk America wouldn't be were it's at today. America was founded in Philadelphia and the U.S. Constitution was written in PA.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:31, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you wouldn't know a metaphor if a basketball-sized one was hidden under your mattress.

You mean like your "meatball on a fork" metaphor? Actually, that was an analogy, but I'll go easy on you. After all, I'm the successful one with multiple degrees while you're the unemployed janitor who doesn't know anything about 9/11.

WAQo, you are so confused about WTC7 it's ROFLMFAO!

It states (on p. 45) "between times t = 1.75 s and t = 4.0 s". That's the 2.25 seconds of "gravitational" acceleration, i.e. freefall.

By the time Phase 2 of the exterior's collapse happened columns 77 and 78 were long gone. You are making a fool of yourself. It's like you're claiming that a derringer was a buffalo gun, that's how confused you are.


See what I mean? You know nothing about 9/11, so you just post dumbspam accusing normal people of being "confused". Talk about ROFLMFAO!

I'm not lying about the 2.25 seconds of
freefall collapse.


False.

Is that squealie enough for you, Mr. "Deliverance"?

Not surprising that Brian is obsessed with homosexual anal rape. Brian, you do realize that "Deliverance" was not intended as pornography, right?

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Not surprising that Brian is obsessed with homosexual anal rape.

I think Brian has sexual tendencies towards me. EWWWWWWW!

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the 2.25 seconds is important because that's the period for which NIST has acknowledged that WTC7 shows a freefall collapse, and Dr. Shyam Sunder has acknowledged that freefall means there is no structural support whatsoever.

Page 45 discusses three phases of collapse (1-3) and if you would read the actual report instead of relying on liars for your information you would know that.

WAQo, I'm not criticizing PA folks. I have spent happy months in PA. I am saying you make PA folks look bad.

Ian, the persistence of the South Tower core shows that petgoat's meatball model was exactly correct. Clearly the debris clogged the core and then shed off to the sides just as the model predicted.

 
At 23 July, 2011 10:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian has a learning disability.

He says that 2.25 seconds is "proof" of free fall, but as I've read in the report about WTC7 it only lasted for a short while until partial collapse ended at 5.4 seconds. This proves, without a doubt, that the "free fall" slowed down due to structural resistence.

My prediction is that Brian will continue to say that it's a "lie" and he will continue to lie about the 2.25 seconds. And he will continue to squeal.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the 2.25 seconds is important...

No, it's not because after the 2.25 seconds it slowed to 5.4 seconds.

Page 45 discusses three phases of collapse...

They're not "phases", they're called STAGES.

WAQo, I'm not criticizing PA folks....you make PA folks look bad.

Still saying that all Pennsylvanians are bad?

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

2.25 seconds is proof of free fall, as NIST acknowledges. The fact that it slowed down afterwards is immaterial.

Whether phases or stages makes no difference, One of the stages was 2.25 seconds of freefall, and NIST has admitted that freefall means no structural support at all.

I'm not criticizing PA folks. I'm saying you make PA folks look bad.

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

Ian, the persistence of the South Tower core shows that petgoat's meatball model was exactly correct. Clearly the debris clogged the core and then shed off to the sides just as the model predicted.

See what I mean?

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:18, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, I'm not criticizing PA folks. I have spent happy months in PA. I am saying you make PA folks look bad.

It's a good thing I've spent some happy times in the Bay Area, since you make people from there look like unemployed insane liars and sex stalkers.

2.25 seconds is proof of free fall, as NIST acknowledges. The fact that it slowed down afterwards is immaterial.

Right, it's immaterial. There is no evidence of controlled demolition so this is all just splitting hairs.

Whether phases or stages makes no difference, One of the stages was 2.25 seconds of freefall, and NIST has admitted that freefall means no structural support at all.

And nobody cares.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

2.25 seconds is proof of free fall....

And 5.4 seconds disproves it.

One of the stages was 2.25 seconds of freefall, and NIST has admitted that freefall means no structural support at all.

Partial collapse isn't proof of anything shit 4 brains. 5.4 seconds proves structural resistence.

I'm not criticizing PA folks. I'm saying you make PA folks look bad.

Yes you are! And so far you've made yourself out to bethe enemy of the Truth Movement, you were bad enough that they personally kicked your ass out of the group.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

NIST admits to 2.25 seconds of freefall, and NIST has admitted that freefall means no structural support at all.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

5.4 seconds disproves the free fall theory because of structural resistence.

Just keep repeating all those lies Brian, you can't change what's in the WTC7 report.

