Wednesday, September 07, 2011

The Rise of the "Truthers"

Ably covered at Slate by Jeremy Stahl.

Consider: Within hours of the planes hitting the towers, the conspiracy theories had already begun to swirl. Many used them to pin blame on their favorite pre-existing bogeyman. Days after 9/11, for example, a rumor spread that 4,000 Jews had been warned about the attacks and failed to show up for their jobs at the Twin Towers. As outlined in Part 1 of this series, this story was debunked immediately and never gained traction in the West. Career paranoiacs in America, meanwhile, were pointing the finger squarely at the U.S. government. People like libertarian radio host Alex Jones and alternative media reporter Michael Ruppert came from different ends of the political spectrum, but they both "knew" instantly that powers more diabolical than al-Qaida were behind the attacks, specifically the all-pervasive New World Order and the oil-hungry, fascistic Bush administration.
 There are four parts so far with more to come.  I particularly like this observation from Part IV :

In 2007 a conspiracist confronted Zelikow in public with the "fact" that many of the hijackers are still alive. Zelikow responded that the 9/11 Commission had looked into the claims and found nothing to them but could not fit every single debunked conspiracy theory into the final version of the report. The questioner's reply was to repeat his accusation. I had a similar experience on the same topic when questioning Griffin, who begins his book The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions with the "hijackers are still alive" theory. I sent him an email pointing out that this theory relied on discredited media reports—the "hijackers" they had found were just people with the same names as the hijackers. In response, he emailed me a chapter on the topic from one of his books and said he was too busy to discuss the issue further.
 Yep, it's either that or they just jump on to the next factoid with no acknowledgment that you debunked their supposed point. Do-Over Dylan is highlighted, as are all the major figures in the movement: Alex Jones, David Ray Griffin, Mike Ruppert, Box Boy Gage, etc.  I am looking forward to Part V, entitled Paranoia and Apostasy.

Comments open for this post.

226 Comments:

At 07 September, 2011 13:50, Blogger Media Czech said...

http://leoweekly.com/news/truther-fiction

 
At 07 September, 2011 14:00, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"There was no molten steel. The iron microspheres reported in the RJ Lee report could easily have been caused by the steelworkers using acetylene torches on the steel during the rescue operation." -Pat Curley

Why have you never provided a source for this assertion?

 
At 07 September, 2011 14:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Is [GuitarBill] trying to pass off iron oxide (from fly ash) as elemental iron again?" -- The goat fucker (i.e, his sock puppet, "Pat Cowardly.")

Why have you never provided a source for the "elemental iron" assertion, ass?

After all, it should be child's play for you to provide hyperlinks to the RJ Lee Report and the accompanying spectra to substantiate your assertion, ass.

Or, better yet, Pat can delete your comment for what it is--another attempt to hijack the thread with off-topic bullshit.

 
At 07 September, 2011 15:14, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Why don't you answer the question for Pat then, GB? Why did he never provide a source?

And why do you think iron is rust? "FE" and "FE Sphere" are pretty easy to understand, but they do appear in scientific reports, which puts you and Pat at a severe disadvantage. Your inability to understand them makes you both say some really stupid things.

 
At 07 September, 2011 15:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Don't condescend to me--you science-illiterate liar.

I know the difference between iron oxide and iron.

So where's your evidence for "elemental iron" in the dust?

Oh, that's right! You're the goat fucker, and the goat fucker NEVER provides evidence to substantiate his cockamamie bullshit.

Don't you have a defenseless woman to sexually harass--you degenerate?

 
At 07 September, 2011 17:06, Blogger paul w said...

"Facts alone are insufficient to destroy a conspiracy theory, of course, and in many ways a theory's appeal has more to do with the receptiveness of its audience than the accuracy of its details."

Great article.

Oops, I mean 'hit piece'.

 
At 07 September, 2011 17:08, Blogger paul w said...

"Its article found that all of the supposedly scientific evidence for government involvement in 9/11 was based on shoddy research and, to a large extent, manipulated and misleading argumentation."

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!

 
At 07 September, 2011 17:12, Blogger paul w said...

Truthers:

"They're not really able to listen to you," Zelikow says. "It's almost like you'll say something and then the tape will just replay its loop again."

 
At 07 September, 2011 17:16, Blogger paul w said...

"At a certain point, though, debating science and theory and ideas is an exercise in futility, because the hypotheses of conspiracy theorists are not grounded in any kind of a larger understanding of the real world.

"This sounds really mean," says Erik Sofge, a reporter on the original Popular Mechanics piece and an occasional contributor to Slate. "But really, it's like arguing over the marching speed of hobbits."

Bwahahahaha!!!

PS There is NOTHING about this on the oz truther sites, but I expect 'hit piece' to be used extensively in the next few days.

Umm. Make that decades.

 
At 07 September, 2011 18:01, Blogger Pat said...

You retards think that something cut the steel and caused the microspheres. I was stupid enough to agree and posited that it was post-collapse. Turns out we were both wrong, I no more and no less than you.

 
At 08 September, 2011 00:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't understand. So pat, are you now in the microspheres-from-fly ash camp? Is there any actual evidence that fly ash was used in the twin towers concrete?

At one time I did a calculation of the price per ton of fly ash and the price per ton of scrap iron microspheres and the useless weight of the iron microspheres in the alleged fly ash concrete. It made no sense that the iron spheres would not be extracted magnetically from the fly ash before it was added to the concrete. The iron in the fly ash was worth more than the fly ash itself.

 
At 08 September, 2011 06:44, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If you need a microscope to look at "microspheres" then you're an idiot for suggesting that there's plenty of these "microspheres" laying around when in reality there wasn't even a handful of the stuff.

 
At 08 September, 2011 09:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker--you ignorant slut.

There's no disputing the presence of fly ash in concrete. I've proven it over-and-over again.

Your "calculations" are as stupid as everything else you post to SLC. And your idiotic "calculations" prove NOTHING. Fly ash has been used in lightweight concrete for over fifty years. Fly ash is readily available, and is a byproduct of coal burning power plants. Some of the most profitable and powerful corporations in the world manage and supply fly ash to concrete foundries.

You have no idea what you're talking about, and you lie constantly.

Now go back to "truthaction" and lie your ass off with your Ford Foundation-controlled buddy, "Cosmos" (aka, "YT" or Whitey).

 
At 08 September, 2011 09:09, Blogger Pat said...

Here's an idea, Brian. You could go into business extracting iron from fly ash and with the profits from your enterprise you could pay for a new investigation. It's win-win!

 
At 08 September, 2011 09:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

From Wikipedia:

"...The ways of fly ash utilization include (approximately in order of decreasing importance):

[1] Concrete production, as a substitute material for Portland cement and sand

[2] Embankments and other structural fills (usually for road construction)

[3] Grout and Flowable fill production

[4] Waste stabilization and solidification

[5] Cement clinkers production - (as a substitute material for clay)

[a] Mine reclamation

[b] Stabilization of soft soils

[c] Road subbase construction

[6] As Aggregate substitute material (e.g. for brick production)

[7] Mineral filler in asphaltic concrete

[8] Agricultural uses: soil amendment, fertilizer, cattle feeders, soil stabilization in stock feed yards, and agricultural stakes

[9] Loose application on rivers to melt ice

[10] Loose application on roads and parking lots for ice control

[1] Other applications include cosmetics, toothpaste, kitchen counter tops, floor and ceiling tiles, bowling balls, flotation devices, stucco, utensils, tool handles, picture frames, auto bodies and boat hulls, cellular concrete, geopolymers, roofing tiles, roofing granules, decking, fireplace mantles, cinder block, PVC pipe, Structural Insulated Panels, house siding and trim, running tracks, blasting grit, recycled plastic lumber, utility poles and crossarms, railway sleepers, highway sound barriers, marine pilings, doors, window frames, scaffolding, sign posts, crypts, columns, railroad ties, vinyl flooring, paving stones, shower stalls, garage doors, park benches, landscape timbers, planters, pallet blocks, molding, mail boxes, artificial reef, binding agent, paints and undercoatings, metal castings, and filler in wood and plastic products."


You're full-of-shit, goat fucker.

Now go back to "truthaction" and lie your ass off with your Ford Foundation-controlled buddy, "Cosmos" (aka, "YT" or Whitey).

 
At 08 September, 2011 09:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Pat, for it to pay, extracting the microspheres would probably have to be done by the producer, because obviously unnecessary handling of the material would introduce prohibitive costs. It's not like you could bring in trainloads of fly ash to your backyard, dump it out on the ground, extract the iron and put it back on the train. You'd have to do it when you were already handling the stuff.

My research found that the microspheres in the fly ash were worth 8X the cost of the ash and that if fly ash was used in the WTC concrete, there would have been 10,000 tons of microspheres in it. It would have been silly to include that useless dead weight unnecessarily.

UtterBilge, you've provided no proof that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete. And no proof that, if it was used, that there were microspheres in it.

 
At 08 September, 2011 10:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, continue to lie while the evidence stares you straight in the face.

Here's the conclusive proof that the World Trade Center Tower's floor assemblies were made of lightweight concrete.

Wikipedia writes, "....The floors consisted of 4 inches (10 cm) thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck."

Source: WTC--Structural Design.

Secondary Source: NIST NCSTAR 1 (2005), p. 10.

Here's a photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000 x magnification.

Photographic source: Wikipedia: Fly ash iron-rich spheres.

As usual, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Now go back to "truthaction" and lie your ass off with your Ford Foundation-controlled buddy, "Cosmos" (aka, "YT" or Whitey).

 
At 08 September, 2011 10:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The USGS wrote, "...Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component. Portland cement particles will usually have a high Ca peak accompanied by Si and/or Al, Mg, Fe."

Fe is iron--you lying sack-of-shit.

Now go back to "truthaction" and lie your ass off with your Ford Foundation-controlled buddy, "Cosmos" (aka, "YT" or Whitey).

 
At 08 September, 2011 10:53, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Turns out we were both wrong, I no more and no less than you." (sic)
-Pat Literate

Translation: I'm as 'retarded' as those whom I accused of being 'retarded', and have not debunked anything here.

Was that so hard, fat man?

 
At 08 September, 2011 11:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Resorting to sock puppets again, goat fucker? Of course you are.

Everything Pat said about the source of iron-rich microspheres IS TRUE.

And the RJ Lee Report, which you quote mine and misrepresent, proves you're full-of-shit.

The RJ Lee Group wrote, "...Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics

• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents

• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials."


