Tuesday, October 25, 2011

Gage's Latest Sleight of Hand

It just goes to show how gullible the 9-11 Truthers are that Box Boy thinks he can get away with this crap.  In a recent appearance at Chico State University in California, Gage did his usual "let's see a show of hands" routine at the beginning and end of his performance.  Here are the results:


Show of hands results Before After
Believe fires brought down buildings: 34 2
Unsure: 55 17
Believe in explosive controlled demolition: 148 218
Number of people who attended presentation: 237








Now, note carefully that the 237 figure is mathematically correct; if you add up the two columns, each sums to 237.  But is it plausible that all 237 people sat there for the two-plus hours of a Richard Gage presentation?  Nobody decided to leave halfway through?

It's completely implausible, and if you think for a moment, how would you count the 218 at the end or even the 148 at the beginning who believed in controlled demolition?  Answer: You don't.  You count the people who believe in fires and who are unsure, subtract it from the total and the remainder are the CD believers.  And that's probably adequate at the beginning of the presentation.  But at the end?  Nope, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people who believe in the sane theory that fires brought down the buildings decided they were wasting their time and walked out.

197 Comments:

At 25 October, 2011 07:33, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

All this would seem to suggest is people who would go to listen to a guy speak on a subject the is under qualified to speak on are by their very nature gullible. And that truther will tend to lie about being unsure or even believing in the fact fire brought the towers down to make it seem Gage has mad some points in the end.

This sort of thing happens when creationist give talks. Creationist feel like truthers it is their religious duty to make their side look stronger.

 
At 25 October, 2011 08:46, Blogger Ian said...

Dave Kyte nailed it. Nobody shows up to a Richard Gage presentation unless they already believe what Gage is peddling. Either that, or they show up to gawk, get bored after a while, and leave.

 
At 25 October, 2011 10:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your speculations are weakening Pat's point. If nobody shows up but Gage fans, then nobody walks out. But Pat is claiming that all the official story believers are leaving.

 
At 25 October, 2011 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

There's another explanation for the "success" of Gage's dog-and-pony show: The "before" column, which consists of those people who "Believe fires brought down buildings" and "Unsure," is artificially inflated.

In essence, Ian is absolutely correct when he states, "Nobody shows up to a Richard Gage presentation unless they already believe what Gage is peddling."

The troofers merely moved 70 of the troofer true believers into the "Believe fires brought down buildings" and "Unsure" camp to inflate the "Before" column with "skeptics," and then moved them back into the "Believe in explosive controlled demolition" in the "After" column. This slight of hand makes perfect sense. And especially so when one considers that troofers--including such troofer "luminaries" as Richard Gage and Steven E. Jones--are hardly above fraud.

Three Card Monte anyone?

 
At 25 October, 2011 11:04, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Weed is cheap at Chico, beer is cheaper. It's also a business school...which explains the mess California's in.

 
At 25 October, 2011 12:06, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Nope, it's pretty obvious that a lot of people...walked out.
-Hugh Curley's Manchild

"Pretty obvious" to someone who wasn't there? Pat's speculative "research" gets more air-tight by the day. Exactly how many of the 32 walked out, Pat? Can you provide some speculative proof, too?
Good luck, lying coward.

 
At 25 October, 2011 12:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan,

Can you prove that the troofers actually made an accurate "count of hands" before and after Gage's dog-and-pony show?

Good luck, lying coward.

 
At 25 October, 2011 12:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Isn't it interesting that debunkers readily admit that we have a very low success rate when attempting to convince troofers to abandon their conspiratorial delusions; yet the troofers claim a wild success rate for their activities?

Hmmmmmmm...

If we assume a relatively constant rate of success for the troofers proselytizing efforts, isn't it logical to conclude that the polls would reflect that high success rate?

So why don't the polls reflect that success rate?

Someone is yanking our collective crank. And I'll give you one guess who that is.