 
At 23 July, 2011 11:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

"5.4 seconds" proves nothing. You don't know what it means yourself.

The 2.25 second stage of freefall shows that there was no structural resistance, and NISt has acknowledged that.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

"5.4 seconds" proves nothing. You don't know what it means yourself.

Still it proves that you're a lying sack of shit.

The 2.25 second stage of freefall shows that there was no structural resistance, and NISt has acknowledged that.

On page 40 of this link:

http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf

It also says that 5.4 seconds is an indication that 40% was slowed down by structural resistence.

Also there's nothing you can do to prove eveything in NCSTAR1. Keep on squealing away!

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

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

* Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).

* Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

* Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


5.4 seconds proves that free fall wasn't consistent with total collapse of partial collapse of WTC 7 because of structural resistence. Therefore Brian is lying out his fucking ass yet again.

 
At 23 July, 2011 12:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

" Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)" There you have it, from NIST's lips to God's ear.

2.25 seconds of freefall. It doesn't matter what happened before or after. You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years before the freefall stage, so the 2.25 second freefall collapse took 20 years.

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:00, Blogger Ian said...

2.25 seconds of freefall. It doesn't matter what happened before or after.

Poor Brian, he's been pwn3d so badly that he's reduced to babbling about 2.25 seconds of free fall completely out of its own context.

Hey Brian, my friend went skydiving the other day and had a lot more than 2.25 seconds of free fall. I guess that was an inside job too, huh?

You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years before the freefall stage, so the 2.25 second freefall collapse took 20 years.

Brian, the building did not stand for 20 years, it was completed in 1987. You make up your facts.

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

So the building was put up in 1987? So what, that only proves that it did not have freefall before 1987. Thanks for proving my point.

It doesn't change the fact that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall, NIST has acknowledged that fact, and they have acknowledged that freefall means no structural support whatsoever.

Also, Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

And you're going to lie about these things, but anybody who bothers to check will see it's true.

 
At 23 July, 2011 13:39, Blogger Ian said...

So the building was put up in 1987? So what, that only proves that it did not have freefall before 1987. Thanks for proving my point.

Brian, you said that the building stood for 20 years. You are a liar.

It doesn't change the fact that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall, NIST has acknowledged that fact, and they have acknowledged that freefall means no structural support whatsoever.

That's nice, Brian.

Also, Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False and false.

And you're going to lie about these things, but anybody who bothers to check will see it's true.

False and false.

Boy, you're not doing too well, Brian. I guess it's not really a fair fight given my amazing intellect and your inability to mop floors competently.

 
At 23 July, 2011 14:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

I did not say the building stood for 20 years, Ian. You are quote-mining.

I said "You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years...."

Your inability to distinguish a hypothetical from an assertion of fact only shows your incompetence.

 
At 23 July, 2011 14:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Sorry, I should have said "an hypothetical".

 
At 23 July, 2011 14:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"So nothing matters except: Can a 767 wing penetrate the perimeter columns of the World Trade Center?"

They did...twice.

"Occam demands simplicity! "

You told WAQ that he could benefit from philosophy, yet when I introduce philosophy you freak out.

Worse, you try to argue golf with a guy who grew up on the Monterey Peninsula. Worse still you confuse window dressing with substance. This is the root of your mental failings. If you weren't such an inbread asshole I'd feel sorry for you. I don't.

"Arabs hate us so the towers fall down. Basically that's your argument, right? "

No, Al Qaeda hated us because we back Israel (Jews), and because we used Saudi airfields to maintain the Iraq No-Fly-Zone. Bin Laden figured that after attacking the US we would run away, and withdraw support from Israel and the Saudi government.

I know this because Al Qaeda and bin Laden repeatedly said this.

"Good enough for government work."

Well if it bothers you then quit cashing your SSI check you get for your mental disability.


"Good enough to invade Iraq."

I've never said that.



"Of course that gets to be a circular argument when 1) Arabs hate us because 2) we committed atrocities ..."

When did we commit atrocities against any Muslim people? Let me help you out - we didn't. You imply that we deserved to be attacked on 9/11. Fuck you.

"3) we think they did 9/11 because 4) they hate us."

Again, we KNOW the did 9/11 because they've told us so. Up until we shot bin Laden like the dog he was they rubbed our noses in it whenever they could.

Since you don't understand golf then most of this is over your head.

 
At 23 July, 2011 14:20, Blogger Ian said...

I did not say the building stood for 20 years, Ian. You are quote-mining.

False.

I said "You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years...."

Brian, the building was completed in 1987 and destroyed in 2001. That's 14 years. You don't know what you're talking about.