RJ Lee Report, Page 16.

The RJ Lee Group continues, "...The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash."

RJ Lee Report, Page 3

Chris Mohr wrote, "...Another possible source of iron-rich microspheres is fly ash in concrete. At the time of our debate I could not find proof of this assertion, but here it is: This is a photo and accompanying spectrum of an iron-rich microsphere in Tolk fly ash I obtained from a dust expert who has collected 400,000 dust samples from fly ash alone. This particle is an iron oxide of some type, but the particle also contains small amounts of calcium, silicon and aluminum. Fact: Since we're dealing with iron oxides, iron hydroxides, and iron eutectics, the assumption that 'iron rich' spheres must come from fire temperatures capable of melting pure iron is invalid."

Now go back to "truthaction" and lie your ass off with your Ford Foundation-controlled buddy, "Cosmos" (aka, "YT" or Whitey).

 
At 08 September, 2011 13:02, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Scientists at RJ Lee: the spheres are melted iron caused by the WTC fires.

Non-Scientist Chris Mohr: "the assumption that 'iron rich' spheres must come from fire temperatures capable of melting pure iron is invalid."

Non-scientist and Idiot GutterB: Chris Mohr is right! No really! Pretty please?

Pat Curley: *chomp* *chomp* huh? what? It was Torches!! no... uh... I mean... you're retarded!

 
At 08 September, 2011 13:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to pass off "iron-rich" as "elemental iron", asshole?

I am a scientist, liar. And, unlike you, I know how to read spectra.

So where's your evidence for the presence of "elemental iron" in the WTC dust, Pinocchio?

I won't hold my breath.

 
At 08 September, 2011 13:08, Blogger Arcterus said...

Translation: I'm as 'retarded' as those whom I accused of being 'retarded', and have not debunked anything here.

I just have to point this out, but you DO realize you just called yourself retarded, right?

 
At 08 September, 2011 13:12, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"So pat, are you now in the microspheres-from-fly ash camp? --snug.bug

Pat's hypothesis: The spheres were from fly ash in the concrete

snug.bug's hypothesis: The spheres were from steel melted by thermite planted by a team of mass homicidal elevator mechanics

Occam's Razor, anyone?

 
At 08 September, 2011 13:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Occam's Razor, anyone?"

LOL!

Are you sure that you want to give Occam's Razor to the goat fucker? After all, that's like giving a Bolo knife to a two year-old.

 
At 08 September, 2011 14:11, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Still trying to pass off "iron-rich" as "elemental iron", asshole?
-Gutter, getting frustrated and lying.

The RJ Lee report said that iron melted in the fire, and then hardened into spheres due to surface tension. GB is DESPERATELY trying to confuse the issue by saying rust is the same as the iron spheres cited in the report. The term "FE sphere" couldn't be clearer, except to Bumblebitch over here. why is that?

You're not fooling anyone, fatty

 
At 08 September, 2011 14:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not proof, goat fucker.

CITE THE RJ LEE REPORT OR SHUT UP--YOU SCURRILOUS LIAR.

 
At 08 September, 2011 15:25, Blogger paul w said...

OT:

'The Story of the FAA and NORAD Response to the September 11, 2001 Attacks'

http://wwww.rutgerslawreview.com/2011/a-new-type-of-war/

 
At 08 September, 2011 15:31, Blogger paul w said...

"America’s air defense system was unprepared for the 9/11 attacks. FAA controllers and managers and the NEADS air defenders struggled, under difficult circumstances, to improvise a homeland defense against an unprecedented challenge they had never encountered and had never trained to meet.

[At the end of the day, however, although the decisions they had made that morning ran counter to the existing training and rules, and were made under the most intense pressure, the NORAD air defenders were well aware of the historical significance of those decisions. Prepared or not, they had ushered all of us into a new era.]"

 
At 08 September, 2011 15:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you still haven't provided any proof that fly ash was used in the WTC lightweight concrete. That fly ash is used in some lightweight concrete does not mean it was used in all lightweight concrete. You seem to have problems with basic logic like that.

Also, you seem to have learned your chemistry at Wikipedia University. Cement has iron in it--so what? My blood has iron in it--that doesn't mean it has microspheres.

 
At 08 September, 2011 15:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker--you ignorant slut.

What part of my post at timestamp 08 September, 2011 10:38 do you fail to understand?

Oh, that's right! You're an habitual liar; thus, you'll never acknowledge the truth.

So goat fucker, how many times have you been arrested for aggravated homosexual assault?

And remember, cretin, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 08 September, 2011 16:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Pat Cowardly said...

"Still trying to pass off "iron-rich" as "elemental iron", asshole?
-Gutter, getting frustrated and lying.

The RJ Lee report said that iron melted in the fire, and then hardened into spheres due to surface tension. GB is DESPERATELY trying to confuse the issue by saying rust is the same as the iron spheres cited in the report. The term "FE sphere" couldn't be clearer, except to Bumblebitch over here. why is that?"

...and yet none of the scientists who put together the RJ Lee report found the presence of your neat-o iron spheres remarkable or unusual.

Only the troofers found it odd, because they need nanothermite to be in the buildings for their bunghole theory to work. Without it there's no controled demo, and they have to admit that they've been sucking their own cocks for the last ten years.

Guess what, Cosmo, you've been sucking your own cock for the last ten years.

 
At 08 September, 2011 17:49, Blogger John said...

Scientists at RJ Lee: the spheres are melted iron caused by the WTC fires.

So, uh, what's your point? If the spheres were caused by the fires, it doesn't prove inside job. Just that the spheres were caused by fire after the planes hit and not the torches that Pat said. No thermite or bombs or any of that shit.

You've been obsessing about these spheres for almost 2 years now. Seems to me that you only care about proving Pat wrong than presenting evidence.

And for the record? 10 years later, and still no new investigation. No new investigation = you lose.

 
At 08 September, 2011 17:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

GB, so still no proof for your fly ash theory? Thanks for playing!

MGF, RJ Lee found the presence of the microspheres so remarkable that they used it as a marker for WTC dust, as opposed to native dust in the buildings.

There's no need for nanothermite to generate microspheres. Ordinary thermite would suffice. Or fly ash, if GB could find some proof.

 
At 08 September, 2011 17:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

John ordinary fires don't butrn hot enough to melt steel. Not even jet fuel fires.

 
At 08 September, 2011 17:55, Blogger John said...

John ordinary fires don't butrn hot enough to melt steel. Not even jet fuel fires.

Man, that T-mobile spokesmodel is hot! Bet she could melt steel!

 
At 08 September, 2011 18:44, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

RJ Lee found the presence of the microspheres so remarkable that they used it as a marker for WTC dust, as opposed to native dust in the buildings.

Idiot. The WTC dust differed from the background dust not because of any "remarkable" constituents, but because it contained combustion-modified products, of which iron-rich microspheres were just one type among several. RJ Lee explicitly said that the spheres were expected given the intensity of the fire.

Either RJ Lee was correct and the microspheres were an expected product of the fires, or RJ Lee was wrong, in which case the spheres probably came from fly ash in the concrete. Both are infinitely more plausible than any truther theory yet propounded.

 
At 08 September, 2011 18:45, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

GB, still no proof for your fly ash theory? --snug.bug

How about some proof for those diabolical elevator repairmen you've gone on about in previous posts? You know, the people who thought it was a neat idea to burn thousands of their fellow Americans alive? Where's your evidence?

 
At 08 September, 2011 20:46, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 September, 2011 20:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

An article in Elevator World magazine tells all about the 9-month elevator renovations project.

Articles in USAToday also tell about it, and go on to say that 80 elevator mechanics on the site at the WTC violated industry norms of helping in rescue operations when they left the site. They would have known that interlock devices they installed on the elevator doors would have made it very difficult or impossible for people trapped in the cars to escape without expert help.

 
At 08 September, 2011 21:11, Blogger J Rebori said...

And of course the only possible explanation for that is a masssive government conspiracy. It couldn't be a reflexive action of 80 otherwise normal, but terrified human beings in an extraordinary situation?

 
At 08 September, 2011 21:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, they had no reason to be terrified. The fires were 80 floors above them and nobody knew the buildings were going to come down.

 
At 08 September, 2011 21:50, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

And the motive for 80 elevator mechanics to slaughter thousands of their innocent countrymen in the WTC is...? Class envy?

At least I have to hand it to snug.bug for having the guts to admit he gives any credence to such an outlandishly stupid hypothesis. Most truthtards (e.g., "Pat Cowardly") would rather keep mum.

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said the elevator mechanics slaughtered anybody. I said the same thing that USAToday said: they ran away defying the usual industry practice of rescuing trapped people. One of the industry magazines wrote something to the effect that they would have to live with the emotional scars from that day for the rest of their lives.

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:15, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

You certainly implied it:

"The core columns of the WTC were hollow box columns, and most of them could be accessed from the elevator shafts. In the 6 months before 9/11 the largest elevator renovation project in history went on there. Charges could easily be concealed inside the hollow core columns, or disguised as electrical conduit, or applied as a spray-on coating."--snug.bug

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

There were 15 miles of elevator shafts. Osama hisself could be in there and it would be assumed that he was part of the elevator renovations crew, especially if his coveralls had the Ace Elevator logo on them.

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Listen Kemosabe! I hear squirming and squealing on the horizon.

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your dinner disagreed with you?

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:50, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Are you saying that a second group of people was carrying out the largest demolition project in history at the same time the elevator mechanics were working on the largest elevator renovation project in history, and that the mechanics were independent of the conspirators despite sharing the same elevator shafts?

How likely is it that the elevator mechanics would have been oblivious to the largest demolition project in history going on in the same elevator shafts that were being renovated? And if the mechanics did notice something was amiss -- as they surely would have -- then why would they have kept quiet about it before and after 9/11? Did you even begin to think this through?

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:50, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

If you're not blaming the elevator mechanics, who are you blaming?

 
At 08 September, 2011 22:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

If I look out the window to the northeast, I can see the smoke rising from Palo Alto.

 
At 08 September, 2011 23:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, I've thought it through. There were 15 miles of elevator shafts. When Ace Elevator had completed a section, there would be no reason for them to return to that section, but anyone working in there would be assumed to be part of the Ace team. Thus the elevator renovation project provided an excellent cover for anyone spraying, welding, or just hanging around in the elevator shafts.