 
At 25 October, 2011 12:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

The reason debunkers have a very low success rate is because they don't know what they're talking about. They pick up their talking points from propaganda websites and they don't understand the issues they're pontificating about. That's why they must rely so heavily on lies and insults.

Truthers have a good success rate because they know what they're talking about and the truth is on their side. The official story is unbeliuevable, it is full of holes, and the investigations were dishonest. That's a fact.

There haven't been any recent polls on 9/11 truth that I'm aware of.

 
At 25 October, 2011 13:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't backed your argument with so much as one fact, goat fucker.

As always, all you've given us is your 100% fact-free opinion. And your opinion isn't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post it.

So why don't the polls reflect the troofers alleged success rate?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Look on the bright side, goat fucker. At least you're consistent--consistently wrong.

 
At 25 October, 2011 13:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for proving my points, UtterFail.

 
At 25 October, 2011 13:29, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I didn't prove your point, goat fucker. You mislabeled your opinion as "fact," and I refuted your nonsense.

You, however, do have a point--on the top of your head.

 
At 25 October, 2011 13:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25 October, 2011 14:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan,

You certainly have a knack for filthy hyperbole, but you completely failed to answer my question: Can you prove that the troofers actually made an accurate "count of hands" before and after Gage's dog-and-pony show?

Replying to a legitimate question with a question isn't debate--you contemptible cretin--it's deceit.

Once again, you FAIL, ArseHooligan.

 
At 25 October, 2011 14:53, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your speculations are weakening Pat's point. If nobody shows up but Gage fans, then nobody walks out. But Pat is claiming that all the official story believers are leaving.

Brian, I know you're not very bright, but I figured someone of your level of intelligence could understand what "either that" means. I guess I overestimated your intelligence.

The reason debunkers have a very low success rate is because they don't know what they're talking about. They pick up their talking points from propaganda websites and they don't understand the issues they're pontificating about.

Brian, you repeat this dumbspam all the time. It doesn't make it true.

That's why they must rely so heavily on lies and insults.

We don't have to rely on this. I'd rather just insult you because it's fun!

Truthers have a good success rate because they know what they're talking about and the truth is on their side.

Yup, the election of President McKinney is all the proof you need.

The official story is unbeliuevable, it is full of holes, and the investigations were dishonest. That's a fact.

No, it's an opinion. It's the opinion of a liar and lunatic who was thrown out of the truth movement for being too much of a liar and lunatic for a movement of liars and lunatics to tolerate.

Congratulations, Brian. You've been banned from a movement that keeps Kevin Barrett and Bill Deagle in good standing.

There haven't been any recent polls on 9/11 truth that I'm aware of.

Why should there be? 9/11 truth is dead and the media isn't going to waste time on it. There haven't been any recent polls on whether Elvis is alive either.

 
At 25 October, 2011 15:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I doubt anybody walked out. More likely that the sane ones began to realize that they were outnumbered 4 to 1 by violent, stupid people. And kept their mouths shut.

The correct question to ask would be "How many people were skeptical of controlled demolition an hour ago but now believe it?" I doubt that's how he phrases it though.

 
At 25 October, 2011 15:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The reason debunkers have a very low success rate is because they don't know what they're talking about.... Truthers have a good success rate because they know what they're talking about and the truth is on their side.

It's all in how you measure success. The master stroke of debunking, getting a Truther to see their errors, is nearly impossible. Truthers consider nearly anything a success, e.g. handcuffing yourself to a fence and getting arrested while nobody watches.

 
At 25 October, 2011 15:35, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

FYI Brian, when Gage pulls that hands crap with a debate on going he isn't as successful; So much so he fails to produce the video of the event he planned to parade around. He was doing well with the snake oil show but was probably feeling fairly confident so he took on Mohr and fell flat on his face. Doubt he will be making that mistake again. He should follow Griffin's model and never entertain any form of criticism.