Your inability to distinguish a hypothetical from an assertion of fact only shows your incompetence.

My, such squealing!

 
At 23 July, 2011 15:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

<GF, I'm not arguing golf, I'm arguing Occam. You're mistaking the map for the territory. Occam demands simplicity. I didn't freak out about anything,

We have committed atrocities against Muslim people when we killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan with drones, and when hundreds of thousands dies in Iraq because of our war.

Ian, I said "You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years...." That was a hypothetical. Your inability to distinguish an hypothetical from an assertion shows your incompetence.

 
At 23 July, 2011 15:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Of course none of this changes the fact you're trying to cover up that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall, NIST has acknowledged that fact, and they have acknowledged that freefall means no structural support whatsoever.

Also, Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 23 July, 2011 16:02, Blogger Ian said...

We have committed atrocities against Muslim people when we killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan with drones, and when hundreds of thousands dies in Iraq because of our war.

These things happened after 9/11, Brian. They were not a source of bin Laden's anger against the US.

Ian, I said "You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years...." That was a hypothetical. Your inability to distinguish an hypothetical from an assertion shows your incompetence.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 23 July, 2011 16:03, Blogger Ian said...

Of course none of this changes the fact you're trying to cover up that there was 2.25 seconds of freefall, NIST has acknowledged that fact, and they have acknowledged that freefall means no structural support whatsoever.

Nobody is covering up anything, Brian. We just enjoy the kind of dumbspam about 2.25 seconds of free fall that only an unemployed liar and lunatic and sex stalker like you could come up with. It's highly amusing.

Also, Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False and false.

 
At 23 July, 2011 16:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said the atrocities motivated bin Laden. I brought up the atrocities after 9/11 in response to MGF's ignorant claim that there were no atrocities. You are taking my quote out of context.

Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your representations to the contrary are blatant lies, as anyone who bothers to check can see.

 
At 23 July, 2011 20:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Ian, I never said the atrocities motivated bin Laden. I brought up the atrocities after 9/11 in response to MGF's ignorant claim that there were no atrocities. You are taking my quote out of context."

You mean this context, fucktard?:

"Arabs hate us so the towers fall down. Basically that's your argument, right? Good enough for government work. Good enough to invade Iraq...Of course that gets to be a circular argument when 1) Arabs hate us because 2) we committed atrocities because 3) we think they did 9/11 because 4) they hate us."


You can't even keep your own bullshit straight, can you, Brian-Burnout.

And just shut up about golf, you are too fucking stupid to discuss it.

 
At 23 July, 2011 20:04, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your representations to the contrary are blatant lies, as anyone who bothers to check can see."

Anybody who checks their statements will also find that neither guy found the presence of melt steel at all strange AND was consistant with the result of 767s striking the towers. Neither man found the speed of collapse strange either.

So both PhDs say you and the troofers are full of shit.

 
At 23 July, 2011 20:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

7/23 14:18 you questioned whether we had ever committed any atrocities against Arabs. I responded to your ignorant question.

Neither Dr. Sunder nor Dr. Astaneh-Asl ever said that the 767s melted the steel. Jet fuel can not melt steel. Steel melts at 2700 F and jet fuel burns only at 1800 F, tops.

Freefall collapse can only occur if the supporting structure is removed.

 
At 23 July, 2011 22:18, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"7/23 14:18 you questioned whether we had ever committed any atrocities against Arabs. I responded to your ignorant question."

I forgot, circular logic means something else in Brian "Duffer" Goode's universe.

Name an atrocity.

 
At 24 July, 2011 09:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said the atrocities motivated bin Laden. I brought up the atrocities after 9/11 in response to MGF's ignorant claim that there were no atrocities. You are taking my quote out of context.

False.

Dr. Astaneh told PBS that he saw melted girders, and Dr. Sunder told NOVA the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Your representations to the contrary are blatant lies, as anyone who bothers to check can see.

False, false, and false.

 
At 24 July, 2011 09:53, Blogger Ian said...

Neither Dr. Sunder nor Dr. Astaneh-Asl ever said that the 767s melted the steel. Jet fuel can not melt steel. Steel melts at 2700 F and jet fuel burns only at 1800 F, tops.

That's probably why they didn't see any melted steel, Brian.

Freefall collapse can only occur if the supporting structure is removed.

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 24 July, 2011 10:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

<GF, I already named when we committed atrocities.

Ian, Father Malloy, CSC, president of Notre Dame University, said there was molten steel. Are you calling him a liar?

Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel.