The reluctance of the elevator mechanics to do what you'd think anyone would do in terms of helping people get out of the elevators suggests to me that they sensed something was not right in the elevator shafts. A full-throttle investigation with subpoena power would create an environment where people could feel safe in telling what they know.

 
At 09 September, 2011 01:23, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

When Ace Elevator had completed a section, there would be no reason for them to return to that section, but anyone working in there would be assumed to be part of the Ace team

Oh come on. How on earth could the conspirators KNOW the mechanics wouldn't return? If the mechanics do happen to come back for a final check and see the charges or the welds or the Spray-On Thermite™ or the conspirators in action, then the jig is up. The impostor elevator crew carrying out the biggest demolition project in history has to somehow evade detection by the real elevator crew (and everyone else) for the entire duration of the project, or the jig is up. In other words, your theory is laughably implausible. But after 10 years your side can't come up with anything better.

Again I ask you: Who rigged the building, if not the elevator mechanics? You're still going to be stuck with the same problem of motive: Why would these workers want to mass murder their innocent countrymen?


they sensed something was not right in the elevator shafts

So 80 elevator mechanics were aware of something suspicious, but not a single one of the 80 had the good sense to notify authorities before or after the collapse? Is that really what you're going with?

 
At 09 September, 2011 01:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

They'd know if they had access to the job schedule.

Dr. Van Romero, a demolitions expert, said a few charges in key locations could bring the towers down.

Who rigged the building? That's what we need new investigations to find out.

 
At 09 September, 2011 06:50, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Job schedules are subject to change. It would never be safe for the inside jobby-jobbers to assume the elevator workers wouldn't visit one of the sabotaged shafts.

And you still haven't explained why the thermite planters and other footsoldiers of the operation would want to mass murder their fellow citizens.

"That's what we need new investigations to find out"

Yawn. After 10 years truthtards still can't come up with a plausible theory or any potential suspects for the rigging of the buildings. You just think a "new investigation" will lead to some sort of miracle.

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:30, Blogger Ian said...

There's no need for nanothermite to generate microspheres. Ordinary thermite would suffice.

Death ray beams from space would also generate microspheres. Have you looked into that possibility, Brian?

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:33, Blogger Ian said...

An article in Elevator World magazine tells all about the 9-month elevator renovations project.

Articles in USAToday also tell about it, and go on to say that 80 elevator mechanics on the site at the WTC violated industry norms of helping in rescue operations when they left the site. They would have known that interlock devices they installed on the elevator doors would have made it very difficult or impossible for people trapped in the cars to escape without expert help.


Brian, he asked for evidence of thermite used to destroy the towers, not for you to babble pointlessly about elevator repairmen. Learn to read.

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:34, Blogger Ian said...

JR, they had no reason to be terrified. The fires were 80 floors above them and nobody knew the buildings were going to come down.

Of course not. No, a 767 slamming into the building you occupy is no reason to be scared. No, what's really terrifying is being challenged to debate Willie Rodriguez, as Brian's pants-pissing when confronted on this aptly demonstrates.

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:37, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Who rigged the building? That's what we need new investigations to find out.

Snug, you used to claim no specific opinion on controlled demolition. Is this new stance the result of new information? Or do you just suffer from erratic thought processes?

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:40, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, I've thought it through.

Yes, and it's the fact that this stuff is what you come up with when you "think it through" that so aptly demonstrates your need for psychiatric care.

The reluctance of the elevator mechanics to do what you'd think anyone would do in terms of helping people get out of the elevators suggests to me that they sensed something was not right in the elevator shafts.

I love being lectured on bravery from a liar who runs squealing and crying away from an opportunity to debate Willie Rodriguez. What a big man you are, Brian! That lace thong you like to wear is even more manly!

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:41, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Van Romero, a demolitions expert, said a few charges in key locations could bring the towers down.

Did Dr. Van Romero say that this is what happened?

Dr. Oppenheimer, a nuclear weapons expert, said a 35-kt bomb could have brought every building in lower Manhattan down.

 
At 09 September, 2011 07:56, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, they had no reason to be terrified. The fires were 80 floors above them and nobody knew the buildings were going to come down."

Of course not, that must be why noone else was leaving the building.

Aircraft slamming into a building isn't commonplace, people dont react calmly and rationally. That people who were not trained may have overreacted and run away earlier than you think they should have isn't proof of anything.

 
At 09 September, 2011 08:07, Blogger J Rebori said...

"When Ace Elevator had completed a section, there would be no reason for them to return to that section, but anyone working in there would be assumed to be part of the Ace team."

So you believe the real mechanics would have never known about the demolition rigging.

"The reluctance of the elevator mechanics to do what you'd think anyone would do in terms of helping people get out of the elevators suggests to me that they sensed something was not right in the elevator shafts."

And yet in the EXACT SAME POST you believe they did know something about the demolition rigging. A diametrically opposed position.

Simply amazing.

 
At 09 September, 2011 08:34, Blogger Ian said...

And yet in the EXACT SAME POST you believe they did know something about the demolition rigging. A diametrically opposed position.

Brian does this constantly. With pretty much any issue related to 9/11, Brian will advocate contradictory positions so long as he can make an "argument" at that very moment that 9/11 was an inside job.

9/11 truth is the only thing that gives this unemployed, friendless lunatic meaning in his life, so you'll have to forgive him for his illogical babbling about it.

 
At 09 September, 2011 10:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, you can look in the hoistway and see if they're done or not. You're clutching at straws.

Maybe the thermite planters didn't know they were planting thermite. Maybe they thought it was fireproofing.

Ian, it never ceases to amaze me that you think your posts are worth writing.

RGT, I was answering MR's question, and assuming, for the sake of argument--as he was assuming for the sake of argument--that somebody rigged the building. You might as well jump all over MR and ask him "Are you saying someone rigged the building?"

JR, office workers do not have a culture of doing rescue operations. Elevator mechanics do, and these ones knew they had the specific knowledge to defeat the interlocks that they had themselves installed to prevent elevator passengers from opening the doors.

You guys always want to jump to conclusions, want to jump to "proof". First we establish the facts, later we worry about what they prove and what we can conclude.

Your claim that I am contradictory makes no logical sense.

Look, 5 is not 3, and 5 is not 6. You guys seem to think that's contradictory.

 
At 09 September, 2011 11:08, Blogger Ian said...

Maybe the thermite planters didn't know they were planting thermite. Maybe they thought it was fireproofing.

It's also possible that those who planted the micro-nukes in the towers thought they were installing electrical transformers.

 
At 09 September, 2011 11:10, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it never ceases to amaze me that you think your posts are worth writing.

Brian, responses like these just show how desperate you are to delude yourself into believing 9/11 truth. It's sad, really. Seek professional help.

 
At 09 September, 2011 11:13, Blogger Ian said...

First we establish the facts, later we worry about what they prove and what we can conclude.

Yes, the facts. Brian, I know this is hard for you to understand given that you're too mentally incompetent to mop floors, but idle speculation about spray-on nanothermite is not "facts".

Your claim that I am contradictory makes no logical sense.

Also, you understand the term "logic" about as well as you understand the term "facts". No wonder you're so confused about 9/11.

Look, 5 is not 3, and 5 is not 6. You guys seem to think that's contradictory.

See what I mean?

 
At 09 September, 2011 11:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I was answering MR's question, and assuming, for the sake of argument--as he was assuming for the sake of argument--that somebody rigged the building.

OK. Since you have difficulty distinguishing figurative speech from factual assertions, it's often necessary to verify what you're saying.

 
At 09 September, 2011 11:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Look, 5 is not 3, and 5 is not 6. You guys seem to think that's contradictory.

But 6 divided by 2 is 3, and 5 minus that *same* 2 is *also* 3. And by sheer coincidence, 5 and 6 are next to each other. And that's why we need a new investigation.

-- freshly minted 9/11 Truther, pretty sure he's onto something

 
At 09 September, 2011 12:35, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 09 September, 2011 12:37, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"Maybe they thought it was fireproofing." --snug.bug

Not long ago, when asked how the thermite survived the fires, you said:

"Charges hidden inside hollow box columns would be protected from fire and impact."

Now you're saying they thought they were installing fireproofing? INSIDE the box columns?

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

 
At 09 September, 2011 12:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Unbelievable. Just unbelievable."

Welcome the world of Brian "logic cesspool" Good.

And you guys wonder why I loathe that stupid son-of-a-bitch.

BAN HIM!

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, that nanothermite can be sprayed on is a fact.

RGT, there's nothing figurative about "Who rigged the building?" It was an assumption for the sake of argument on the part of both parties.

Your numerological coincidences have no bearing on anything.

MR, thermite sprayed inside the columns could survive fires. Thermite could be installed on the outside of the columns by workers who thought it was fireproofing. Those are facts. For you to expect all facts to match the same theory makes about as much sense as expecting all movies to be "Bucky Larson".

GooberFool, the reason you hate Brian Good is because he pwns you every time you open your yap.

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Wrong again--you stupid son-of-a-bitch.

I loathe you because you're a liar--and a bad liar at that.

And if any one of you thinks you've cornered the goat fucker by pointing out the blatant inconsistency of his argument, think again.

He'll simply contort his "argument" beyond all recognition, contradict himself again, and then call you an "idiot" because you have the temerity to reject his "unimpeachable" style of "debate" for what it is: Bullshit.

BAN HIM!

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that nanothermite can be sprayed on is a fact.

It's also a fact that the Detroit Tigers lead the AL Central. Neither of these facts have anything to do with 9/11, however.

MR, thermite sprayed inside the columns could survive fires. Thermite could be installed on the outside of the columns by workers who thought it was fireproofing. Those are facts.

No Brian, this is what normal people call "speculation". I know it's a big boy word that's hard for someone of your limited capacity for reason to grasp, but it is what it is. Nobody cares if you can't see this, since you're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.

GooberFool, the reason you hate Brian Good is because he pwns you every time you open your yap.

Poor Brian, he's just babbling incoherently now.

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:35, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Your claim that I am contradictory makes no logical sense."

Bullshit. You are trying to spin away another stupid claim you got caught making.

I just showed where, in the exact same post, you claimed that the elevator mechanics didn't say anything because they couldn't have known something had been done to the elevator shafts, and that they ran because they knew something had been done in the elevator shafts.

In simple mathematical terms, A = B and A != B can not both be true.

Which is it, did they know or not know something?

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:35, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, enough babbling about magic thermite elves. Let's talk about something else.

