Sunday, July 31, 2011

Two Previews In One Day

How lucky can we get? First, and more important, are a couple of pages from the Rick Veitch Truther comic book.

The artwork looks pretty good, but the story... not so much. It looks like they're going for the full-on paranoid style with this one. See, the gal who comes back in time to save her husband at the WTC? Well, her hubby works for "Stephen" (strongly implied by the context of the discussion as Spielberg). And "Stephen is adamant that the collapsing skyscraper finale be a real building--not a model."

Not only that, but Stephen wants scenes shot in Iraq as well. So 9-11 was a Dreamworks job?

On the comedy front, Richard Gage has released the trailer for his new nutstravaganza:

I love that they got Lynn Margulis, National Medal of Science winner to tell us about the problems with NIST. She must have won her medal in structural engineering, right? Well, no, she won it for microbiology. Which, if we were talking about multiple prokaryotic organisms, would make her an expert. Unfortunately for her, we're discussing steel-framed skyscrapers, on which she's no more educated than your average cab driver.

We get the usual quote-mining of Danny Jowenko, RIP. The Troofers never mention that he debunked the supposed controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.

Update: Gage must have ordered them to pull the original version of the trailer; a revised version is above. Not sure what they changed, Margulis is still there, as is Jowenko.

137 Comments:

At 31 July, 2011 03:30, Blogger nes718 said...

LOL! The panic tone in your post means you're completely out of ammo in this information war. The 'troofers' voices seem to be getting louder and all you can do is poke fun at them. Brilliantly pathetic.

 
At 31 July, 2011 06:58, Blogger Len said...

"This video has been removed by the user."

Gee, wonder why AE911T would yank their own video.

 
At 31 July, 2011 09:09, Blogger roo said...

The 'troofers' voices seem to be getting louder and all you can do is poke fun at them.

What left is there to do to truthers?

 
At 31 July, 2011 11:06, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

wow....truthers are yelling louder? wow thats a convincing argument.

 
At 31 July, 2011 11:54, Blogger Triterope said...

Look at Gage at about 1:15. He looks like he's aged about ten years compared to his earlier videos.

 
At 31 July, 2011 12:05, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The panic tone in your post means you're completely out of ammo in this information war. "

We are getting tire. How many times can you tell a nine year old that Spiderman isn't real?

BTW, still waiting for evidence.

Nice that you use the picture of the Iranian President, he takes it up the ass.

 
At 31 July, 2011 12:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Look at Gage at about 1:15. He looks like he's aged about ten years compared to his earlier videos.

Could it be intentional? Seems like he was just suddenly hairless one day. Maybe he's traded Mad Scientist Baldness for Sam Jackson Baldness as a PR move.

 
At 31 July, 2011 14:07, Blogger Triterope said...

It's not just the hair (or the eyeglasses, which are a new style). His face is more gaunt and creased, his skin is more pale. Compare this clip to a video of him from 2007 or 2008 and the difference is obvious.

 
At 31 July, 2011 15:44, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

Gee, wonder why AE911T would yank their own video.

Presumably for the same reason they never posted the box demonstration on their channel.

 
At 31 July, 2011 16:12, Blogger Ian said...

LOL! The panic tone in your post means you're completely out of ammo in this information war. The 'troofers' voices seem to be getting louder and all you can do is poke fun at them. Brilliantly pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4

 
At 31 July, 2011 17:38, Blogger paul w said...

The artwork looks pretty good

Yeah, maybe to begin with, but the office scenes are stilted and one-dimensional.

The idiots cannot even get this right.

 
At 31 July, 2011 19:14, Blogger Len said...

Actually it is an excellent propoganda piece. I can see it raising the doubts of resonable people who are unfamiliar with the evidence.

"LOL! The panic tone in your post..."

Not that I presume to be Pat's spokesperson but you mistake disdain for panic.


"The 'troofers' voices seem to be getting louder..."

No it's the voices in your head that are getting louder.

On 2nd thought you might be right, people start to raise their voices whe then get desperate.

 
At 31 July, 2011 21:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, Dr. Margulis is criticizing NIST not as an expert in engineering, but as an expert in science, or what they used to call "Natural Philosophy". She is an expert in scientific process and scientific reasoning, and you don't need to be an engineer to recognize NIST's willful blindness, dry-labbing, and reverse-engineering as inherently unscientific.

 
At 31 July, 2011 22:32, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

911myths reviews a new book,' The Eleventh Day', by JFK researcher Anthony Summers.

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/The_Eleventh_Day

 
At 01 August, 2011 04:33, Blogger Triterope said...

Pat, Dr. Margulis is criticizing NIST not as an expert in engineering, but as an expert in science

No, she's repeating the same lies we've heard a million times about "evidence being removed" (which it wasn't), and vague criticisms. Why is it all these super-scientists have nothing to say except tired old conspiracy memes?

 
At 01 August, 2011 10:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, for you to deny that evidence was removed is just loony. NIST claimed that there weren't any steel samples from Building 7. (That wasn't entirely true, but it was about 99.999% true.)

NIST made much of the fact that their 200-something steel samples from the towers were statistically insignificant. The steel was scooped up and shipped off to China before experts could examine it. Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained about that to cbs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/terror/main503218.shtml


Dr. Margulis's criticisms are quite specific. She said the NIST investigation proceeded from a foregone conclusion, an unlikely hypothesis, and that the evidence that would have permitted a scientific investigation was destroyed.


Get real.

 
At 01 August, 2011 11:39, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

NIST also didn't look into energy beams from space, Why, because like controlled demolition there was not evidence to justify it. In REAL science you start with the most likely scenario, then if you find evidence to points somewhere else you follow the evidence. And ALL the evidence points to failure due to fire.

And the NIST report has held up for years in spite of constant attacks, much in the same way evolution has held up for decades in spite of constant attacked by another group of religious zealots.

 
At 01 August, 2011 12:16, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Dr. Lynn Margulis was the former wife of Carl Sagan. I think Carl would be spinning in his grave

Creationist Michael Behe has quoted Lynn Margulis. She says that history will ultimately judge neo-Darwinism as "a minor twentieth-century religious sect. She also believes that proponents of the standard theory "wallow in their zoological, capitalistic, competitive, cost-benefit interpretation of Darwin, WTF! Capitalistic Darwinism? She is considered to be a little nuts.

She has also said that the creationist view that “God did it” is not scientific, But her own symbiogenesis hypnosis has also not been well respected by biologist. But unlike controlled demolition her hypnosis could be true.

So you have this woman who's big paper was rejected by several scientific journals, Bitter she has jumped more and more into the world of pseudoscience and now she is a controlled demolition crackpots. I doubt Carl would be a truther.

 
At 01 August, 2011 14:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"She is an expert in scientific process and scientific reasoning,"

So are the guys on Ghost Hunters, but it doesn't make ghosts real.

"but as an expert in science, or what they used to call "Natural Philosophy"."

Oh, so as an "expert in science" she should be able to do eye surgery too, right? By your standard she should be able to walk into any hospital and tell the surgeons what to do. Medicine is science after all.

I have an idea, I will pay for it too. We'll rent an small airplane and take her up to 10,000 feet, and then have the pilot bail out. Then she can use her knowledge of scientific reasoning to land the plane. I mean by your fucked up standard a scientist (who is much more educated than a pilot) shoul be able to use basic physics to safly land the plane on the first try.

Child's play.

 
At 01 August, 2011 16:45, Blogger Triterope said...

Dr. Margulis's criticisms are quite specific.