You're lying about what Dr. Astaneh said to PBS and Dr. Sunder said the NOVA, as anyone who bothers to google the statements can see.

 
At 24 July, 2011 10:32, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Father Malloy, CSC, president of Notre Dame University, said there was molten steel. Are you calling him a liar?

No, I'm calling you a liar for lying about Father Malloy.

Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel.

False.

You're lying about what Dr. Astaneh said to PBS and Dr. Sunder said the NOVA, as anyone who bothers to google the statements can see.

False, false, and false.

Brian, all this squealing does it confirm in everyone's minds that you're a liar who sniffs glue. How do you think the widows would feel if they knew that a glue-sniffing liar and sex stalker was babbling about them all day?

 
At 24 July, 2011 11:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I'm not lying about Father Malloy. He said "The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down."

http://magazine.nd.edu/news/15855-reflections-in-the-wake-of-september-11-visit-to-ground-zero-new-york-city/

Leslie Robertson told a Stanford audience that he saw "like a little river of molten steel".

Here's the entire 90-minute talk, so you can't accuse me of quotemining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzu1ODWrXo0&feature=related

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds"

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

 
At 24 July, 2011 11:36, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I'm not lying about Father Malloy. He said "The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down."

I see. So you're not lying, you're just posting something that has no relevance whatsoever to the question of whether or not the towers were destroyed by controlled demolition.

Leslie Robertson told a Stanford audience that he saw "like a little river of molten steel".

Stop lying, Brian.

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds"

I did. As I suspected, you're lying.

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

More lies.

 
At 24 July, 2011 11:37, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, it's 70 degrees and sunny in Palo Alto right now. You're pushing 60 and life isn't infinite. Why not go outside for a walk or a bike ride? I think you'll thank me later for encouraging you to do something better with your life than posting dumbspam on the internet all day.

 
At 24 July, 2011 12:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you are lying blatantly, and the fact that your colleagues on this board don't slam you for it show their lack of integrity.

Father Malloy's statement about molten steel is relevant because molten steel has not been, and can not be, explained by the official accounts--and because people like you insist on denying that the molten steel existed.

Leslie Robertson told a Stanford audience in 2002 that he saw "like a little river of molten steel".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzu1ODWrXo0&feature=related

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds"

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Your persistent lying about something that killed 3000 of your fellow citizens is despicable.

 
At 24 July, 2011 14:12, Blogger Ian said...

So much for my suggestion that you go do something more life-enriching than posting the same lies you've posted 10 million times before....

 
At 24 July, 2011 14:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Father Malloy:

"Firefighters atop a number of ladder trucks were spraying in the areas of greatest smoke. The average temperature beneath the rubble is said to be 1500 F. so that when steel is brought up it is molten and takes two or three days to cool down."

The "average temperature" was 1500 degrees. That means that in some places it was cooler and other places it was hotter.

Dumbass.

This one caught my eye:

"Some of the steel workers are engaged in cutting pieces of jagged steel into smaller bits. Next to each piece of equipment is a member of the police or fire department whose responsibility is to observe what is being brought to the surface and to identify, if possible, any body parts that might emerge."

Once again Brian and the other assmonkies want me to believe that a member of the NYFD saw eveidence of explosives and has kept silent for all of these years. Fuck you guys.

Then there is this:

"One of the police officers told me that in the midst of the collapse of the two towers the prevailing story was that there was a rocket launcher in the tallest remaining building in the area, and they expected continuation of attacks on other structures."

Why don't you cite this as evidence too, Brian? If it was a rumor during the attacks that spread through the firefighting ranks then it must be true, right. Where'd the guy with the rocket launcher go? Unless they were mistaken, like they were about molten steel, like they were about explosion...people see things that aren't there during a crisis.

Father Malloy doesn't use the phrase "molten steel" in the way that you imply (lie about). Three days to cool, Brian, that's very fucking hot.

Just give it up

 
At 24 July, 2011 14:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

<GF, they didn't keep silent. 118 first responders testified on the record that they saw flashes of light and/or heard sounds of explosions.

Your slip about "NYFD" shows you don't know shit about 9/11. Hey, How about those San Francisco Rangers, huh guy?

I'm not aware that any reliable evidence has turned up for rockets, but never say never.
Everybody knows that steel-frame high rises don't collapse from fires.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS: "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that the photographic evidence of melted steel was strong. You think these guys don't know melted steel when they see it?

Father Malloy wrote: "when steel is brought up it is molten".

 
At 24 July, 2011 15:21, Blogger Ian said...

GF, they didn't keep silent. 118 first responders testified on the record that they saw flashes of light and/or heard sounds of explosions.