Where did you get the name "petgoat" from? Is "My Pet Goat" your favorite book? I figured it might be too tough a read for someone of your developmental abilities, but I suppose your mom could still read it to you.

Also, where did "punxsutawneybarney" come from? I'm guessing you were up all night sniffing glue and watching "Groundhog Day" and then a "Flintstones" marathon and decided that it would be a good name under which to post video dumbspam about Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:43, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, office workers do not have a culture of doing rescue operations. Elevator mechanics do, and these ones knew they had the specific knowledge to defeat the interlocks that they had themselves installed to prevent elevator passengers from opening the doors."

Elevator mechanics have a culture of rescuing people from trapped elevators in safe, secure buildings when the machines fail. Even then, in NYC, most elevator rescues are not the work of the mechanics, but the work of the FDNY Rescue squads. Folks like the ones who got my pregnant wife out of a stalled elevator many years before 9/11.

Especially in an emergency, FDNY doesn't want civilians hanging around when they have the equipment, and training to do that job. It simply wouldn't be a rational decision for the commander on site to make.

The actions of the mechanics proves nothing about the circumstances surrounding that day, unless you are claiming they knew the building had been rigged to collapse. But you said they couldn't have known that. Which is it?

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Because you fools misconstrue unrelated facts as an argument you confuse yourselves.

JR, I never said what you attribute to me. In simple mathematical terms, A = B and A != B can not both be true. But in real life we often have to live with the fact that maybe A = B and maybe A != B, and we have to try to consider the consequences either way.

 
At 09 September, 2011 13:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

See what I mean?

 
At 09 September, 2011 14:05, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, I never said what you attribute to me."

Bullshit.

You said exactly what I claimed, as anyone who scrolls up the page can see for themselves.

"But in real life we often have to live with the fact that maybe A = B and maybe A != B, and we have to try to consider the consequences either way."

Either the mechanics knew something was wrong and that caused them to run, or they knew of no problem but simply fled a terrifying situation in a perfectly human reaction.

It can't be both as you are trying to claim.

 
At 09 September, 2011 14:18, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug writes: "For you to expect all facts to match the same theory makes about as much sense as..."

Your facts and theories should at least be compatible. But right now your belief seems to be as follows:

The workers didn't blow the whistle because they thought they were spraying fireproofing on the outside of the columns, and the thermite survived the fires because it was on the inside of the columns.

You see the problem. You're trying to solve two problems by positing mutually incompatible theories. But that's to be expected from your kind.

 
At 09 September, 2011 14:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, look at your silly argument: FDNY doesn't want elevator mechanics who installed the interlocks on the doors "hanging around" because FDNY has the tools and the training to defeat the interlocks?

Why you should think anybody should believe your nonsense is unfathomable. You guys seem to live in a world of pure black-and-white abstraction and you somehow think it's my fault that reality doesn't fit your preconceptions.

In real life, especially in dangerous situations, people sometimes get spooked and don't know why exactly, and when you're talking about 80 individuals you're not just wrong nbut extremely unintelligent to say "it can't be both".

MR, your problem is that you are thinking I am a conspiracy theorist. I'm not. I'm a truth-seeker, a scholar, an analyst. Maybe thermite as sprayed on the outside of the columns, maybe inside, maybe not at all. Unlike some people around here, I don't pretend to know stuff I can't know.

 
At 09 September, 2011 14:41, Blogger ConsDemo said...

AL Jazeera has a piece of the twoofers. It mocks them at the end, but lets some b.s. through as well. Brian and his lovelust Carol made comments.

 
At 09 September, 2011 14:45, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"MR, your problem is that you are thinking I am a conspiracy theorist. I'm not."

There's my deep belly laugh for the day.

 
At 09 September, 2011 15:14, Blogger Ian said...

I'm not. I'm a truth-seeker, a scholar, an analyst.

No you're not. You're a hopeless lunatic who babbles endlessly about things he doesn't understand. Brian, the only thing you've accomplished on this blog is show how ignorant and insane you are. It's why, contrary to your claims of being a "scholar", you're an unemployed janitor. Real scholars have already done the work on 9/11 and surprise! none of them mentioned spray-on nanothermite.

 
At 09 September, 2011 15:16, Blogger Ian said...

Maybe thermite as sprayed on the outside of the columns, maybe inside, maybe not at all.

The answer is "not at all", Brian. See, that's what real truth-seekers, scholars, and analysts figured out while you were putting on women's underwear and posting dumbspam about Willie Rodriguez.

I don't pretend to know stuff I can't know.

Stop lying, petgoat.

 
At 09 September, 2011 15:21, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, being an anti-anti-conspiracy theorist does not make me a conspiracy theorist.

When people here say stupid things like claiming it would be impossible to plant explosives in the twin towers, I debunk them. That doesn't mean I believe there were explosives in the twin towers. That just means it's possible to have planted them. You guys all have a bad habit of either or thinking.

An example is Pat's article about Cheney. Pat seems to believe that if Cheney issued a shootdown order at 10:15 (after the hijacked planes were all downed) that this somehow contradicts the belief that he issued a stand-down order an hour earlier before flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

 
At 09 September, 2011 15:30, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

That doesn't mean I believe there were explosives in the twin towers. That just means it's possible to have planted them.

Would you say the evidence argues more strongly for or against explosives having been planted in the twin towers?

 
At 09 September, 2011 17:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

I don't know. I'm not an expert on explosives and I don't intend to become one. I also don't intend to make up my mind until I've heard both sides of the case.

I do know the official reports are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable.

 
At 09 September, 2011 17:17, Blogger Pat said...

Someday Brian will have his own chapter in Basics of Engineering. His twin contributions of Meatball on a Fork and Rake on Rake will be considered the most important discoveries of the 21st century.

 
At 09 September, 2011 17:51, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I do know the official reports are dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable.

Do you find the reports' conclusions themselves unbelievable? Or do you find the reasoning to get there faulty (i.e. they might be right but for the wrong reason)?

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

I think it's possible that the towers came down from fire. I think the reports are a blatantly dishonest snow job.

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:18, Blogger J Rebori said...

"JR, look at your silly argument: FDNY doesn't want elevator mechanics who installed the interlocks on the doors "hanging around" because FDNY has the tools and the training to defeat the interlocks? "

How is that silly? They are trained to defeat them, they are equiped to defeat them, and they are trained to provide medical aid as needed and trained to evaluate the situation conerning the risk from teh fire.

In other words, they are better qualified to cope with the entire situation than civilians with no training to cope with a fire situation.

The silly argument is yours, that the FDNY wants untrained, untested, unnecessary civilians getting in the way in a hectic, deadly, chaotic environment.

The obvious proof it would be a bad idea to keep them is the fact 80 of them ran. What if they had instead paniced while members of the FDNY had been relying on their assistance in a hazardous spot?

Seriously, your attempt to make anything out of the 80 mechanics leaving but that they were humans in a terrifying situation who ran away is completely absurd.

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:21, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Why you should think anybody should believe your nonsense is unfathomable. You guys seem to live in a world of pure black-and-white abstraction and you somehow think it's my fault that reality doesn't fit your preconceptions."

Reality fits my preconceptions just fine.

I'm not the one trying to make a case that the mechanics ran away because they knew something had been done in the shafts and that the mechanics didn't know something had been done in the shafts at the exact same time.

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:23, Blogger J Rebori said...

"In real life, especially in dangerous situations, people sometimes get spooked and don't know why exactly, and when you're talking about 80 individuals you're not just wrong nbut extremely unintelligent to say "it can't be both"."

You are teh one who claimed they ran because they knew something had been done in the shafts, not me.

Either they knew or they didn't. Which is it?

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:27, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Hey, Carol B. is having a Troofer Film Festival in Oakland:

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/politics/Bay-Area-to-Host-911-Conspiracy-Movie-Festival-129494038.html

Too bad Brian can't go. Maybe Bill can go up and get a picture with her giving her a big hug. Then he can post it here.

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:31, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Mike R, welcome to the conversation

Brian is mentally ill. It is also not clear that he has ever had a real job, so these two factors explain why he'd think elevator crews knowingly or unknowingly installed explosive in the WTC even though they were never used nor never found.

It is also entirely possible that Brian is on the CIA's payroll as a professional who's job is to undermine the anti-war movement by making them look idiotic.

Just make fun of him like we do.

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I think it's possible that the towers came down from fire. I think the reports are a blatantly dishonest snow job.

Building 7 too?

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, you make stuff up. How do you know FDNY was trained to defeat the interlocks? What makes you think they had the tools with them to do so? Doesn't the fact that so many people died trapped in elevators suggest to you that FDNY did not have the personnel, the training, the tools, or the time to do what 80 elevator mechanics could do for them?

Did you even read the USA Today article? Also, the elevator mechanics would know where they had installed interlocks, and where they had not, which would presumably save time.

Nobody knew it was a hazardous spot. The fires were 70 floors away, they were going out, and steel-frame buildings do not collapse from fire. What was terrifying about that?

In thinking that things are either known or not known you are reducing your brain to a 1-bit computer.

Suppose one of the guys hears a noise in an elevator shaft where they were done. "Who's in there?" No answer. OK, he figures it's nothing. But he mentions it at break time and another guy has a similar tale. Maybe one guy starts thinking the elevator shafts are haunted, and he quits. Everybody laughs it off. Nobody knows anything, OK?

Then comes a terrorist attack. Old information is re-evaluated. Do they know anything? No. But they've got a bad feeling about all this, and they run, and they'll have to live with it forever. Nobody knew those towers were going collapse. So why did they run?

 
At 09 September, 2011 18:45, Blogger TANSTAAFL said...

"A full-throttle investigation with subpoena power would create an environment where people could feel safe in telling what they know."

So why would they feel unsafe in "telling what they they know" if they weren't uner oath, you retarded marmoset?

 
At 09 September, 2011 19:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

The key specification was "full-throttle investigation". When you have a lot of people answering subpoenas it tends to create a "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" environment.

 
At 09 September, 2011 20:55, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Another good article on the pilots that took off from Langley in unarmed F-16s.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/f-16-pilot-was-ready-to-give-her-life-on-sept-11/2011/09/06/gIQAMpcODK_print.html

You-know-who doesn't believe this happened.

 
At 09 September, 2011 21:03, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Suppose one of the guys hears a noise in an elevator shaft where they were done. "Who's in there?" No answer. OK, he figures it's nothing. But he mentions it at break time and another guy has a similar tale. Maybe one guy starts thinking the elevator shafts are haunted, and he quits. Everybody laughs it off. Nobody knows anything, OK?"