No, Brian, they're incredibly fucking vague. If you actually watch the goddamn video, she doesn't even say anything as specific as "the steel was scooped up and shipped off to China" as you did. She whines about mishandling of evidence while a picture of a big bin full of WTC debris is on the screen. We have to infer what she's talking about! (One wonders how well this approach works with viewers who are not intimately familiar with 9-11 conspiracy memes.)

Earlier I accused her of parroting conspiracy memes. In retrospect, she doesn't even go that far. She won't even say what she's really accusing NIST of. So not only will AE911Truth's super-scientists not say anything scientific, they won't even say what they really think -- they want to play footsie.

(Not to mention Ms. Margulies' comments on how a crime scene should be handled. Apparently this is something else makes her microbiology knowledge makes her an expert in.)

I also like how Steven Jones is described as "Professor Emeritus at Brigham Young University" when BYU fired his ass years ago precisely for promoting this bullshit. Says a lot about the intellectual honesty of the piece.

Brian, why do you defend these people when they don't even have the guts to say what they really think? Why do you believe them when they lie about their own careers?

 
At 01 August, 2011 17:11, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

The steel was scooped up and shipped off to China before experts could examine it. Dr. Astaneh-Asl complained about that to cbs.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/03/07/terror/m


Its amazing how your such a compulsive liar Brian. For 1 your link is invalid.His actual statement which doesn't say what you claim. And you have known this for some time. While some was not examined he has gone on record saying he got to examine steel from the site.

"Thanks to cooperation of the HSNE recycling plant, I have been able to study the steel from the WTC before recycling. I have identified and saved some components of the structures that appear to have been subjected to intense fire or impact of fast moving objects."

Kind of sad after all this time you still peddle lies.

 
At 01 August, 2011 17:14, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Dr. Margulis's criticisms are quite specific. She said the NIST investigation proceeded from a foregone conclusion

Awesome...cite where NIST noted the failure of column 79 in WTC 7 at the onset of the study.

 
At 01 August, 2011 18:31, Blogger Triterope said...

Its amazing how your such a compulsive liar Brian. For 1 your link is invalid. His actual statement which doesn't say what you claim.

Yeah, I don't even bother checking them anymore.

 
At 01 August, 2011 18:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, there was evidence pointing elsewhere: Symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flahses of light and sounds of explosions, and the complete pulverization of the concrete all pointed elsewhere. NIST's refusal to release the input parameters for their computer models are evidence.

You never heard of "social Darwinism"? You're poorly educated, aren't you? And it seems you don't know the difference between a hypnosis and a hypothesis.

MGF, pointing out the obvious failings of the NIST report is not eye surgery, nor is it flying a plane. You're missing the difference between technical expertise and scientific epistemology.

TR, Dr. Margulis's criticism of the destruction of evidence is quite specific. We all know what evidence was destroyed at Ground Zero. You must have great faith in your mindreading abilities.

GMS, you're lying. The CBS link shows quote clearly that Dr. Astaneh was complaining about the destruction of the steel, and he complained to the House Science Committee as well.

You're issue aboutr column 79 is a straw man argument.

TR, if you ever did check my links you would know what Dr. Astaneh said and you'd know what Dr. Sunder said. If you checked the links your failure to call out Ian for lying shows you to be very dishonest yourself.

BYU did not fire Dr. Jones. He retired so he could pursue his own interests.

If these people don't say what they really think, how do you know what they really think, and how do you know they're not saying what they think?

 
At 01 August, 2011 19:22, Blogger paul w said...

Symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flahses of light and sounds of explosions, and the complete pulverization of the concrete

How many times, for how many years, has this been debunked?

Yet, here it is again.

This isn't Brian of the Seek. Medical. Help. fame, this is Brian the truther, a mirror image of all truthers.

9/11 conspiracy is here to stay.

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

Brian, why do you defend these people when they don't even have the guts to say what they really think? Why do you believe them when they lie about their own careers?

Since when does Brian have the guts to say what HE really thinks? Ask him to come out directly and say "thermite did it" and he starts squealing and crying about how he "doesn't have enough evidence" to say that thermite did it.

 
At 01 August, 2011 19:31, Blogger Ian said...

DK, there was evidence pointing elsewhere: Symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flahses of light and sounds of explosions, and the complete pulverization of the concrete all pointed elsewhere.

Brian, you forgot burnt baboon fur, radiation in the dust cloud, and the image of a strange aircraft hovering over the site.

You really should be more thorough in listing the things NIST didn't investigate.

TR, if you ever did check my links you would know what Dr. Astaneh said and you'd know what Dr. Sunder said. If you checked the links your failure to call out Ian for lying shows you to be very dishonest yourself.

Poor Brian. I've handed his ass to him so many times that now he's complaining to others about it.

If these people don't say what they really think, how do you know what they really think, and how do you know they're not saying what they think?

Brian's been sniffing the GOOD glue tonight...

 
At 01 August, 2011 19:32, Blogger Ian said...

So Brian, I was busy at work today and didn't check to see if the widows questions had been answered. Were they?

 
At 01 August, 2011 20:32, Blogger 911truthinator said...

"The steel was scooped up and shipped off to China before experts could examine it".

the truth about the steel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35zZeNcIAZ8


why are you truthers so stupid?
why would the US gubimint ship its incriminating evidence to communist china and trust them to keep it quiet?
how can it be an inside job
if china is involved?

911truthers are way too stupid to see how stupid they really are.

 
At 01 August, 2011 20:34, Blogger roo said...

While his grasp of reality is still highly suspect, I must applaud Brian for staying on topic on this thread. The Ritalin must be working.

 
At 01 August, 2011 23:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, what you seem too unintelligent to grasp is that when I say "thermite can cut vertical columns" and "thermite can be sprayed into the interior of hollow box columns" I am only stating facts; I honestly do not have an opinion on whether thermite was used to bring down the towers or not. I don't have enough information. I am confident that NIST has not even tried to explain the collapses, and has acknowledged that they could not. That's why we need a new investigation.

 
At 02 August, 2011 00:39, Blogger paul w said...

I am confident that NIST has not even tried to explain the collapses

I know it's difficult to ignore this man, he's such an idiot - I have just posted something in another post, but enough is enough.

We have to ignore the guy.

 
At 02 August, 2011 00:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

They didn't even try to explain symmetry, totality, pulverization, speed, the persistence and subsequent failure of the core, or the molten steel.

Yes, to protect your illusions, you must ignore me.

 
At 02 August, 2011 01:03, Blogger 911truthinator said...

"I am confident that NIST has not even tried to explain the collapses, and has acknowledged that they could not"

were you repeatedly dropped on your head when you were a baby?
or do you pick your nose so bad that your brain caved in?

The collapse of world trade center 7
why the building fell
by NIST.



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

 
At 02 August, 2011 04:38, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, Dr. Margulis's criticism of the destruction of evidence is quite specific.

No, it isn't.

We all know what evidence was destroyed at Ground Zero.

No, we don't, and no, it wasn't.

You must have great faith in your mindreading abilities.

My point exactly. I have to infer their meaning because they won't actually come out and say it.

TR, if you ever did check my links

Did you read what I fucking said? I said I don't check them anymore, because you're such a pathological liar and incompetent boob that your links either misrepresents your point or undermine it. Furthermore, I know damn well what you think Drs. Sunder and Astaneh-El said. I also know what they really said. I need no instruction from you, thank you very much.

BYU did not fire Dr. Jones. He retired so he could pursue his own interests.

Actually, neither is correct. He was put on "paid leave" so the university could investigate his 9-11 related claims. That was five years ago. Must be a slow review process.

If these people don't say what they really think, how do you know what they really think

I gave an example of this earlier.

and how do you know they're not saying what they think?

Because they're not saying anything.