So now we're back to babbling about explosives. What happened to the thermite, Brian?

Your slip about "NYFD" shows you don't know shit about 9/11. Hey, How about those San Francisco Rangers, huh guy?

It's San Francisco Giants, Brian, but I wouldn't expect anything less from someone who thinks WTC 7 stood for 20 years before 9/11.

I'm not aware that any reliable evidence has turned up for rockets, but never say never.
Everybody knows that steel-frame high rises don't collapse from fires.


Bill Deagle has suggested that modified attack baboons can be trained to fire rockets.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl told PBS: "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT wrote that the photographic evidence of melted steel was strong. You think these guys don't know melted steel when they see it?

Brian, lying about Dr. Astaneh-Asl and Dr. Ghoniem isn't going to get the widows questions answered.

Father Malloy wrote: "when steel is brought up it is molten".

That's nice, Brian.

 
At 24 July, 2011 15:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't say there was any thermite, Ian.

Your continuing and blatant lies about Dr. Astaneh and Dr. Sunder are noted, worm.

 
At 24 July, 2011 15:50, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't say there was any thermite, Ian.

Very good, Brian. There was no thermite in the towers. Maybe you should stop babbling about thermite then?

Your continuing and blatant lies about Dr. Astaneh and Dr. Sunder are noted, worm.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:24, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Your slip about "NYFD" shows you don't know shit about 9/11. Hey, How about those San Francisco Rangers, huh guy?"

NYFD-FDNY, does it really matter when one is arguing with a sex-stalker? How is Carol? That's right, you're not allowed within 100 feet or less.

Man, I hope the government shut down doesn't cut your disability checks you get for being a burnout.

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:29, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"We have committed atrocities against Muslim people when we killed hundreds of civilians in Pakistan with drones"

When some "civilian" brings a Taliban or Al Qaeda operative into his home, and a Hellfire missile shoots through the dining room window killing everyone inside that's not an atrocity - it's justice.

strangely this is why the 9/11 Truth movement has kicked you out. You commit atrocities every time you open your mouth, and they realize that they are preceived to be kooky enough without the poster-child for nutjobbery hanging around with them.

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

NYFD or FDNY does it matter? Who but an idiot would ask?

Is it the United American States, UAS?

Your meld-down is duly noted.

 
At 24 July, 2011 17:44, Blogger Ian said...

NYFD or FDNY does it matter? Who but an idiot would ask?

Brian, does this dumbspam have a point?

Is it the United American States, UAS?

No Brian, it's United Mexican States. You don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 24 July, 2011 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 July, 2011 18:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 July, 2011 20:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for clearing that up, schmuck.

 
At 24 July, 2011 20:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"NYFD or FDNY does it matter? Who but an idiot would ask?"

It only matters to you because you have nothing in the way of facts. All you have to attack me with are typos.

Weeeee!


I don't think you lie, Brian, you're mental condition precludes you from discerning fact from fiction. You misquote because you lack the ability to understand context. This is why you provide links to things that undermine your argument(s). Every story that you have linked to in this thread runs counter to every point you've tried to make.

It's kind of sad really.

 
At 24 July, 2011 22:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

NYFD is no more a typo than United American States is a typo, schmuck. It's ignorance.

My links support what I say. Show me one of my links that undermines what I say.

You are going down the road to Iananity, where you not only don't know what the facts are, you no longer care.

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

2.25 seconds of freefall. It doesn't matter what happened before or after. You might as well argue that the building stood up for 20 years before the freefall stage, so the 2.25 second freefall collapse took 20 years.

When is this pig (Brian) going to stop squealing?

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

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

Whatever Sunder said on NOVA was a misrepresentation. Also Dr. Sunde told the viewers of NOVA to log onto their NIST website to look at the facts.

The fact remains and shall remain forever that Dr. Sunder was taling about the EXTERIOR PANELS falling from both Towers at a rate of 9 and 11 seconds.

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Remember what Brian said:

Jet fuel can not melt steel. Steel melts at 2700 F and jet fuel burns only at 1800 F, tops

If he comes up with the "melted steel" theory use his own words against him.

 
At 25 July, 2011 09:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you're lying about what Dr. Sunder said. He said quite clearly that the towers, not the panels, fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He didn't say anything about panels.

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

Please advise where in the NCSTAR 1 NIST report it says the panels came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. I've looked and it's not there. All they say on the subject is that the buildings came down "essentially in free fall", just like Dr. Sunder says to NOVA.

The fact that jet fuel can not melt steel does not mean that there was no melted steel.