....or maybe one of the evelator guys is sitting on a beam eating his lunch, and then an attack baboon comes from behind with a syring full of CIA mind-control serum then injects the guy. Then after he's daisy chained super-secret crypto-splosives up and down the shaft he awakes in a 73rd floor men's room with a 14-inch dildo in his ass insuring that he will never talk.

Maybe it was just a lone disgruntaled elevator-jocky who was pissed off because some asshole too the last good low-paying janitor's postiton in Palo Alto.

 
At 09 September, 2011 22:18, Blogger Ian said...

Suppose one of the guys hears a noise in an elevator shaft where they were done. "Who's in there?" No answer. OK, he figures it's nothing. But he mentions it at break time and another guy has a similar tale. Maybe one guy starts thinking the elevator shafts are haunted, and he quits. Everybody laughs it off. Nobody knows anything, OK?

Then comes a terrorist attack. Old information is re-evaluated. Do they know anything? No. But they've got a bad feeling about all this, and they run, and they'll have to live with it forever. Nobody knew those towers were going collapse. So why did they run?


Brian, what kind of drugs did you consume when you wrote this and where can I purchase some? I bet it would be really cool to listen to Pink Floyd while blazed out of my mind on whatever produced the above word salad.

 
At 09 September, 2011 22:20, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody knew it was a hazardous spot. The fires were 70 floors away, they were going out, and steel-frame buildings do not collapse from fire. What was terrifying about that?

Again, every so often, Brian posts a real gem of pure lunacy. This is one of those moments. Thanks, Brian, for never seeking psychiatric care. You're far too entertaining to lose.

 
At 09 September, 2011 22:34, Blogger Ian said...

The key specification was "full-throttle investigation". When you have a lot of people answering subpoenas it tends to create a "I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours" environment.

"I'll show you mine if you'll show me yours"...Brian, you know, the San Francisco police are going to bust you one day for exposing yourself in Golden Gate Park. I'd stop it if I were you.

 
At 10 September, 2011 06:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Nobody had any idea the towers were going to collapse. Looking up there and thinking it might collapse would be as nuts as getting on a subway and thinking it might fall off the rails.

 
At 10 September, 2011 07:01, Blogger Ian said...

Nobody had any idea the towers were going to collapse. Looking up there and thinking it might collapse would be as nuts as getting on a subway and thinking it might fall off the rails.

So why were the towers evacuated? Why even bother with sending the FDNY there since the fires were going out and the towers weren't going to collapse?

I'm sure you've thought this one through really well.

 
At 10 September, 2011 07:48, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

So why were the towers evacuated?

Because of that renovation worker who thought the elevator shafts were haunted. Everyone thought he was crazy at first, but then the attack came, and old information is re-evaluated. So the towers were evacuated. Ask snug.bug for more details.

 
At 10 September, 2011 07:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

The towers were evacuated because that's what you do when a building is on fire. The FDNY was sent in because that's what you do when a building is on fire. SOP.

 
At 10 September, 2011 08:33, Blogger Ian said...

The towers were evacuated because that's what you do when a building is on fire. The FDNY was sent in because that's what you do when a building is on fire. SOP.

Why would it be SOP to evacuate a building just because it's on fire? The fires were going out and the building couldn't collapse and the fires were 70 stories up. It seems like a needless risk of the lives of the FDNY.

Brian, I think you should start a movement to prevent firefighters from responding to fires in skyscrapers, given that fires go out and buildings don't collapse from fire.

 
At 10 September, 2011 08:40, Blogger J Rebori said...

"The towers were evacuated because that's what you do when a building is on fire. The FDNY was sent in because that's what you do when a building is on fire. SOP."

Except of course for the elevator mechanics, those you keep around. Right, snug?

Your own statement proves my point that the eelvator machanics leaving proves absolutly ZERO.

 
At 10 September, 2011 09:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, high-rise fires raise unique challenges in terms of access, commitment, and information. Robot fire extinguishers could help and, if equipped with TV cameras could stream images to firefighters on the ground. I used to work in a building that had robot window-washers. A system of external firefighting robots could be very helpful. A breeches buoy system for moving in firefighters from adjacent buildings also might improve response times.

Yes, elevator mechanics with the specific skills, tools, and in this case, specific knowledge of the interlock devices they had been installing for months could be very useful in saving lives. The fact that so many people died stuck in elevators shows that FDNY was not adequately prepared for that job. It is said that the last anyone heard of Pablo Ortiz (that's the hero whose story W-Fraud stole) he was headed up the stairs to go try to get some people out of an elevator.

I didn't say anything about proof. You guys have very child-like minds.

 
At 10 September, 2011 09:22, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't say anything about proof. You guys have very child-like minds.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Of course you didn't say anything about proof. You have no proof or even the slightest shred of evidence of the ridiculous and contradictory things you allege. You just can't go on with your life without 9/11 truth to give it meaning, so you continuously babble about this stuff.

Whatever, it provides amusement for the rest of us.

 
At 10 September, 2011 09:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

It is because you guys have minds like children and insist on leaping to conclusions based on false dichotomies that you see contradictions where there are none.

For instance, two facts: a) one can spray incendiaries or explosives inside a hollow box column and b) one can be misled into spraying incendiaries or explosives on the outside of a column, thinking it's fireproofing.

Some of you think that there's a contradiction there. There's no contradiction, only two facts.

 
At 10 September, 2011 09:54, Blogger J Rebori said...

"I didn't say anything about proof. You guys have very child-like minds."

Of course you don't say anything about proof, you have none for you suppositions.

 
At 10 September, 2011 09:58, Blogger J Rebori said...

"Some of you think that there's a contradiction there. There's no contradiction, only two facts."

But what you seem unable to grasp is that the two faacts make no sense when combined. If you can hide the mythical spray on explosive inside the columns, why are you also spraying on outside?

It isn't your individual presumed facts that you usually get wrong, it's you ridiculous combinations of those presumed facts in manners that are illogical, inefficient, and usually contradictory.

Such as claiming that the elevator mechanics fled because they knew something you also claim they couldn't know.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

And your constanbt demands for proof are very childish. Does the 9/11 Commission provide proof for its allegations? Look how many times their footnotes point to classified documents we're not allowed to see!

Does NIST provide proof for its claims? No! Their steel samples not only don't support their claims, you can make the case that they disprove them. What NIST provides is a thumb-on-the-scale computer model with all of its parameters tortured until the model shows the desired results of generating a collapse. And they still couldn't get it to come out right because it did not show the kind of collapse that actually occurred--symmetrical, total, at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity.

In WTC7 they not only don't have proof, they don't even have evidence. And they refuse to release the input parameters for their model, offering the absurd claim that to do so would jeopardize public safety.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:05, Blogger Ian said...

For instance, two facts: a) one can spray incendiaries or explosives inside a hollow box column and b) one can be misled into spraying incendiaries or explosives on the outside of a column, thinking it's fireproofing.

OK, now all we need is some evidence that this is what happened. I mean, you have plenty of evidence that this was the case at the WTC, right Brian?

And your constanbt demands for proof are very childish.

Yeah, and when a court of law demands proof of allegations against an indicted person, that's very childish too.

Does the 9/11 Commission provide proof for its allegations?

Yes.

Look how many times their footnotes point to classified documents we're not allowed to see!

Nobody cares.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:07, Blogger Ian said...

Does NIST provide proof for its claims?

Yes. Just because you're an ignorant liar who doesn't understand physics or engineering or logic doesn't change this.

Their steel samples not only don't support their claims, you can make the case that they disprove them. What NIST provides is a thumb-on-the-scale computer model with all of its parameters tortured until the model shows the desired results of generating a collapse. And they still couldn't get it to come out right because it did not show the kind of collapse that actually occurred--symmetrical, total, at 2/3 the acceleration of gravity.

See what I mean?

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, the goat fucker, who doesn't understand the basics of a UNIX shell is now qualified to determine the validity of a complex computer simulation.

Your stupidity is only exceeded by your arrogance, goat fucker.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, I know your head is like a sieve, but have you finally grasped the meaning of my comment at timestamp 08 September, 2011 10:38?

You have the manners of a guard dog, but without the utility. (I know, I know, I'm going to get angry letters. From guard dogs.)

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, the two facts don't need to be combined, and the only reason you want to combine them is because you want to allege a contradiction that is not there.

And in fact they can be combined. It's possible to use both spray-in and spray-on materials. Spray-in might have to be done secretly because it might raise suspicions. Spray-on could be done as part of normal fireproofing repair.

Your primitive insistence that the elevator mechanics must "know" is your usual silliness. They don't need to "know" to flee. "Suspect" would do just fine. Or even just "have a creepy feeling".

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:46, Blogger Ian said...

Hey Brian, you used to claim incessantly that the towers fell "essentially in free-fall". Now you're claiming they fell at 2/3 free-fall. Which one is it?

Also, you said the towers collapse was symmetric and total. Yet you also claim that the core holding up proves your "meatball on a fork" model. Again, which is it.

Also, for all your babbling about spray-on thermite, you still haven't shown any evidence that this is what happened.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, your belief that one needs a CS degree to recognize GIGO is a hoot.

NIST started with three reasonable damage estimates--light, baseline, and heavy. In WTC1 this means 1 core column severed, 3 severed, or 6 severed.

They found that the baseline damage could not generate a collapse. So they used the heavy estimate, and even then they had to tweak the parameters to maximize core damage to get it to collapse.

Engineers have long complained about NIST's refusal to provide the visualizations from the models.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, NIST says it's "essentially in free fall" (section 6.14.4). Shyam Sunder told NOVA it was free fall (9 seconds and 11 seconds).

David Chandler measured it and gets 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. Chandler seems to do better work than NIST, so I'd go with Chandler. He says that to achieve the 2/3 g fall, 90% of the structuralk resistance has to be removed.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:54, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, NIST says it's "essentially in free fall" (section 6.14.4). Shyam Sunder told NOVA it was free fall (9 seconds and 11 seconds).

So you were lying above when you claimed that the towers came down at 2/3 free fall?

Actually, you're lying here, but never mind. The point is that you're a liar.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:55, Blogger Ian said...

David Chandler measured it and gets 2/3 the acceleration of gravity. Chandler seems to do better work than NIST, so I'd go with Chandler. He says that to achieve the 2/3 g fall, 90% of the structuralk resistance has to be removed.