 
At 02 August, 2011 06:02, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, what you seem too unintelligent to grasp is that when I say "thermite can cut vertical columns" and "thermite can be sprayed into the interior of hollow box columns" I am only stating facts

Yes, facts. These facts are utterly irrelevant to the question at hand, but at least they are facts, unlike what you claim about Dr. Sunder.

I honestly do not have an opinion on whether thermite was used to bring down the towers or not. I don't have enough information.

We do and we can confidently say that thermite didn't bring the towers down.

Brian, you've got all these smart, sophisticated people posting here. Don't be shy about asking us for the facts about 9/11. It might clear up your confusion.

I am confident that NIST has not even tried to explain the collapses, and has acknowledged that they could not. That's why we need a new investigation.

See what I mean? You're completely confused about 9/11. We can help fix that.

 
At 02 August, 2011 06:05, Blogger Ian said...

They didn't even try to explain symmetry, totality, pulverization, speed, the persistence and subsequent failure of the core, or the molten steel.

And burnt baboon fur, radiation in the dust cloud, and the image of a strange aircraft hovering over the site. Brian, why do you never mention these things among the elements that the official investigations ignored?

Yes, to protect your illusions, you must ignore me.

I'm not going to ignore you. Making you squeal and cry is way too much fun.

Speaking of which, in case everyone didn't know, Brian also ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Craig Ranke, just as he ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Willie Rodriguez.

Such a brave man, that Brian!

 
At 02 August, 2011 07:03, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Brian she said "Capitalistic Darwinism" That is not the same as social Darwinism, but you being a janitor level thinker probably never knew who Dr. Margulis was before this. Or why she is not very well respected by scientist.

So go find some floors to mop and do what you do best, clean up after productive people.

 
At 02 August, 2011 07:05, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Actually, neither is correct. He was put on "paid leave" so the university could investigate his 9-11 related claims. That was five years ago. Must be a slow review process."

Actually, he was ordered to pull his paper and submit it for review, While that process was happening, he was put on "paid leave". Within a month of that, he announced that he was retiring at the end of the year, and BYU dropped the demand for a review of his paper.

Seems to me like the usual polite way of removing a tenured professor so as to not bring extra embarrassment to the University. But others may read it differently.

 
At 02 August, 2011 07:08, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

"I am confident that NIST has not even tried to explain the collapses, and has acknowledged that they could not. That's why we need a new investigation."

Yes and evolutionist can't fully explain how evolution works, but one thing you can say is like creationist, truthers are full of shit. Same thing different group of nuts.

Sad part is Brian will never understand the logic behind this because he is a low IQ kind of guy, functionally retarded I am told.

 
At 02 August, 2011 08:14, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I am confident that NIST has not even tried to explain the collapses, and has acknowledged that they could not. That's why we need a new investigation.

I wonder why all the major cities in the U.S. and around the world has had major up-grades to their buildings with advanced fireproofing? Hmmmm perhaps NIST made it possible! I also wonder why the new WTC7 building is so much more advanced in structural design and fire equipment is up-graded? Hmmmm perhaps NIST made it possible!

You can call for a new investigation all you like Cpt. Oblivious, but the matter of your cause hasn't conjured up evidence for a new investigation. Looking up nonrelated facts and evidences over the internet doesn't qualify for such an absurd investigation.

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

truthinator, do you have any argument aside from ad hominem attack and argument from authority?

NIST's report is not credible. They fudged their computer models in many ways, eliminating shear studs for instance, and their refusal to release the input parameters is quite suspicious. They have admitted that freefall collapse means there us no structural support whatsoever--which is impossible unless you remove the columns.

Their draft report claimed that their analysis was "consistent with physical principles". In the final they were at least straight-shooting enough to remove that claim.

TR, 99.999% of the steel at Ground Zero was destroyed before experts could examine it. That's why NIST can't prove their case that fire weakened the steel.

Dr. Sunder said the buildings collapsed in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw "melting of girders". That's a fact, easily checkable, irrefutable.

Dr. Jones retired. The BYU website says so. If you guys would just check your facts before you spout nonsense, maybe you wouldn't confuse each other so much.

 
At 02 August, 2011 11:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't run away from debate with either Ranke or Rodriguez. I have kicked Ranke's scrawny ass in debate at least five times, and I have challenged him to meet at conferences for a frank exchange of views. I have kicked Rodriguez's fat ass in every discussion I've ever had with him. He threatened to cancel an appearance at a 600-seat theater because he was afraid to answer my questions.

I was willing to debate Ranke. I wanted time to promote the debate so we could have it out once and for all. It looked to me like he was in a hurry to rush it, have it furtively.

I am willing to debate Willie, but only in a moderated forum that ensures protection of the interests of innocent third parties. The first I ever heard of the proposed debate was when SLC announced that I had accepted the challenge. That brought doubts about their good faith.

 
At 02 August, 2011 11:16, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Dr. Jones retired. The BYU website says so. If you guys would just check your facts before you spout nonsense, maybe you wouldn't confuse each other so much."

He retired AFTER he was forced to take his article off the BYU website because he had slipped it past the academic/scientific review processes and following being put on "paid leave" until it was reviewed.

Then before it was reviewed, he retired and BYU dropped the review process.

That's the context for his "retirement".

He retired rather than have his paper properly peer-reviewed.

 
At 02 August, 2011 11:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

DK, since "social darwinism" is a term well known to educated people, the assumption that "capitalist darwinism" is a more precise formulation of the term is a reasonable assumption. Do you have a point?

WAQo, since a) NIST never explained the collapses speed, symmetry, totality, the pulverization of the concrete, the molten steel, or the collapse of the persitent core and b) since the physical evidence does not support their hypothesis and since they have refused to provide the input parameters of the computer models so other engineers can check their work, and c) they have shown a pattern of extreme dishonesty in ignoring evidence, reverse engineering their computer models, and trying to bury essential facts, therefore d) we need new investigations that we can believe.

 
At 02 August, 2011 11:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"TR, 99.999% of the steel at Ground Zero was destroyed before experts could examine it."

No it wasn't. The majority was sent to Fresh Kills. It was all examined by experts, just not exerts troofers trust (you know, Nazi-alcoholic-child molesting - Congressman shooting - sexual stalking - social retards).

"Dr. Sunder said ..."

Dr Sunder said that there was nothing unusual about the speed of collapse because of the unique design of the building. You keep quoting a guy who's actual quote says that you and the troofers are full of shit.

The fact that you keep quoting him underlines the extent of your mental illness.

"MGF, pointing out the obvious failings of the NIST report is not eye surgery, nor is it flying a plane. You're missing the difference between technical expertise and scientific epistemology."

Nope. It is eye surgery, and Dr. Dipshit ethically nose-diving onto the plains of reality.

"DK, there was evidence pointing elsewhere: Symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flahses of light and sounds of explosions, and the complete pulverization of the concrete all pointed elsewhere."

None of that happened. Worse, you are parroting someone else's words. Try having an original idea, fuckface.

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

WAQo, since a) NIST never explained the collapses speed..

LMAO! Still going on about the "free fall speed" bullshit Cpt. Oblivious?

d) we need new investigations that we can believe.

Without evidence you've got nothing to bring in for a new investigation. I suggest that you shut your shithole and produce some credible evidence to bring o court. Talking about it doesn't mean shit to he judge, presenting evidence in front of him/her is something else entirely.

 
At 02 August, 2011 14:25, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dr. Sunder said the buildings collapsed in 9 seconds and 11 seconds, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said he saw "melting of girders". That's a fact, easily checkable, irrefutable.

Really? Then I wonder what made Dr. Sunder say about the exterior panels while being asked questions reguarding the buildings?

This is so irrefutable that Brian has a hard time reading it:

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

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.