I can't make it rain, but that doesn't mean it's not raining.

 
At 25 July, 2011 10:29, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you're lying about what Dr. Sunder said.

I'm not Dr. Sunder you fucking retard.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA...

Fuck you and NOVA.

I've looked and it's not there.

Fucking liar, you read it and disreguarded it and focused on something else which is stuck in your mind.

The fact that jet fuel can not melt steel does not mean that there was no melted steel.

Who he fuck cares what you think, I don't! You contradict yourself every chance you get and you get mad at us for your fuck-ups. Sorry, but you've gotta come to terms with yourself and blame only yourself.

 
At 25 July, 2011 12:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Please advise where in the NCSTAR 1 NIST report it says the panels came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 25 July, 2011 12:40, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Please advise where in the NCSTAR 1 NIST report it says the panels came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Fuck off Brian, noone cares about that anymore. Dr. Sunder made his point when he said about the exterior panels coming down from WTC1 at 9 seconds and from WTC2 at 11 seconds.

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, please advise where you believe Dr. Sunder said the exterior panels came down from WTC1 at 9 seconds and from WTC2 at 11 seconds.

He didn't say anything about panels. He told NOVA the TOWERS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:15, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, please advise where you believe Dr. Sunder...

In the NIST report where you blantantly ignore where he said about the exterior panels.

He didn't say anything about panels...

Why do you continue to make yourself out to be a lying asshole Brian? Is it because you know that Dr. Sunder was talking about the panels in the NIST report and you don't want to admit that you're wrong? Besides you can take NOVA and go fuck your ass with it. Noone cares about NOVA or you!

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, where in the NIST report did Dr. Sunder say anything about exterior panels?

Where do you get the idea that he did?

You're not making any sense at all. Dr. Sunder told NOVA the TOWERS fell in 9 and 11 seconds. He didn't say anything about panels.

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You're not making any sense at all.

Atleast I'm not repeating everything in the last few posts like a fucking retard.

Dr. Sunder is an expert for NIST, his professional statement reguarding WTC1 and 2 was about their exterior panels falling 9 and 11 seconds. There's nothing on this earth, not even you, that can change what he said in the NIST report. The exterior panels is what he's talking about and I agree with his findings.

Just because you won't admit you're wrong makes you out to be the liar.

 
At 25 July, 2011 13:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Just to make an ass out of yourself Brian, I'm going to show you what Dr. Sunder said in the NIST report:

#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)?

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.

Now that it proves that DR. Sunder from NIST is correct in him saying that it was the exterior panels that fell 9 and 11 seconds.

With this I'm driving the final nail in Brian's coffin about Dr. Sunder. And Brian, you can still go fuck yourself cause you're not going to change what NIST wrote above.

 
At 25 July, 2011 15:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

The NIST report said the "building section above" came down "essentially in free fall". It said nothing about panels.

Who is feeding you lies? How come you won't check for yourself? What's wrong with you?

The words you quote are not in the NIST report and Dr. Sunder did not say them. In fact, he told NOVA that the TOWERS fell in 9 and 11 seconds, and he said nothing about panels.

 
At 25 July, 2011 18:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Father Malloy's statement about molten steel is relevant because molten steel has not been, and can not be, explained by the official accounts--and because people like you insist on denying that the molten steel existed."

Father Malloy is not a qualified observer.

 
At 25 July, 2011 18:08, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"My links support what I say. Show me one of my links that undermines what I say."

There's no point because:

A. I already have.

B. You are a psychopath, you need to lie because you cannot help yourself.

 
At 25 July, 2011 18:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Dr. Astaneh is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. He was engaged by the NSF to study the steel at Ground Zero. He is an expert on steel. He saw melting of girders. Father Malloy's account corroborates Dr. Astaneh's, and Dr. Ghoniem's, and Dr. Geyh's. Thus the question of his qualifications are a minor issue.

If you've already shown where one of my links undermines me, it should be easy for you to dig itup again.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:27, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, you're lying about what Dr. Sunder said. He said quite clearly that the towers, not the panels, fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False.

I can't make it rain, but that doesn't mean it's not raining.

Of course you can't make it rain. You need to have a life savings of at least $100 to make it rain, which you clearly do not.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:28, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, Dr. Astaneh is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. He was engaged by the NSF to study the steel at Ground Zero. He is an expert on steel."

Yes, and Dr. Astaneh aslo says that the fires weakened the steel at the WTC and caused the towers to collapse.

So shut up.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:30, Blogger Ian said...

He didn't say anything about panels. He told NOVA the TOWERS came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

False.