Nobody cares.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:55, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"For instance, two facts: a) one can spray incendiaries or explosives inside a hollow box column and b) one can be misled into spraying incendiaries or explosives on the outside of a column, thinking it's fireproofing."--snug.bug

The problem is that your theories don't work individually or in combination.

If you do (a) the workers will know they're sabotaging the building, or will at least figure it out afterwards; if you do (b) the setup will be exposed to fire and/or discovery prior to your "controlled demolition." If you do both (a) and (b), the workers will be aware of the sabotage AND your setup will be exposed to discovery/fire.

You proposed (a) as a solution to one problem and (b) as a solution to the other problem; but you have no solution for BOTH problems. The combination doesn't work.

 
At 10 September, 2011 10:56, Blogger Ian said...

Engineers have long complained about NIST's refusal to provide the visualizations from the models.

Hey, this piece of innuendo is rock-solid proof of a cover-up. After all, Brian is the chair of the engineering department at Stanford.

Oh wait, he's an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear, calls people "girls" on the internet, and lusts after Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 10 September, 2011 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're simply unqualified to determine the validity of a complex computer simulation. Add habitual lying to the mix, and your commentary is worse than worthless.

Hell, you can't tell me which computer modeling software was used by NIST to perform the simulations, let alone comment on the details of said simulations.

Computer simulation models are constantly subject to revision. If you had any experience with computer modeling--and you don't--you would know this is a fact of life.

NIST, moreover, didn't refuse to provide anything--you liar. They signed a non-disclosure agreement with the company that owns the computer models.

Get your never-ending lies straight, Pinocchio.

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, there's nothing in the elevator shaft to burn except the elevatoir cars. It's drywall and steel and fireproofed core columns.

How is somebody going to discover that the fireproofing is incendiary? Thermite is very difficult to ignite. It takes a magnesium fuse.

Right inside spray and outside spray are solutions to two different problems. But there's no reason they can't work together.

Ian, NIST's refusal to supply its visualizations is an indication of a less-than-transparent investigation.

UtterFail, the complexity of a simulation has no bearing on the validity or lack of same, of its input parameters. You have no idea how much you sound like Rob Balsamo. "I'm a pilot so I know and you don't! End of story!"

NIST refused to provide input data to support its conclusion that the girder at column 79 rocked off its seat. They said doing so would endanger public safety.

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:17, Blogger J Rebori said...

"And in fact they can be combined. It's possible to use both spray-in and spray-on materials. Spray-in might have to be done secretly because it might raise suspicions. Spray-on could be done as part of normal fireproofing repair."

YOu are desperatly spinnibng trying to avoid my basic question. Why would both be done? If, as you claim, the spray in could be successfully done in secret, why do the spray on? If is was so simply to not arouse suspicion with the spray on, why risk a slip of security and do the spray in?

Both are absurd, either one, had any real evidence of spray on explosives been found, might be plausible. Which was it?

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:20, Blogger J Rebori said...

"
Your primitive insistence that the elevator mechanics must "know" is your usual silliness. They don't need to "know" to flee. "Suspect" would do just fine. Or even just "have a creepy feeling"."


But you don't think the fact the building was burning was sufficient? They ran because they had a creepy feeling or had heard a ghost story, not because of the simple fact the building was on fire?

Occam's Razor, moron.

The fact remains, what they did proves nothing but that they were humans in a frightening situation.

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

Goat fucker, you don't know a thing about computers (as I've proven over-and-over again), let alone computer simulation.

Hell, you don't understand the internal operation of a simple UNIX shell. And now you claim to understand the details of complex computer simulation? What a joke.

And you're lying. NIST couldn't provide the models because they entered into a legally-binding non-disclosure agreement with the owner of the computer models.

Get it through your thick skull, Pinocchio.

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:40, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"How is somebody going to discover that the fireproofing is incendiary?"

Maybe from the radio receivers and wires attached to it. Did the workers spray those on too? Or were those hidden inside the column, even though the "fireproofing" was outside? I'm arguing with a lunatic.

"Thermite is very difficult to ignite. It takes a magnesium fuse."

Harrit's material ignited at a relatively low temp (430 degrees C) with no magnesium fuse. So I guess you just proved it wasn't thermite. Congratulations.

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:40, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

All right, I can't stand this f***face anymore.

On one hand I want to ignore him like I would a homeless drunk schizophrenic; on the other hand, his comments are so teasingly stupid that it's hard to just let them go.

I'll never know how the regular commenters here have endured him for as long as they have.

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'll never know how the regular commenters here have endured him for as long as they have."

LOL!

Pat, are you taking notes?

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

JR, your inability to grasp the obvious is quite baffling.

Why do both? Maybe because it can be more effective to attack a 3" slab of steel from both sides than from one side?

Redundancy is a basic feature of mission-critical apparatus. Maybe they don't know how far along the fireproofing job will be by 9/11 so they need a plan B in place?

I guess you are unaware of the red/gray chips found in the dust by the Jones-Harrit team.

The situation wasn't frightening. Nobody knew the buildings were going to fall down. For an elevator mechanic to be afraid to go in the building would be as nuts as being afraid to drive through the Lincoln Tunnel 'cause you think the roof might cave in. Are you one of those nuts who's afraid to go to the South Bronx because you think you might get shot?

UtterFail, is is often the case that people who found it necessary to work very hard to acquire some minimal competence in some arcane technical skill come to overvalue that knowledge (and Rob Balsamo is a prime example).

I don't need to know beans about the simulation to know when it's rigged. It's right there in the report. They admit it. They admit that they tweaked it until it agreed with the photo evidence and the witness reports--in other words, they tweaked it until it generated a collapse. They made the airplane tougher, they made the columns weaker, they tuned everything to get the desired result. That's not science.

Furthermore, it's pretty obvious that NIST cut off their model at collapse initiation because they could not make it collapse the way the building did--with symmetry, totality, and near-freefall speed. They said the solutions did not converge", which obviously means that every time they ran it, the thing would generate a chaotic and asymmetrical collapse.

If you're telling me why NIST can not release the models, then how does that make my statement that they refuse to release their models a lie?

 
At 10 September, 2011 12:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, the detonators wouldn't be put in place until last thing.

You guys are so good at engineering imaginary impediments it's too bad you can't put your talents to inventing something useful.

NIST has no evidence that the core columns got above 250 C. That's not enough to ignite Harrit's chips. Get it through your head, there's nothing in an elevator shaft to burn except the elevator car and the grease on the cable.

 
At 10 September, 2011 13:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

How is your statement a lie?

NIST didn't "refuse" anything. The owner of the models required that NIST enter into a legally-binding NDA as a precondition of using the simulation software. Thus, your assertion is misleading--that is, false.

And NIST didn't "tweak" the models in order to obtain the desired outcome. They modified the models because the models were found to be inadequate.

Learn to read, ass:

"...Computer simulation models are constantly subject to revision. If you had any experience with computer modeling--and you don't--you would know this is a fact of life."

In order to prove fraud, you must produce evidence that substantiates that assertion. And so far, you've presented not one shred of credible evidence to support your assertions. When will you learn that the 100% fact-free opinion of a lunatic (ie, a psychopath) and a compulsive liar is not "evidence"?

 
At 10 September, 2011 13:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, "revising" your model until it arrives at the desired outcome is inherently unscientific.

Also unscientific is the rejection of the outcome of the model, which appears to have been a chaotic, asymmetrical, and probably partial collapse instead of the orderly and rapid total collapse shown by the building.

In a few years any engineering school in the country will be able to run the sims and show exactly how NIST lied.

 
At 10 September, 2011 13:29, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"no evidence that the core columns got above 250 C."

Thermite burns at about 2500 C. If the core columns only reached 250 C, you just debunked yourself again.

 
At 10 September, 2011 13:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I didn't say anything about proof. You guys have very child-like minds."

You're the guy who thinks a trained elevator tech would write-off strange noises as being a ghost.


"How is somebody going to discover that the fireproofing is incendiary? Thermite is very difficult to ignite. It takes a magnesium fuse."

Which is why only a complete dipshit would even think it possible thermite was used to bring the towers down.

"MR, there's nothing in the elevator shaft to burn except the elevatoir cars. It's drywall and steel and fireproofed core columns. "

You forget the electrical conduit, computer networking cables (wi-fi was not wide spread in 2001)and then there was the thousands of gallons of jet-fuel.

But why let facts get in the way of your masterbatory fantasies?

 
At 10 September, 2011 13:37, Blogger Pat said...

Brian, we have another occupation for you. You can be a courage management counselor for elevator mechanics. If only they'd had you there on 9-11, countless lives could have been saved. That is, other than the lives of the elevator mechanics, who would have perished when the buildings collapsed.

 
At 10 September, 2011 13:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...UtterFail, 'revising' your model until it arrives at the desired outcome is inherently unscientific."

False.

Excuse me, cretin. Don't you dare lecture me about computers or computer modeling. I'm the expert, and I have the MSCS to prove it.

And, once again, you're wrong.

ANSYS computer modeling and simulation software, which was employed by NIST to perform the computer simulations, does NOT come with accurate models for the World Trade Center towers.

For example, the WTC floor truss assemblies were UNIQUE to that structure. As a result, new models for the floor truss assemblies were necessary in order to obtain accurate simulation results.
NIST was unable to release the new models because the new models automatically become the property of ANSYS, as the legally-binding NDA specifies.

You have no idea what you're talking about--you nut bag.

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

MR, I didn't say the core columns didn't get above 250 C. I said NIST has no evidence that they did. But of course NIST denies that the FEMA Appendix C steel samples, which show evidence of heating far above 250C and which also show a sulfidation attack consistent with a thermitic reaction. Dr. Astaneh Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center". Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Alison Geyh, and Dr. Edward Malloy also testified to molten steel.

MGF, thermite is easy to ignite with a magnesium fuse. Your persistent irrationality bodes ill for your college career, let alone a post-college science career.

Unlike you, I have seen pictures of the inside of the elevator shaft. There's none of that stuff in there, just drywall, fireproofed columns, and the elevator rails. Cables run in separate raceways. Jet fuel falls to the bottom of the shaft and burns up in less than ten minutes.

Pat, no courage was needed. Nobody knew the towers were going to come down. Your assumption that they would have died is not justified. You don't know how many elevators had trapped people in them and how long it would have taken expert elevator mechanics to free them.

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:03, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, thermite is easy to ignite with a magnesium fuse. Your persistent irrationality bodes ill for your college career, let alone a post-college science career.