Again, Brian fails to produce a peer-reviewed paper stating that Dr. Sunder was talking about the buildings and not the exterior panels. He has yet to produce such a review to counter the NIST FAQ sheet.

 
At 02 August, 2011 17:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I didn't run away from debate with either Ranke or Rodriguez.

Brian, lying about this is as dumb as lying about Dr. Sunder. Both challenged you to debates. You refused, while babbling about how you already beat them.

I have kicked Ranke's scrawny ass in debate at least five times, and I have challenged him to meet at conferences for a frank exchange of views. I have kicked Rodriguez's fat ass in every discussion I've ever had with him.

See what I mean?

 
At 02 August, 2011 17:37, Blogger Ian said...

DK, since "social darwinism" is a term well known to educated people, the assumption that "capitalist darwinism" is a more precise formulation of the term is a reasonable assumption.

Well, it's good to see that Brian understands socioeconomic subjects about as well as he understands physics and engineering.

WAQo, since a) NIST never explained the collapses speed, symmetry, totality, the pulverization of the concrete, the molten steel, or the collapse of the persitent core and b) since the physical evidence does not support their hypothesis and since they have refused to provide the input parameters of the computer models so other engineers can check their work, and c) they have shown a pattern of extreme dishonesty in ignoring evidence, reverse engineering their computer models, and trying to bury essential facts, therefore d) we need new investigations that we can believe.

Shorter version: a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who wears women's underwear has some delusions about 9/11 and is demanding a new investigation.

No wonder we won't have a new investigation. Nobody cares what Brian thinks.

 
At 02 August, 2011 18:31, Blogger paul w said...

I have kicked Ranke's scrawny ass in debate at least five times, and I have challenged him to meet at conferences for a frank exchange of views. I have kicked Rodriguez's fat ass in every discussion I've ever had with him.

Semi-ban?

It 'aint working

 
At 02 August, 2011 19:30, Blogger Len said...

Although Brian seems to have trouble understanding the meaning of the word "first" he right about Dr. Astaneh-Asl complaining about the recyling to CBS. Well sorta, from the March 20002 article he linked.

The operation - which began days after the collapse, okayed by then-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani - goes on 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As a result, Astaneh has almost certainly missed seeing crucial pieces before they were cut up and sent overseas. The thought pains him. In his view, the building should have been reconstructed before it was recycled.

"When there is a car accident and two people are killed, you keep the car until the trial is over," he says. "If a plane crashes, not only do you keep the plane, but you assemble all the pieces, take it to a hangar, and put it together. That's only for 200, 300 people, when they die. In this case you had 3,000 people dead. You had a major machine, a major manmade structure. My wish was that we had spent whatever it takes, maybe $50 million, $100 million, and maybe two years, get all this steel, carry it to a lot. Instead of recycling it, put it horizontally, and assemble it. You have maybe 200 engineers, not just myself running around trying to figure out what's going on. After all, this is a crime scene and you have to figure out exactly what happened for this crime, and learn from it. But that was my wish. My wish is not what happens."


What he omitted say was that the UC scientist expressed no doubt about the causes of the collapses. Note that years before NIST he said floor truss failures brought the towers down:

"the collapse began when the floors gave way. In areas where the fire was hottest, the floor beams were bent downward, indicating that the floors fell before the columns. Without the floors, the columns could not support the overlying weight by themselves, and the buildings came down."

He was concerned with “Establishing this sequence is crucial, because researchers can then focus on developing techniques to shore up the weakness.”

 
At 02 August, 2011 20:08, Blogger Ian said...

But but but Astaneh-Asl saw rivers of molten steel! He saw piles of burnt baboon fur! He saw alien corpses! He saw the markings of death ray beams from space! Widows! Meatballs! Rakes! Willie Rodriguez!!!!!!

 
At 03 August, 2011 09:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Don't get your panties all in a knot.

 
At 03 August, 2011 12:07, Blogger Triterope said...

Actually, he was ordered to pull his paper and submit it for review, While that process was happening, he was put on "paid leave". Within a month of that, he announced that he was retiring at the end of the year, and BYU dropped the demand for a review of his paper.

Thanks for the clarification.

 
At 03 August, 2011 12:11, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, 99.999% of the steel at Ground Zero was destroyed before experts could examine it.

So that picture of the bin in the video must be the other 0.001% of the steel. ::rollingeyes::

 
At 03 August, 2011 12:15, Blogger Triterope said...

Also:

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Dr. Astaneh complained that the steel was being destroyed before he could see it, and he said it was just him alone trying to scramble around and examine the steel. If experts had an opportunity to examine it, how come NIST claims that no steel was retained from WTC7 and they don't have steel samples to support their case that fire weakened the steel?

The unique design of the building did not it from the laws of physics. The first and second laws of thermodynamics and Newton's first and third laws apply to all buildings.

You seem unable to distinguish between scientific know-how and scientific judgment. Obviously NIST had the scientific know-how to invent extremely ingenious rationales for why the towers came down, but they lacked the scientific judgment to recognize that their enterprise was inherently unscientific.

WAQo, we've got evidence: symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flashes of light and sounds of explosions, the unexplained collapse of the persistent core, and the complete pulverization of the concrete all pointed elsewhere."

Your insistence that the FAQ was written by Dr. Sunder is the kind of irrationality that is shown by those who are denial. Since Dr. Sunder said something quite different, it seems clear that he not only didn't write the FAQ, he didn't read it.

Dr. Sunder's own words show that he said the buildings fell at free fall: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He doesn't say anything about panels.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Len, the certainty about the collapse mechanism may have been that of the reporter, who was probably not a scientist, rather than Dr. Astaneh. It's interesting that his theory is exactly the opposite of what NIST found. So at this point either Dr. Astaneh believes his theory was wrong or he believes NIST's theory is wrong.

TR, the towers contained 160,000 tons of structural steel. How much steel is in that box? 10 tons? 20? Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 03 August, 2011 15:40, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, the towers contained 160,000tons of structural steel. How much steel is in that box? 10 tons? 20? Thanks for proving my point.

Brian Good, you have got to be the stupidest motherfucker I have ever met.

 
At 03 August, 2011 16:59, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The unique design of the building did not it from the laws of physics. The first and second laws of thermodynamics and Newton's first and third laws apply to all buildings."

Dr Sunder says you're full of shit. No laws of physics were violated. Not that you understand them anyway.

"MGF, Dr. Astaneh complained that the steel was being destroyed before he could see it, and he said it was just him alone trying to scramble around and examine the steel."

Wow wee! Sounds like that guy is Spiderman. Astenah wasn't the only expert on site. You see on top of the FEMA, FBI, BATF, FDNY, Port Authority Police, and all the various others there were also these guys call STEEL WORKERS. Steel workers work with...STEEL. Many are also prior military too. In in your fucked up little world where a microbiologist is an acceptable source to review engineering reports then a steel worker is like a god of steel. No steel workers saw anything out of the ordinary.

Please call steel workers stupid, Brian. Please accuse steel workers of being part of a cover-up for mass murder. Please.

(there is also a new Spiderman that is half African-American, half hispanic. That's two reasons for you to hate him)

"Obviously NIST had the scientific know-how to invent extremely ingenious rationales for why the towers came down, but they lacked the scientific judgment to recognize that their enterprise was inherently unscientific."

It was all scientific, which is why you can't understand it.

 
At 03 August, 2011 17:59, Blogger paul w said...

Brian Good, you have got to be the stupidest motherfucker I have ever met.

Lol!!!!

 
At 03 August, 2011 20:33, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, we've got evidence: symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flashes of light and sounds of explosions, the unexplained collapse of the persistent core, and the complete pulverization of the concrete all pointed elsewhere."