You're not making any sense at all. Dr. Sunder told NOVA the TOWERS fell in 9 and 11 seconds. He didn't say anything about panels.

Brian, repeating the same lies doesn't make them any less untrue.

The NIST report said the "building section above" came down "essentially in free fall". It said nothing about panels.

The "building section above" is not the building, Brian. That you think that it is goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11.

The words you quote are not in the NIST report and Dr. Sunder did not say them. In fact, he told NOVA that the TOWERS fell in 9 and 11 seconds, and he said nothing about panels.

Brian, does someone pay you for every lie to post here? I fail to see any other reason why you keep posting this.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:31, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, Dr. Astaneh is a professor of structural engineering at Berkeley. He was engaged by the NSF to study the steel at Ground Zero. He is an expert on steel. He saw melting of girders. Father Malloy's account corroborates Dr. Astaneh's, and Dr. Ghoniem's, and Dr. Geyh's. Thus the question of his qualifications are a minor issue.

Nobody saw melting of girders, Brian.

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what is the reason for your persistent lies? Do you think it's funny to lie about 9/11?

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds."

Dr. Sunder did not say anything about panels, as anyone can see.

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

Are you calling Dr. Astaneh a liar?

 
At 25 July, 2011 19:48, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what is the reason for your persistent lies? Do you think it's funny to lie about 9/11?

No, I think it's funny to make you squeal and babble. In the history of this blog, you've called me "it" and "she", told me I post "girly spam", said I was invisible, etc. etc. It's hilarious how much I upset you.

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds."

I have. Your claims about Dr. Sunder are false.

Dr. Sunder did not say anything about panels, as anyone can see.

He did not say anything about the buildings either.

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

I did. He said no such thing.

Are you calling Dr. Astaneh a liar?

No, I'm calling you a liar who sniffs glue, wears women's underwear, and lusts after Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 26 July, 2011 02:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian lies blatantly.

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds."

Dr. Sunder did not say anything about panels, as anyone can see.

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

 
At 26 July, 2011 07:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Who the fuck cares Cpt. Obvious? Noone! You're ling out your ass and there's nothing you can do to change what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh said before they made their errorness comments.

 
At 26 July, 2011 09:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, if the comments were in error, how come neither Dr. Astaneh nor Dr. Sunder has said so?

 
At 26 July, 2011 10:27, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, if the comments were in error, how come neither Dr. Astaneh nor Dr. Sunder has said so?

How about this, you ask them both that question and leave me the fuck alone?

 
At 26 July, 2011 11:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because I don't go around harassing people. Why don't you ask 'em?

 
At 26 July, 2011 11:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Because I don't go around harassing people. Why don't you ask 'em?

Willie, Kevin and Carol said you harassed them to the point where they don't want anything to do with you.

Why don't you go fuck yuorself first then I'll ask them politely?

 
At 26 July, 2011 14:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Kevin considered it harassment when I posted comments on his blog or on other blogs about him. Willie considered it harassment when I asked him questions that showed that his story was phony. Carol considered it harassment when she got phone calls that I never made.

I don't harass people.

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:21, Blogger Ian said...

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds."

Dr. Sunder did not say anything about panels, as anyone can see.

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".


Brian, I told you that posting the same lies again and again doesn't make them any less untrue.

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:23, Blogger Ian said...

Because I don't go around harassing people. Why don't you ask 'em?

No, you harassed Carol Brouillet so many times you got kicked out of the truth movement. The reason you won't ask either men is the same reason you won't debate Willie Rodriguez: you know you're a liar and you know that both of them will dismiss you as a crazy person.


I don't harass people.

False.

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who checks the quotes will see you lie.

 
At 26 July, 2011 17:51, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who checks the quotes will see you lie.

Then how come the only one calling me a liar is a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking people?

 
At 26 July, 2011 18:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because nobody has bothered to check, and because apparently they don't have enough integrity to care that you lie.

 
At 26 July, 2011 18:22, Blogger Ian said...

Because nobody has bothered to check, and because apparently they don't have enough integrity to care that you lie.

False.

Brian, can you start talking about modified attack baboons again? This nonsense about melted steel is boring.

 
At 26 July, 2011 20:04, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Because nobody has bothered to check, and because apparently they don't have enough integrity to care that you lie."

I checked. Okay no I didn't. Who cares? Ian isn't the one misquoting people, Ian isn't the one making wild claims about 9/11 without evidence, and Ian isn't Mr. Poopy Pants.