 
At 25 October, 2011 15:56, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 25 October, 2011 20:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The reason debunkers have a very low success rate is because they don't know what they're talking about. They pick up their talking points from propaganda websites ..."

Reality has a website?

"Truthers have a good success rate because they know what they're talking about and the truth is on their side."

Jamarcus Russel has a better career record than the entire troof movement. Troofer know jack shit, just because they were fucked by their daddies - and they liked it - doesn't mean they know what they're talking about.

Ten years. No hard facts of any kind. No game-changing revelations. No confessions. No photographs supporting their "evidence". No recordings. No documents.

Nothing.

All the troofers have to show for their efforts are in-fighting, do-overs, divorces, alienation from rational people, and a growing rap sheet that includes child-molestation and murder.

Brian says this is winning.

 
At 25 October, 2011 20:40, Blogger Ian said...

All the troofers have to show for their efforts are in-fighting, do-overs, divorces, alienation from rational people, and a growing rap sheet that includes child-molestation and murder.

Brian says this is winning.


Well, Carol Brouillet knows Brian well and called him "delusional" in that famous e-mail where she told him to fuck off. I can't say she was wrong about him....

 
At 25 October, 2011 22:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you make it all up. Many photos and videos support our evidence. FEMA appendix C supports our evidence. New York Times articles support our evidence. Statements by prominent scientists and academics support our evidence.

Many of the videos released by NIST in the last uear or so support our evidence.

Ian, Carol called me delusional for the same reason youse guys do. Because she was in denial. She could not deal with the fact that her friends were bigots and liars and she tried to deal with it by killing the messenger. It didn't work.

 
At 26 October, 2011 06:30, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, you make it all up. Many photos and videos support our evidence. FEMA appendix C supports our evidence. New York Times articles support our evidence. Statements by prominent scientists and academics support our evidence.

False. You have no evidence, just delusions. No wonder you're a failed janitor.

Many of the videos released by NIST in the last uear or so support our evidence.

More delusions.

Ian, Carol called me delusional for the same reason youse guys do.

Yes, you're delusional and in need of serious psychiatric treatment.

Because she was in denial. She could not deal with the fact that her friends were bigots and liars and she tried to deal with it by killing the messenger. It didn't work.

See what I mean?

 
At 26 October, 2011 06:32, Blogger Ian said...

http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood

Just look at that handsome devil! I can't believe Carol Brouillet wouldn't leave her husband for an unemployed janitor who looks like the insane homeless brother of Christopher Lloyd.

 
At 26 October, 2011 09:34, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

AllaHugh Akbar!

*stab*stab*stab*stab*stab*stab*stab*

 
At 26 October, 2011 09:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. You must think the people who read these comments are stupid. And in the case of most of those who comment here, obviously you're right, because if they had half a brain they would recognize that your unchallenged lies hurt their credibility.

 
At 26 October, 2011 10:46, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

There's nothing like googling the words "truebeleaguer brian good" and finding alot about Brian.

I mean there's alot of posts out there about Brian from other Truthers & even Brian himself.

There's alot of Truthers saying that Brian is confused, that he contradicts himself on a regular basis, that he has no defining evidence for his claims. It's F'in hilarious!

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:27, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Debunkers don’t need to have big pep rallies. What we say is so obviously true there is no reason to rehash the obvious. Truther need their little religious meeting to try and keep faith. And like all religion faith is all they have, science and reason are not their friend.

What would 9/11 debunkers do at a meeting? Maybe tell funny tales of the antics of truther clowns. If someone gave a 2 hour lecture on how the towers fell due to fire, the reaction would be “Well... DUH...” When you view is backed by facts and logic you don’t need to have it constantly reenforced.

Truthers because as people they are intellectually inferiors NEED to be constantly reprogrammed into the party line or risk having doubt kill their faith.

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:34, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

“Asperger’s Syndrome is the mildest and highest functioning end of the Autism Spectrum. Individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome experience problems in social interaction and often have restricted, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities.