Your babbling delusions are not evidence of anything but your need to seek psychiatric care, Brian.

Dr. Sunder's own words show that he said the buildings fell at free fall: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He doesn't say anything about panels.

Stop lying, Brian.

 
At 03 August, 2011 20:34, Blogger Ian said...

TR, the towers contained 160,000 tons of structural steel. How much steel is in that box? 10 tons? 20? Thanks for proving my point.

Brian, your delusional babbling doesn't not form a point, unless the point you're trying to make is that you should seek psychiatric care.

 
At 03 August, 2011 21:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, Dr. Sunder said a) that the buildings (not panels) came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds (freefall) and he said b) that freefall means there is not structural support underneath.

Therefore, unless the structure beneath was removed with explosives, the collapse of the towers at freefall violates the law of conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics). Now maybe when you learn to distinguish that law from Newton's first law, maybe your opinion will be worth something. Didn't your geo core include freshman physics?

Dr. Astaneh said it was just him scrambling around. No steelworkers saw anything out of the ordinary? Mark Loizeaux of Controlled Demolition Inc. said there was molten steel.

I don't hate Dr. Rice. I despise her. With all her advantages she could have been anything she wanted. She became a toady to a corrupt criminal regime that has been responsible for the deaths of 100's of thousands of innocent people.

NIST's investigation was NOT scientific. That's what Dr. Margulis is telling you. It doesn't matter how smart your computer is if you ask it the wrong questions, and if you ignore it when it tells you the truth, and if you fudge the input factors to ensure the desired result.

Ian Dr. Sunder said the buildings fell at free fall: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He doesn't say anything about panels.

 
At 03 August, 2011 21:33, Blogger Triterope said...

Gee, Brian didn't have a response for me that time. I wonder why.

 
At 04 August, 2011 07:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, we've got evidence: symmetry, speed, and totality of collapse; molten steel, witness reports of flashes of light and sounds of explosions, the unexplained collapse of the persistent core, and the complete pulverization of the concrete all pointed elsewhere."

You know Brian, reusing what other people have said is just showing us how unintelligent you really are. All those things you listed has yet to be confirmed by evidence, but it's a high probability that there isn't any evidence to prove what you just rehashed.

 
At 04 August, 2011 07:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Your insistence that the FAQ was written by Dr. Sunder is the kind of irrationality that is shown by those who are denial.

Hey asshole, why not contact Dr. Sunder and tell him he's wrong about the NIST report? But of course you're a real pussy that's in denial!

Dr. Sunder's own words show that he said the buildings fell at free fall: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He doesn't say anything about panels.

Yeah, but the NIST Report says otherwise:

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

You can't change the report!

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

You will never change the report!

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

You failed!

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

Give it up!

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

You lost!

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

He was talking about the panels!

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

SO QUIT LYING YOU FUCKING CRYBABY!

 
At 04 August, 2011 08:55, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Sorry for the repeat, I just love how this gets Brian's blood boiling.

This is so irrefutable that Brian has a hard time reading it:

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

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.

Again, Brian fails to produce a peer-reviewed paper stating that Dr. Sunder was talking about the buildings and not the exterior panels. He has yet to produce such a review to counter the NIST FAQ sheet.

 
At 04 August, 2011 09:04, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ian Dr. Sunder said the buildings fell at free fall: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He doesn't say anything about panels.

Somehow Brian forgets that 9.81 m/s2 is relevent to "free fall speed".

Acutally he's wrong on that account, here's why:

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

The strength of the gravitational field is numerically equal to the acceleration of objects under its influence, and its value at the Earth's surface, denoted g, is approximately expressed below as the standard average.

g = 9.81 m/s2 = 32.2 ft/s2

This means that, ignoring air resistance, an object falling freely near the Earth's surface increases its velocity by 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s or 22 mph) for each second of its descent. Thus, an object starting from rest will attain a velocity of 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s) after one second, 19.6 m/s (64.4 ft/s) after two seconds, and so on, adding 9.81 m/s (32.2 ft/s) to each resulting velocity. Also, again ignoring air resistance, any and all objects, when dropped from the same height, will hit the ground at the same time.


In a sense Brian is ignoring air resistance along with structural resistence. Which means that he's actually stretching the truth that 9.81 m/s2 is "free fall speed" when in reality its not, considering that the 16 acre WTC site wasn't inside a vacuum. So Brian is still confused because he loves to make up shit as he goes along and crying about it proves that.

 
At 04 August, 2011 10:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, there's no point in contacting Dr. Sunder. He doesn't respond to such inquiries. Here's one Rochard Gage sent him two years ago. No response.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Letter_to_Shyam_Sunder_-_7-20-09a.pdf

When Ron Brookman asked NIST for the input parameters for their computer models, they refused, claiming that to do so would jeopardize public safety.

You keep confusing the FAQs with the report. The report does not say anything about panels. It says "the building section above".

The FAQs have no accountability, and in this case they contradict what both the report and Dr. Sunder said. Until we hear a clarification from the authors of the report and from Dr. Sunder we don't know what NIST really believes. The FAQ implies that there was a detailed study of the duration of the collapse. The report contains no such study.

As to your technobabble about gravity, you don't know what you're talking about. Ordinary air resistance is negligible unless you're talking about falling feathers. You are welcome to present your calculations on the energy required to eject 60 million cubic feet of air from each tower if you wish.

The acceleration of gravity is not 9.81 m/s2. Can you tell us why?

Also, do you know why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:29, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, Dr. Sunder said a) that the buildings (not panels) came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds (freefall) and he said b) that freefall means there is not structural support underneath.

False and false. You're not very good at this whole "facts" thing, Brian.

NIST's investigation was NOT scientific. That's what Dr. Margulis is telling you.

Why should anyone care what Dr. Margulis is telling us.

Nuclear weapons were used to destroy the towers. That's what Dr. Deagle is telling us, Brian.

Ian Dr. Sunder said the buildings fell at free fall: "The measurements have indicated that Tower One collapsed in about 11 seconds, and Tower Two collapsed in about 9 seconds." He doesn't say anything about panels.

Yeah, Brian, you already wrote this at the top of your post. You do realize that it's still a lie if you post it twice in the same post and that it's just as much a lie at the top as at the bottom, right?

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, there's no point in contacting Dr. Sunder.

There is a point where you call him a liar. I knew you'd say something like that to get out of an debate.

When Ron Brookman asked NIST for the input parameters for their computer models, they refused, claiming that to do so would jeopardize public safety.

Because they were issing new safety requirements for all buildings AFTER 9/11.

The FAQs have no accountability, and in this case they contradict what both the report and Dr. Sunder said

Fuck you Brian, what Dr. Sunder said in the FAQs is stated for the record. There's no way in hell you're going to change it.

As to your technobabble about gravity, you don't know what you're talking about.

Ahh the ol' "you don't know what you're talking about" issue. What's the matter Brian, still confused about the effects of gravity on a structurally unsound building after a plane impact and fire damage?

The acceleration of gravity is not 9.81 m/s2. Can you tell us why?

Again, you don't know what 9.81 m/s2 means.

Also, do you know why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?

Changing the subject now are we? Coward!

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:32, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, there's no point in contacting Dr. Sunder. He doesn't respond to such inquiries. Here's one Rochard Gage sent him two years ago. No response.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Letter_to_Shyam_Sunder_-_7-20-09a.pdf


Right, he's a busy man who isn't going to waste his time with frauds and lunatics.

As to your technobabble about gravity, you don't know what you're talking about. Ordinary air resistance is negligible unless you're talking about falling feathers.

Oh. My. God. The funniest thing is that he's serious and he expects us to take him seriously.