Brian, what do you know about college? You're an unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in modified attack baboons. Nobody has anything to learn from you, except perhaps psychiatry students.

Pat, no courage was needed.

It's also hilarious to be lectured on courage by someone who ran away squealing and crying from the opportunity to debate Willie Rodriguez.

Anyway, Brian, you didn't answer my question above: if the collapse was symmetric and total, doesn't that disprove your "meatball on a fork" theory?

What do you think Laurie Van Auken would think if she knew you weren't answering questions?

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

"...Nobody knew the towers were going to come down."

Really No kidding?

The helicopter crews who witnessed and photographed the bowing of the perimeter columns at the point of impact predicted the collapse 30 minutes before the onset of collapse.

My wife will also testify that I predicted the towers would collapse on that fateful morning.

Your claim that no one predicted the impending collapse of the WTC towers is hogwash.

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:09, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"MR, I didn't say the core columns didn't get above 250 C. I said NIST has no evidence that they did."

Nonsense. You were trying to use the 250 deg C figure as evidence that the fires weren't hot enough to have destroyed Harrit's chips (which ignite at 430 deg C).

Your words: "NIST has no evidence that the core columns got above 250 C. That's not enough to ignite Harrit's chips."

Now you realize the implications of your argument, and you reverse course. I've had it.

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...Now you realize the implications of your argument, and you reverse course. I've had it."

And people wonder why I demand..(you know the rest).

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:13, Blogger Ian said...

And I'll once again remind everyone that it's folly to take Brian seriously. It's much easier just to taunt him.

Speaking of which, did the widows have their questions answered yet, Brian? HA HA HA HA HA HA!

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:17, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

UtterFail, "revising" your model until it arrives at the desired outcome is inherently unscientific.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. Running a model with revised parameters is just a form of experimentation.

If some of the parameters used were outside the range of plausibility, then you might have a point.

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, my wife has a question:

Do you find that you get better deals on women's underwear if you shop the sales at Victoria's Secret, Macy's or Neiman Marcus?

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:24, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

his comments are so teasingly stupid that it's hard to just let them go.

Hello Mike. That's a good way of putting it. Speaking only for myself, don't work too hard trying to set snug straight. He's not here to learn.

 
At 10 September, 2011 14:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...He's not here to learn."

True.

In fact, he's a self-admitted propagandist.

 
At 10 September, 2011 17:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, I've been doing this for years. I'm aware if the implications of my arguments because I've made most of them years before, and if people could defeat them I'd stop using them.

RGT, since NIST won't release its parameters we have no way of knowing if they're plausible or not.

I'm here to learn. Unfortunately since most of what you guys spew is stuff you invented, it's of little value, but I keep hoping.

 
At 10 September, 2011 18:32, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"I've been doing this for years. I'm aware if the implications of my arguments because I've made most of them years before, and if people could defeat them I'd stop using them."

Because you have no job due to your mental status. Your mental imparment makes you unable to reason. I suspect a bad acid trip, your rants are common to acid casualties: the government's in on it, the CIA has magical powers, the FBI is reading my mail, FEMA has plans for me...etc...

I'd post more but I heard something in the other room, and according the Brian it's probably a ghost.

 
At 10 September, 2011 18:54, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, since NIST won't release its parameters we have no way of knowing if they're plausible or not.

You've previously asserted that the parameters used were dishonest. Here, for example. I'd like to consider your viewpoint, but you keep changing it.

 
At 10 September, 2011 19:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I'd like to consider your viewpoint, but you keep changing it."

Need I remind you that an ever-shifting rational is the defining characteristic of a liar.

Why would anyone consider the viewpoint of an habitual liar?

Sorry, but that sentiment does not compute.

 
At 10 September, 2011 19:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Why would anyone consider the viewpoint of an habitual liar?

Primarily, to laugh at it. Might as well use it for something since we seem to be stuck with it.

 
At 11 September, 2011 03:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, NIST's reports show that they chose the most severe damage estimates and then tweaked the parameters beyond that to intensify core damage.

Putting your thumb on the scale to get the desired results is not honest or scientific.

GB can't even spell rationale. What a doofus.

 
At 11 September, 2011 05:52, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, NIST's reports show that they chose the most severe damage estimates and then tweaked the parameters beyond that to intensify core damage.

There's nothing wrong with revising estimates. That's what estimates are for.

You seem to be suggesting that when the model didn't work with initial guesses at damage, they should have stuck with the guesses and thrown out the model.

 
At 11 September, 2011 06:57, Blogger Ian said...

You seem to be suggesting that when the model didn't work with initial guesses at damage, they should have stuck with the guesses and thrown out the model.

No, what he's suggesting is that when the model didn't work with initial guesses, they should have thrown the model out and acted under the assumption that magic thermite elves were responsible for the building's collapse.

It's sort of like a creationist saying that if current evolutionary theory doesn't explain something, we need to throw the whole thing out and go back to God literally creating Adam and Eve.

 
At 11 September, 2011 09:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...RGT, NIST's reports show that they chose the most severe damage estimates and then tweaked the parameters beyond that to intensify core damage."

Bullshit.

Substantiate your argument, or STFU, liar.

"...Putting your thumb on the scale to get the desired results is not honest or scientific."

Says the college dropout and compulsive liar who wears women's underwear.

"...GB can't even spell rationale. What a doofus."

I know how to spell liar: Brian "goat fucker" Good.

 
At 11 September, 2011 09:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, revising estimates because the outcome of the simulation was not to your liking is circular reasoning and is not scientific.

They then threw out the results for the simulation in the time period after collapse initiation because again the results were not to their liking.

Ian, for you to compare the blatantly dishonest NIST report to the theory of evolution is very dishonest. NIST has no actual evidence to support its theory--except parts of fudged computer models.

GB, maybe you should provide some evidence for your claims or STFU.

 
At 11 September, 2011 09:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GB, maybe you should provide some evidence for your claims or STFU."

There you have it, folks.

You're a liar.

 
At 11 September, 2011 10:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, revising estimates because the outcome of the simulation was not to your liking is circular reasoning and is not scientific.

Estimates are assumptions. Refusal to alter assumptions is the real un-science.

If NIST had resorted to obviously false parameters like a six-day fire or 4.56m/s^2 GA, then you might have a point. But as it stands your criticism of NIST has no scientific basis.

 
At 11 September, 2011 10:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GB, in other words you have no evidence and must simply reiterate false claims.

In science, assumptions are altered because of evidence. The only evidence that NIST had for their assumption that fires and structural damage brought the building down was the fact that the buildings came down. When confronted with the evidence of their sims failing to collapse, instead of altering their assumption that fires and structural damage brought the buildings down (as a true scientist would) they engaged in the circular reasoning that there must have been more fire and structural damage than they thought.

We don't know what ridiculous parameters they may have imposed because they won't release them all. Secrecy is unscientific.

NIST's report is dishonest, and that's why we need new investigations we can believe.

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

I can substantiate every word I've written. For example,

[1]

"...The buildings were unlike any others previously built, both in their height and in their innovative structural features." -- McAllister, Therese (December 12, 2006), Structural engineer, NIST investigator.

[2]

"...In its investigation, NIST utilized ANSYS to model events leading up to collapse initiation..." -- Wikipedia

[3]

"...Some of the element types available in LS-DYNA: Beams (standard trusses)." -- Wikipedia

The LS-DYNA models didn't include custom floor truss assemblies, which Skilling, et al, designed for the WTC towers.

Thus, my claims are 100% substantiated.

You, on the other hand, are a liar. And you can't substantiate one iota of the crap you spew like a fire hose--you goat fucking creep.

All you have are lies and spin.

I also know how to spell lying, homosexual ass rapist: Brian "goat fucker" Good.

So goat fucker, how many times have you been arrested for aggravated homosexual assault?

 
At 11 September, 2011 10:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker: "...Hey Willie. I just shit my bed. Can I sleep with you tonight?"

Willie: "...Well, as long as you don't try anything funny."

Goat fucker: "...Do you consider aggravated homosexual assault funny?"

 
At 11 September, 2011 10:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

From the ANSYS/LS-DYNA non-disclosure agreement:

"...Recipient will not reproduce, sell, license or otherwise transfer the Program(s) to any third party and will not reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble or modify the Program(s)...Recipient acknowledges that the Program(s) contains confidential and proprietary information including trade secrets of ANSYS or its affiliates and suppliers and that any use or disclosure of the information to third parties may cause immediate or irreputable harm to ANSYS. Recipient agrees not to publish, disclose, or allow to be disclosed the Program(s), unless otherwise permitted in the Authorized Purpose, to third parties without prior written consent of ANSYS and to maintain strictly the confidentiality of the Program(s)."

Now, either substantiate your cockamamie bullshit, goat fucker, OR YOU STAND EXPOSED, ONCE AGAIN, AS A SCURRILOUS LIAR.

 
At 11 September, 2011 11:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

When confronted with the evidence of their sims failing to collapse, instead of altering their assumption that fires and structural damage brought the buildings down (as a true scientist would) they engaged in the circular reasoning that there must have been more fire and structural damage than they thought.

Ha ha. Awesome. I can't improve on that.

Tell the guys at Truthaction RGT says hello and don't get discouraged.

 
At 11 September, 2011 18:47, Blogger Ian said...

On this day, I'd like everyone to pause to remember that Brian Good is a failed janitor and liar and mentally ill cross-dressing sex stalker who has failed at everything in life.

Most notably, he has failed to get a new investigation, he has failed to get the widows questions answered, and he has failed to get Willie Rodriguez to marry him.

And I will never stop laughing at him.

 
At 11 September, 2011 19:16, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, feel free to start squealing and calling us "girls" here.

 
At 12 September, 2011 11:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, I didn't say the core columns only reached 250C. I said NIST has no samples that shows they reached higher temps. FEMA Appendix C presents samples showing much higher temps. But NIST pretends that these samples don't exist.

MGF, thermite is difficult to ignite in a fire. It's easy to ignite with magnesium. Sorry if I was unclear.

RGT, what NIST did was rig the experiment until they got the results they desired. If their results had been presented with the caveat that "We have shown that a collapse might have been generated by structural damage and fires but we can not state confidently that either the fires or the structural damage was as severe as in our model" that would be science.

That their models are presented as proof that fires and structural damage brought the towers down is absurd.

Obviously when they're saying that they truncated the model at collapse initiation because it "failed to converge" they are saying that every time they tried to model the actual collapse it generated a chaotic and asymmetrical collapse. So they threw out the results.