 
At 26 July, 2011 23:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Google ... NOVA Sunder bomb ... to see Dr. Sunder say "the measurements have indicated that Tower 2 collapsed in about 9 seconds, and Tower 1 collapsed in about 11 seconds."

Dr. Sunder did not say anything about panels, as anyone can see.

Google ... Astaneh PBS ... to see Dr. Astaneh say "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

And you're too lazy to check. No wonder your opinions about 9/11 are so peculiar.

 
At 27 July, 2011 10:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I don't harass people.

Once a liar always a liar. 3 people said that you harassed them and there's only 1 Brian Good that they talk about.

The odds aren't in your favor.

 
At 27 July, 2011 10:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder did not say anything about panels, as anyone can see.

Hmmm and the only person who doesn't read word for word is Cpt. Obvious:

"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."

The bolded line says: "times for the first exterior panels"

Can you read the 2 words Cpt. Obvious?: "exterior panels".

Proves that it was the exterior panels and not your imagination that it was the whole building(s).

 
At 27 July, 2011 13:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you keep quoting that line from the FAQs as if Dr. Sunder said it. In fact, Dr. Sunder said nothing about panels. He said the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds--and he said it a week after the FAQs were published. So he not only didn't write the FAQs, he didn't even read them.

The NIST report itself says nothing about panels striking the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. So the FAQ is rathre dishonest in implying that it did.

 
At 27 July, 2011 15:35, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, you keep quoting that line from the FAQs as if Dr. Sunder said it. In fact, Dr. Sunder said nothing about panels. He said the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds--and he said it a week after the FAQs were published. So he not only didn't write the FAQs, he didn't even read them.

Doubling down on lies after they've been pointed out: that's our Brian!

The NIST report itself says nothing about panels striking the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. So the FAQ is rathre dishonest in implying that it did.

Not to mention twisting himself in knots to try to avoid conceding error. So the NIST report is dishonest, except when it's not, and except for the times it's dishonest but right anyway.

Sadly, all this dumbspam won't get the widows' questions answered.

 
At 27 July, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who checks the quotes can see that you lie. You think 9/11 is a joke.

 
At 27 July, 2011 19:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who checks the quotes can see that you lie. You think 9/11 is a joke.

False and false. I don't think 9/11 is a joke, which is why I'm not a truther. I do think you're a joke which is why I take great pleasure in annoying you and making you babble on and on about nothing.

So Brian, do you think the widows will have their questions answered before the 10th anniversary?

 
At 27 July, 2011 22:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who checks the quotes can see that you lie.

The widows will have their questions answered after the people recognize the importance of their very public questions. Whether that is in 2 years, 20 years, 200 years, or 2000 years I can not say.

 
At 28 July, 2011 04:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who checks the quotes can see that you lie.

False.

The widows will have their questions answered after the people recognize the importance of their very public questions. Whether that is in 2 years, 20 years, 200 years, or 2000 years I can not say.

So in other words, they will never have their questions answered. Thanks for clearing that up, Brian!

Now when will we get a new investigation?

 
At 28 July, 2011 07:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you keep quoting that line from the FAQs as if Dr. Sunder said it.

Because him and NIST agree that's what it was, the exterior panels. Also crying about it only strengthens the fact that it was the exterior panles.

He said the BUILDINGS fell in 9 seconds and 11 seconds--

Again, let me quote NIST & Dr. Sunder:

""NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels...."

I think you're blind Cpt. Obvious or you can't read nor comprehend english very well. You fail, again!

The NIST report itself says nothing about panels striking the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Again you're wrong 100 times over. You can not nor will not change the fact that the NIST report says it was the exterior panels.

Here's the thing Cpt. Obvious:

Your theories surrounding 9/11 are a pattern of inflammatory theories. You make use of murky methods to insinuate your claims, you bring up conspiracy theories of the past, you manipulate evidence to hide the holes in your theories. You rely on dubious academic sources that support no facts nor evidence. Therefore you're making it all up and essentually lying about everything.

 
At 28 July, 2011 09:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

No WAQo, Dr. Sunder never said anything about panels. And the NIST report doesn't say anything about panels striking the ground in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

You should try providing sources and references for your claims. When you do, and you find there are none, maybe you will stop spamming these erroneous claims. Where does the NIST report say it was the panels?

What you keep quoting over and over and over is the FAQ. The FAQ is not the report, and it is not Dr. Sunder. In fact we don't know who it is, and it contradicts both the report and Dr. Sunder.

 
At 29 July, 2011 09:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Cpt. Obvious is apparently squealing like a pig again becasue he's been debunked.

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

WAQo, you're lying like a WAQo

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home