Brian, there's a reason you're a failed janitor and not a physicist or engineer.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:52, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Ordinary air resistance is negligible unless you're talking about falling feathers. You are welcome to present your calculations on the energy required to eject 60 million cubic feet of air from each tower if you wish.

LOL, you seriously want to compare 2" structural steel to that of a feather? OMG, that's so fucking stupid that it should win a Stundie nomination.

Brian, as a firefighter (not affliated with the FDNY), I can say only this: You have no proof that the 16 acre WTC complex was in a vacuum, therefore your infatuation with free fall is null and void since air resistence coupled with structural resistence cancels out your theory.

But of course you're not a firefighter who is well trained, and you don't have a ISO (Incident Safety Officer) certificate. Which makes you the most annoying asshole to ever exist.

Now go play in traffic and leave the discussion to the grown ups.

 
At 04 August, 2011 11:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Safety Officer’s Role on the Incident Scene

http://www.mfri.org/dom/Drill_pdf/DM_1003.pdf

Building construction.

1. Safety officer must have a good understanding of building construction and the design of buildings as it is associated with fire risk evaluation.

2. Building and construction knowledge allows the safety officer to recognize the hazards of various building construction methods, such as truss systems, balloon frame construction, light weight wood frame construction, etc.

3. Of great importance to the safety officer and crews operating on the fireground is the ability to predict collapse scenarios and potential.


And Brian thinks that ISO's don't know everything about buidings. Bullshit!

 
At 04 August, 2011 12:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's one Rochard Gage sent him two years ago. No response.
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/Letter_to_Shyam_Sunder_-_7-20-09a.pdf


Dr. Sunder doesn't want to waste his time on a lunatic who's involved in stupid conspiacy theories. I'm sure if Dr. Sunder would respond, Gage would continue to harass him for a different response.

Kind of like you Brian, when you harass people because their response isn't what you wanted.

 
At 04 August, 2011 18:35, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian? Helloooooooooo? You ever going to acknowledge your little fraction error, or are you just going to keep lecturing people about physics?

 
At 05 August, 2011 07:12, Blogger Ian said...

Brian? Helloooooooooo? You ever going to acknowledge your little fraction error, or are you just going to keep lecturing people about physics?

I wonder where Brian is. I'm guessing either his parents checked him into a mental hospital or the Palo Alto public library banned him for downloading racy photos of underage Chinese gymnasts on their computers.

 
At 05 August, 2011 09:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian this forum's tolerance for your obstinate lying is an indictment of its integrity. Anyone can easily check and see that Dr. Sunder said what I said he said.

WAQo, you have provided no evidence for your obstinate belief that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQ. Since what Dr. Sunder said contradicted the FAQ, it would appear that he never even read it.

I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration.

So you don't know why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized. That's because you don't know the first thing about the construction of the world trade center.

Yes, I can compare the effect of air resistance on 2" structural steel to the effect on a feather.
Galileo did so quite famously centuries ago. It appears that you don't understand what he showed. Ordinary air resistance will have a negligble effect on the rate of descent of the steel.
You are welcome to present your calculations on the energy required to eject 60 million cubic feet of air from each tower if you wish.

TR, I didn't make a fraction error. WAQo did. And he still can't see it.

 
At 05 August, 2011 10:04, Blogger Arcterus said...

I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration.

Hahahahaha, total fail!

I know you guys have these "Stundie Awards" and everything, but do you think there should maybe be a separate award for all the things Brian says? I can think of several potential nominations in this thread alone.

 
At 05 August, 2011 10:27, Blogger J Rebori said...

"I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration."

So you failed high school physics, I assume?

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

The rate of acceleration at the Earth's surface is defined as g = 9.81 m/s2. As a result, a falling object will reach a velocity of 9.81 m/s after one second of decent, and will double each second thereafter. So at t = 3 seconds, the object will attain a velocity of 29.43 m/s, etc. Thus, g is the rate of acceleration, not a velocity.

FACT: The rate of acceleration is expressed in m/s2.

FACT: Velocity is expressed in m/s.

Stick to pseudo-science, cretin.

On the other hand, you're right, air resistance can be ignored for a falling object like structural steel. Proving, once again, that even the goat fucker, like a broken clock, is right twice a day.

 
At 05 August, 2011 11:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, you have provided no evidence for your obstinate belief that Dr. Sunder wrote the FAQ.

And yet you have no peer-reviewed paper to debunk it. So fuck off!

I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration.

9.81 meters per second squared. That's what it means shit 4 brains.

So you don't know why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized.

What did we all tell you? We told you to stop going off topic.

Yes, I can compare the effect of air resistance on 2" structural steel to the effect on a feather.

Yes you can, but only in a vacuum where the air can't affect the feather. Fucking idiot!

TR, I didn't make a fraction error. WAQo did. And he still can't see it.

LOL, blaming me for his fuck up. Classic Truther tactic!

 
At 05 August, 2011 12:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

WAQ,

To clarify, a low-density object--a feather, for example--does not accelerate as fast as structural steel. Why? A low-density object is light and buoyant, which makes it subject to air resistance.

 
At 05 August, 2011 13:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Correction.

"...As a result, a falling object will reach a velocity of 9.81 m/s after one second of descent, and will double each second thereafter."

Sorry. My bad.

 
At 05 August, 2011 13:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys are flunking simple algebra.

Utterfail, velocity can be expressed in m/s or in m/s2.

5 m/s is twice as fast as 5 m/2s.

It's really a hoot when you lame-o's try to act smart.

 
At 05 August, 2011 14:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...Utterfail, velocity can be expressed in m/s or in m/s2."

False.

The System International specifies that rate of acceleration is expressed in m/s2. Conversely, velocity is a scalar value of speed and is expressed in m/s.

Stop lying, goat fucker.

The idiot whines, "...5 m/s is twice as fast as 5 m/2s."

False. Goat fucker, don't you know that when you find yourself in a hole that it's a good idea to stop digging--you used toilet water quaffing fool?

The goat fucker squeals, "...It's really a hoot when you lame-o's try to act smart."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Tell us about it, Rube.

"...What a maroon." -- Bugs Bunny

 
At 05 August, 2011 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

NOTES:

In terms of acceleration.

"...In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time...In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters per second squared (m/s2)."

In terms of velocity.

"...In physics, velocity is the measurement of the rate and direction of change in the position of an object...a quantity that is measured in metres per second (m/s)."

Now stop lying, goat cuker. As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

 
At 05 August, 2011 14:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, m/s2 is a constant velocity.

Meters per second squared is not m/s2.

You don't know the difference between s^2 and s2, do you?

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:16, Blogger Arcterus said...

Oh my God.

You are so fucking stupid.

It is common to write the unit for acceleration as simply m/s2. It wouldn't be acceptable if you were writing a physics paper, but it's perfectly okay in the midst of discussion as shorthand. The wikipedia article even does it. This is just your attempt to split hairs after you got revealed for how full of shit you are.

Utterfail, m/s2 is a constant velocity.

This is the second time you've claimed that this is velocity. You are, of course, full of shit. I challenge you to show me a single example of this being used to express velocity.

The only way m/s2 is used to describe velocity is when it's used to describe the exact opposite of "constant". It is used to describe the rate of change in velocity, also known as ACCELERATION.

If you just admitted you were wrong when you were proven to be so, instead of arguing like a fucking idiot and making yourself look even stupider, you'd be able to salvage what little of your reputation you already have.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

m/s2 = m/2s

That's velocity, nothing can make it an acceleration, and to claim that "s2" is an acceptable rendering of "s squared" is just ignorant.

Can YOU tell us why the NRDC's claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, goat fucker.

m/s2

read "meters per second squared."