UtterFail, your claim that you sunstantiated the fabricated allegations of which I complained are untrue and dishonest.

Citing the ANSYS prohibitions on sharing the software as if it showed that ANSYS prohibited sharing the data is not only dishonest, but ignorant.

 
At 12 September, 2011 12:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

That their models are presented as proof that fires and structural damage brought the towers down is absurd.

Now you acknowledge that the model plausibly predicts a fire-driven collapse, and you've retreated to "but they didn't prove it wasn't secretly thermite".

Obviously when they're saying that they truncated the model at collapse initiation because it "failed to converge"

The purpose of the model was to analyze the structural failure that led to the collapse. That final 6 seconds that you've spent ten years of your life on isn't most important issue. It's like you're rejecting the autopsy because it doesn't account for the deceased's missing shoe.

Citing the ANSYS prohibitions on sharing the software as if it showed that ANSYS prohibited sharing the data is not only dishonest, but ignorant.

NIST sometimes retains a copyright in data it produces, so it can collect licensing fees later on. The data might be available through that route. Has anybody checked whether that's the case here?

I also find it odd that nobody has bothered to produce a comparable ANSYS model that refutes NIST.

 
At 12 September, 2011 12:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Seeing Brian squeal like a pig always makes me laugh.

Seriously, the only reasons why Brian is on SLC is to:

1: Annoy everyone.

2: Paint himself as a target.

3: Make believe that we "believe him".

4: Make himself out to be a "martyr" for the Truth Movement, despite being kicked out of the group for harassing, sexual stalking and abusing members.

5: Because no blog, forum, website won't take him in that he was kicked out of.

6: Make an ass out of himself.

7: Lower his self esteem.

8: Make all kinds of theories/claims without evidence, also see #1, #2 & #6.

 
At 12 September, 2011 14:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I never said NIST's model was plausible. Unless we know exactly what input parameters they used, we can't know it's plausible. The report admits that they made the plane stronger and made the columns weaker to get the results they wanted.

Nor did I state the obvious--that they didn't prove it wasn't thermite. I pointed out that the report was unscientific and dishonest. The failure to analyze the collapse is not comparable to an autopsy's failure to account for a missing shoe--it's comparable to an autopsy's failure to mention a missing head.

WAQo, you don't know what you're talking about and your claims are lies.

 
At 12 September, 2011 15:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, I don't see anything to substantiate your bullshit. Again, the opinion of a proven compulsive liar, college dropout and slimy sex stalker who wears women's underwear is NOT "evidence." Substantiate your argument, or STFU.

 
At 12 September, 2011 15:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Since your claim of my lack of credibility is based on nothing more than your own delusions about me, there's no reason for me to care about your opinion.

Unfortunately, the habit of many in this board of burying substantive work with many column inches of spam makes serious discussion here impossible.

 
At 12 September, 2011 15:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Substantiate your argument, or STFU.

 
At 12 September, 2011 15:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

In fact, you're the one who's trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in squeal spam.

You know about as much about ANSYS software and its proper use as you know about everything else--nothing.

 
At 12 September, 2011 15:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Furthermore, there's not a shred of evidence to support your thermite theory, nor is there any evidence to support the idea that explosives caused the towers to collapse.

In fact, you're the one who's working backwards and "tweaking" the data in order to fit a predetermined conclusion.

 
At 12 September, 2011 16:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, molten steel, persistent heat in the rubble piles, "evaporated" steel, the sulfidation attack, the metal pouring out of the south tower, and the red/gray chips in the dust are all evidence of thermite.

 
At 12 September, 2011 16:52, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Says the insane liar and sex stalker who wears women's underwear and refuses to substantiate his 100% fact-free argument with anything other than his worthless opinion.

Let's try it again, goat fucker: Substantiate your argument, or STFU.

The opinion of a proven compulsive liar, college dropout, and slimy sex stalker who wears women's underwear and works backward while cherry picking "evidence" to fit a predetermined conclusion is NOT "evidence."

 
At 12 September, 2011 16:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I pointed out that the report was unscientific and dishonest.

You keep claiming that, yet you've identified no shortcomings in either the conclusions or the reasoning behind them. Your criticisms are purely aesthetic.

UtterFail, molten steel, persistent heat in the rubble piles, "evaporated" steel, the sulfidation attack, the metal pouring out of the south tower, and the red/gray chips in the dust are all evidence of thermite.

Taken together, that evidence is insufficient to warrant further investigation into WTC7's collapse.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the thermite evidence was ruled out to your satisfaction, would that settle the issue of WTC7's collapse for you?

 
At 12 September, 2011 17:04, Blogger Ian said...

Unfortunately, the habit of many in this board of burying substantive work with many column inches of spam makes serious discussion here impossible.

Yes, this is just the kind of squealing I was talking about. Thanks, Brian!

UtterFail, molten steel, persistent heat in the rubble piles, "evaporated" steel, the sulfidation attack, the metal pouring out of the south tower, and the red/gray chips in the dust are all evidence of thermite.

Brian, this is not evidence of anything other than that you're an ignorant lunatic and liar. Of course, your hilarious denials of being "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance", "truebeleaguer", and "truetruther" are also evidence that you're a deranged liar too.

 
At 12 September, 2011 17:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker's arguments are nothing more than transparent nonsense, proven falsehoods, dissembling, and specious arguments. I wonder if the delusional old man doesn't have some kind of uncontrollable tic. I mean if you get your information from Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman, et al, for years, it's a wonder the bullshit packed between his ears doesn't cause his head to explode.

The goat fucker, moreover, won't substantiate his argument BECAUSE HE CAN'T SUBSTANTIATE HIS ARGUMENT. It's as simple as that.

 
At 12 September, 2011 18:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, I have pointed out many shortcomings of the NIST report, including the issues it dodged, the relevant data it ignored, its circular reasoning, and its tendency to obfuscation.

The FEMA Appendix C report concluded that further study of the "evaporated" samples was needed. NIST did not refute this claim--they simply pretended the Appendix C report did not exist.

NIST's claims about the collapse mechanism of WTC7 are so absurd on their face that thermite is a minor issue there. Why not run new computer models? NIST admitted that some of their choices in the WTC7 model were driven by their wishes to minimize computation time. In the 3 years since 2008, both computers and computer modeling software has improved. Why should we rely upon obsolete and hardware-limited models?

GutterFool, I am not going to cite page numbers of the report in this forum because clowns like you and Ian will just bury it under "Goatfucker" posts. Now I am empathic enough to understand that you might be very upset if somebody alienated from you the affections of your favorite goat, but it wasn't me. Even if I liked goats in that way, I wouldn't have anything to do with one that had been anywhere near you.

 
At 12 September, 2011 18:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...I am not going to cite page numbers of the report in this forum because clowns like you and Ian will just bury it under "Goatfucker" posts."

More dissembling, goat fucker?

You won't "cite page numbers of the report" because, as has occurred on numerous occasions, I'll instantly expose you as a quote miner and a liar.

You fool no one but yourself.

 
At 12 September, 2011 19:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, I have pointed out many shortcomings of the NIST report

They are shortcomings in your mind only. They are not legitimate criticisms.

NIST did not refute this claim--they simply pretended the Appendix C report did not exist.

The Appendix C report was immaterial. NIST was not charged with carrying out FEMA's recommendations.

NIST's claims about the collapse mechanism of WTC7 are so absurd on their face that thermite is a minor issue there.

A couple hours ago it was "maybe the results are correct, but we need to know the parameters." Now it's "whatever the parameters, the results presented are absurd." Come back when you're sober.

 
At 12 September, 2011 19:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Citing the ANSYS prohibitions on sharing the software as if it showed that ANSYS prohibited sharing the data is not only dishonest, but ignorant."

Wrong again, liar.

The LS-DYNA models are compiled, executable programs written in the C programming language. Thus, the models fall under ANSYS's legally-binding non-disclosure agreement, which states--and I quote--"[r]ecipient acknowledges that the Program(s) contains confidential and proprietary information including trade secrets of ANSYS or its affiliates and suppliers and that any use or disclosure of the information to third parties may cause immediate or irreputable harm to ANSYS. Recipient agrees not to publish, disclose, or allow to be disclosed the Program(s), unless otherwise permitted in the Authorized Purpose, to third parties without prior written consent of ANSYS and to maintain strictly the confidentiality of the Program(s)."

The non-existent "data" you whine about are useless without the models and the simulation software, and are of no use to anyone.

You're just blowing smoke and dissembling, which is SOP for an ignorant liar of your ilk.

 
At 12 September, 2011 19:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

So RGT, you don't think failure to explain the molten iron is a shortcoming? You don't think failure to explain the actual collapses is a shortcoming. NIST admitted: "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse." That's not only a shortcoming, that's a failure to fulfil the charge given them top explain how and why the buildings collapsed.

I didn't say the words you attribute to me. Try using an actual quote.

UtterFail, your inability to distinguish the program from the data only shows your ignorance. Word Perfect does not own the copyright to my novel just because they wrote the software.

You are desperately trying to create the impression that you are right, and only an idiot would believe you.

 
At 12 September, 2011 20:19, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

MR, I didn't say the core columns only reached 250C. I said NIST has no samples that shows they reached higher temps. FEMA Appendix C presents samples showing much higher temps.

Those "much higher temps" in the two FEMA samples are still too low to indicate a thermite reaction, which generates temps of about 2500 C. The writers of FEMA Appendix C estimated that the steel experienced temperatures of 1000 C for the WTC7 sample ("substantially lower than would be expected for melting this steel") and 700-800 C for the Twin Tower sample. A year later the same researchers revised the temp estimate from the WTC7 sample to between 550 and 850°C (http://www.me.wpi.edu/Images/CMS/MTE/IMSBiedermanA2.pdf).

Your thermite theory is just a fantasy.

 
At 12 September, 2011 20:20, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Dr. Astaneh Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center".

He also said:
"So the word 'melting' should not be used for girders, because there was no melting of girders."

And here's what he said about truthers:

"
All those who use my quote in this context of conspiracy theories are absolutely wrong and are doing a dis-service to the truth, the victims and their families and the humanity. No one should use that specific quote "molten metal" out of context, to indicate that I have seen molten metal and then use my good name and reputation as a researcher to conclude that there was a conspiracy.

All I tell to those who use my name is: "please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion . You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work " . But will they listen?
"

 
At 12 September, 2011 20:23, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home