Again, acceleration is expressed in m/s2 (meters per second squared). Conversely, velocity is a scalar value of speed and is expressed in m/s (meters per second).

Give it up, goat fucker. You're out of your league. You have no idea what you're talking about, and once again, you stand exposed as a liar, charlatan and a fraud.

Another epic FAIL.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I guess in your vast education you missed the commutative law by which s2 = 2s.

m/s2 is number of meters per 2 seconds.

It's a velocity half (1/2) the value of m/s.

Brush up on your algebra, Einstein.

 
At 05 August, 2011 15:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving he's an idiot.

That's what you wrote, goat fucker--and it's WRONG.

Rate of acceleration (g) at sea level is defined as 9.81 m/s2 (meters per second squared). IT'S A RATE--YOU FUCKING LYING COCKSUCKER, NOT A VELOCITY! Give up the obfuscation and misdirection tactics--you physics illiterate fucktard.

Another EPIC FAIL for the goat fucker.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Arcterus wrote, "...If you just admitted you were wrong when you were proven to be so, instead of arguing like a fucking idiot and making yourself look even stupider, you'd be able to salvage what little of your reputation you already have."

You'll never get the truth out of the goat fucker--let alone admit that he's wrong.

Remember, the goat fucker is a psychopath. He has no conscience and doesn't feel remorse. He's literally brain damaged, and there's no cure for psychopathy.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

I wasn't wrong. And you guys can't even cut and paste from wikipedia competently when you're trying to wax professorial.

m/s2 is meters per 2 seconds. That's a velocity not an acceleration.

m/s2 is not an acceptable rendition of meters-per-second-squared.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Get it through your thick skull, goat fucker: Acceleration is the RATE of change of velocity over time.

Keep reading that word RATE until you get it through your thick skull--you scurrilous liar.

m/s2 is read "Meters per second squared."

And I didn't cut-and-paste anything. I know EXACTLY WHAT I WROTE AND I KNOW PRECISELY WHAT I MEANT WHEN I WROTE m/s2.

End of discussion. AND ONCE AGAIN, YOU LOSE.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

I understand this just fine, UtterFail, there's no need to lecture me in stuff I've known since I was 20. It ain't rocket science.

m/s2 is a velocity.

s2 = s-squared if and only if s = 2.

I know you're not smart enough to understand this.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...m/s2 is a velocity."

False.

m/s2 is a RATE. m/s is a velocity.

Again, in terms of acceleration.

"...In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time...In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters per second squared (m/s2)."

In terms of velocity.

"...In physics, velocity is the measurement of the rate and direction of change in the position of an object...a quantity that is measured in metres per second (m/s)."

You're a psychics illiterate charlatan.

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

m/s is a velocity

therefore m/s2 is a velocity too.

meters per second squared is an acceleration.

m/s2 is meters per second squared if and only if s = 2

You must have found school very frustrating.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:31, Blogger Arcterus said...

Brian, give it up. You're reduced to saying "Nuh uh" over and over rather than making any sort of competent argument. I explained and demonstrated that m/s2 is acceptable shorthand for acceleration in casual conversation. Now you're trying to bullshit your way through this by saying m/s2 is m/2s. You just look like an idiot, and the sad thing is that you're talking as though you look intellectually superior.

It's pathetic and delusional. Just give it up.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

Arcterus, it's you who are bullshitting in trying to claim that s2 is an acceptable rendition of s squared. It is not.

 
At 05 August, 2011 16:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

Unless, and only unless, s = 2 of course.

 
At 05 August, 2011 17:13, Blogger paul w said...

It's pathetic and delusional. Just give it up

Seconded.

 
At 05 August, 2011 17:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...it's you who are bullshitting in trying to claim that s2 is an acceptable rendition of s squared. It is not."

You just used m/s2 yourself--you fucking nincompoop--when you wrote:

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving he's an idiot.

Contradicting yourself again, goat fucker? Of course you are.

 
At 05 August, 2011 18:12, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, I didn't make a fraction error. WAQo did. And he still can't see it.

No, YOU did. And YOU still can't see it.

And just so you know what I'm talking about (since you say so many stupid things it's hard to keep track of them all), I'm talking about this remark of yours:

TR, the towers contained 160,000tons of structural steel. How much steel is in that box? 10 tons? 20? Thanks for proving my point.

Which was in response to this comment of mine:

that picture of the bin in the video must be the other 0.001% of the steel.

Now quit pretending you know anything about physics and try to figure out how your "10 or 20 tons" comment tells the world you can't do sixth-grade arithmetic.

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:18, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQ,

To clarify, a low-density object--a feather, for example--does not accelerate as fast as structural steel. Why? A low-density object is light and buoyant, which makes it subject to air resistance.


GB,

I know, it's like Brian is saying that the feather is the same as structural steel.

 
At 06 August, 2011 10:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian thinks that m/s2 is velocity?

OMG! That's just shitty thinking on his part.

Meters per second squared:

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

The metre (or meter) per second squared is the unit of acceleration in the International System of Units (SI). As a derived unit it is composed from the SI base units of length, the metre, and the standard unit of time, the second. Its symbol is written in several forms as m/s2, m·s−2, or m s−2.

As acceleration, the unit is interpreted physically as change in velocity or speed per time interval, i.e. metre per second per second.


So Brian has no way of knowing that 9.81 m/s2 is just an interpretation of velocity and/or speed. Which means that it's not really free fall speed like he's claiming it is.

Brian's math sux!

 
At 07 August, 2011 09:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you are misquoting wikipedia and you don't even know it.\

Wikipedia does not say that the metre (or meter) per second squared is written as "m/s2".

My math is fine.

 
At 07 August, 2011 11:30, Blogger Triterope said...

Uh... no, it isn't.

 
At 07 August, 2011 11:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, pretend that you know what you're talking about after demonstrating that you don't know the difference between acceleration and velocity.

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving he's an idiot.

Cretin.

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, since by the commutative law s2 = 2s, m/s2 is a constant--a velocity, not an acceleration.

m/s^2 is an acceleration.

You guys have blacktop brains and you sit around here confusing each other with "facts" that aren't true.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...since by the commutative law s2 = 2s, m/s2 is a constant--a velocity, not an acceleration."

Really, goat fucker? Then why did you used m/s2 first?

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving that he's an idiot.

Source: The goat fucker talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Your claim, moreover, that "m/s2 is a velocity, not an acceleration" is FALSE.

In terms of acceleration.

"...In physics, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity over time...In SI units, acceleration is measured in meters per second squared (m/s2)."

In terms of velocity.

"...In physics, velocity is the measurement of the rate and direction of change in the position of an object...a quantity that is measured in metres per second (m/s)."

Thus, m/s2 is NOT a velocity. Velocity is measured in m/s, not m/s2.

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 12:56, Blogger Triterope said...

"Blacktop Brains" would be a good name for a punk rock band.

 
At 07 August, 2011 13:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...since by the commutative law s2 = 2s, m/s2 is a constant--a velocity, not an acceleration."

False.

PROOF:

If velocity remains constant, velocity is expressed as v = s /t, where s = linear displacement, which is measured in meters (m); t = time, which is measured in seconds (s) and v = velocity, which is expressed in meters per second (m/s).

On the other hand, if acceleration remains constant, acceleration is expressed as v = v0 + a t, where a = acceleration, which is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s2); t = time, which is measured in seconds (s) and v0 = initial velocity, which is expressed in meters per second (m/s).

As a result, I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2.

You can't?

Then STFU, goat fucker.

 
At 07 August, 2011 15:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, I didn't use m/s2 first. WAQo did. As soon as he did I pointed out his error, and you and WAQo have been spamming the board about the issue ever since.

 
At 07 August, 2011 16:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 August, 2011 16:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bullshit!

You're trying to save face after another humiliating exposure of your incompetence at physics.

You had NO objection to the use of m/s2 for meters per second squared until I pointed out--contrary to your erroneous definition--that acceleration is expressed as meters per second squared (m/s2) and that velocity is expressed in meters per second (m/s).

FACT: You used m/s2 and had no objection to it's use. You had no objection to it's use until it became necessary for you to save face by hair splitting.

But you can never change the fact that you wrote--and I quote:

"...I know what know what 9.81 m/s2 means. It is a velocity, not an acceleration." -- The goat fucker proving that he's physics illiterate.

You can run, goat fucker, BUT YOU CAN'T HIDE.

Velocity is NEVER expressed in meters per second squared (m/s2). Only acceleration can be expressed as m/s2. Velocity, as I've pointed out from the very beginning, can only be expressed as meters per second (m/s).

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 16:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Answer the question, goat fucker:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

You can't substantiate your lying assertions, goat fucker?

Then STFU.

FAIL.

 
At 07 August, 2011 17:11, Blogger Triterope said...

Hey Brian, ever going to address this comment?

TR, the towers contained 160,000tons of structural steel. How much steel is in that box? 10 tons? 20? Thanks for proving my point.

You don't even know why I'm dogging you about this, do you?

 
At 07 August, 2011 17:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, 60 m/s = 120 m/s2.

You sick old men seem to have a lot of time to sit and argue about nothing all day.

 
At 07 August, 2011 17:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...UtterFail, 60 m/s = 120 m/s2."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Utterly FALSE!

You cannot convert meters per second squared (m/s2) to meters per second (m/s)--you cretin. AGAIN, ACCELERATION IS NOT VELOCITY! You can only use the following formula to determine a value for velocity:

v = v0 + at

Hence, if the initial velocity is 60 m/s and the acceleration is 10 m/s2, the velocity after 2 seconds is calculated as follows:

60 m/s + (10 m/s2 * 2 s) =
60 m/s + 20 m/s = 80 m/s


Thus, in this case

v = 80 m/s

And that's why I make the big bucks, and you're a lowly college dropout who wears women's underwear.

And now we have more proof that you're an idiot who knows nothing about physics.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Give it up, goat fucker. You're not only a liar, you're an idiot.

FAIL

 
At 07 August, 2011 17:54, Blogger Triterope said...

And 10 tons out of 160,000 tons is more than 0.001%, Brian.

 
At 07 August, 2011 19:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prediction:

Next, the goat fucker will slither back and claim "when I wrote '60 m/s = 120 m/s2', I meant 120 meters per second times 2."

This evasion, however, is UTTERLY ridiculous. No scientist would ever express a velocity in units of "120 m/s2" when he or she can simply write "60 m/s."

Furthermore, this evasion UTTERLY fails to answer my simple question:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

Thus, once again, the goat fucker steadfastly refuses to answer my question because he knows he's lying.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 August, 2011 16:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

You guys are silly.

 
At 08 August, 2011 17:06, Blogger Triterope said...

And that's it, folks.

That's his answer.

"You guys are silly."

That's Brian Good's answer to GuitarBill's and my conclusive proofs he can't do simple math or understand the most basic physics terminology... even as he's lecturing everyone else, and mocking our educations, and saying that we're proving his point.

"You guys are silly."

That is the height of Brian Good's wit. That is the pinnacle of his ability to respond to criticsm.

"You guys are silly."

That is the last thing he says on a thread before he runs off to some new thread to start his act all over again, as though nobody had ever seen it before.

"You guys are silly."

It's ironic. This thread started with an assertion that "Truthers voices are getting louder" and ended with a Truther's voice silencing itself.

But such is the nature of Twoofers. They can only be loud until someone gets loud back at them. Then 9-11 Truth crumbles like the house of cards that it is.

"You guys are silly."

Yeah, we're silly. We're silly for still taking you seriously, or thinking that anyone else would. We're silly for thinking there's any more entertainment value to be wrung from your relentless incompetence. Yeah, we're silly, all right.

 
At 08 August, 2011 18:10, Blogger Triterope said...

And with that, I'm outta here. It's been fun, y'all, but if Pat and James are going to let Brian Good make this place his personal toilet, I can find better places to spend my time.

 
At 08 August, 2011 18:16, Blogger paul w said...

TR.

Just ignore him.

 
At 08 August, 2011 18:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

I can do simple math. For instance, I seem to be the only one around here who knows the difference between x2 and x^2.

You alter the context of what I said.

I agree, paul w, TR long ago ceased to be amusing. Ignore him.

 
At 08 August, 2011 19:26, Blogger paul w said...

TR, I enjoy this blog.

Due to my (casual) involvement with the 9-11 ‘issue’, I’ve read some interesting stuff, i.e. the NIST reports, a couple of books, many first-account commentaries from fire-fighters, other websites, etc.

It means I have some knowledge of the issue involved, but as I no longer waste my time trying to reason with truthers, I like that Pat and James take 'highlights' from the truther community, and post them here for us to see.

I also enjoy the comments.

Except, of course, those from Brian.

The moment he gets involved, each and every post becomes a useless outlet for his pathological need to...fuck, I don't actually know what the need is, but it IS pathological.

The man is clearly disturbed, and unfortunately, that means he is very, very boring; there is never anything new, just the usual broken-record of free-fall speed, symmetry, etc.

I know it’s crap, you know its crap, and so do most of the posters here.

For all I know, Brian knows it’s crap as well, but his condition will not allow him any relief.

As I like this blog, I prefer now to ignore the guy, and enjoy the antics the truthers provide.

I just wish one of ‘em would create another youtube video.

I love comedy, and that stuff is awesome.

 
At 08 August, 2011 20:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Te goat fucker squeals, "...You guys are silly."

Not half as "silly" as your attempt to convert an acceleration to a velocity. And not nearly as "silly" (read dishonest) as your feeble attempt to invent units of measurement (m/s2 as a "velocity," which is simply idiotic) as a misdirection tactic to bury your latest humiliating exposure as a physics illiterate charlatan, liar and fraud in dumbspam.

The goat fucker squeals, "...I seem to be the only one around here who knows the difference between x2 and x^2."

I know the difference. In fact, I can provide links to my own comment's from this blog where I used m/s^2 instead of m/s2. The fact remains that you used the expression m/s2 and didn't object until I pointed out that you don't know the difference between acceleration and velocity. Then, and only then, did the missing character become an issue.

FACT: Everyone understood that m/s2 reads "meters per second squared" because acceleration is ALWAYS expressed in meters per second squared. You, on the other, completely (or deliberately) overlooked the OBVIOUS. Thus, you're a physics illiterate charlatan who couldn't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass.

Pathetic.

FAIL

 
At 09 August, 2011 00:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I have no need to try to convert an acceleration to a velocity. I'll leave that to you and WAQo.

m/s2 is, was, and evermore shall be a velocity. Only idiots like you and WAQo try to make it into an acceleration.

 
At 09 August, 2011 23:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again, goat fucker, m/s2 is NOT a "velocity," as I've proven time and time again, it's acceleration.

And you still have utterly failed to answer my question:

"...I challenge you to show me one instance--just ONE!--where velocity is expressed as m/s2."

Now ignore my question again, charlatan.

And I didn't try to convert acceleration to velocity, YOU DID, ASSHOLE.

So tell us more about the convertibility of velocity to acceleration--you physics illiterate charlatan.

FAIL

 
At 10 August, 2011 00:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pffft.

 
At 10 August, 2011 10:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

You work so hard only to demonstrate your idiocy. That should be a theme in your life by now. Get wise.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home