These difficulties may include eye contact, facial expressions, and social gestures; poor peer relationships; lack of spontaneous sharing with others; lack of social or emotional give-and-take; preoccupation with certain interests and subjects; inflexible routines or rituals; repetitive movements.“


Sound like anyone we know?

That would explain why he has to live with mom and dad. Why a janitors is the best he can do in life. Why he is obsessed with simple but useless ideas.

9/11 truth is a way for this poor simpleton to imaging he has worth.

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:34, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Notice now-a-days that Truthers are always talking about those "1600 architects and engineers agree with us" topics?

They only have 1 thing and 1 thing only, a failed petition over @ the A&E for 9/11 Truth website. They have nothing more to go but that.

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, a lot of truthers are like you--lazy, ignorant, anxious to get to their desired conclusions, and intolerant of ambiguity. Thus they claim I contradict myself.

I don't. Perceptions of reality contradict themselves. Sometimes it's day and sometimes it's night, and idiots like you think that's a contradiction.

DK, what an inept thinker might call "obvious" is often to a more objective observer a case odf confirmation bias and/or circular reasoning.

Nobody has credibly explained how fire can bring down a building symmetrically at near-freefall acceleration. The hand-waving argument by Bazant assumes an accelerating block and suffers from circularity. "It fell because once it started to fall it didn't stop falling." Bazant doesn't explain how ot started to fall symmetrically. He just assumes that part.

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:53, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Is it true that Brian's e-mail is: snug.bug@otmail.com ??

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, a lot of truthers are like you--lazy, ignorant, anxious to get to their desired conclusions, and intolerant of ambiguity. Thus they claim I contradict myself.

You comparison of me to other Truthers is like your failed comparison of another building with the same layout & designs of WTC 1, 2, & 7. Keep on whining!

I don't. Perceptions of reality contradict themselves. Sometimes it's day and sometimes it's night, and idiots like you think that's a contradiction.

And tis "idiot" made you eat your own words in another thread. Can't handle what you said?

Nobody has credibly explained how fire can bring down a building symmetrically at near-freefall acceleration.

So you think that fire can't bring down a wooden framed house because you think that it can't cause a 110 story building to collapse? Elaborate on this issue, please, I want to hear how you're a firefighter and know all about fire.

I see you love shifting the goal posts. How exciting!

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Snug.Bug@hotmail.com*

 
At 26 October, 2011 11:59, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 October, 2011 12:00, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

“DK, what an inept thinker might call "obvious" is often to a more objective observer a case odf confirmation bias and/or circular reasoning.“

And yet I am far smarter than you, why is that?

Look, we know you suffer from some mental deficiency, debunkers see that, and even truthers see that. Carol saw that, that is why she wanted to have nothing to do with you. Women and a sense that drives them always from people like you who has a inferior genetic makeup.

 
At 26 October, 2011 12:02, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Nobody has credibly explained how fire can bring down a building symmetrically at near-freefall acceleration.

Sure they can, just because a mental midget like you can’t understand doesn’t make the fact it happened go away.

 
At 26 October, 2011 12:07, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

You see Brian, because of your mental handicap lots of things don’t make sense to YOU. And the fact you still have the mental capacity of a child at your age shows you will never get it the same we of normal intelligence do.

Its sad but, you were dealt a crappy hand in life.

 
At 26 October, 2011 12:20, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I noticed recently that Brian likes to delete his posts sometimes. Perhaps he's having second thoughts about messing with the wrong person or that he's being guilty of lying to us after all these years?

 
At 26 October, 2011 12:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian just got an ass whooping from me over @ the "They Really Are After You..." thread.

He came to this thread to lick his wounds.

 
At 26 October, 2011 13:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo I can handle what I said. I have problems with your miscomprehension of what some anonymous internet person has said.
A fire is not going to bring down a house symmetrically.

DK, thanks for proving my point. The 50 structural engineers, 40high-rise architects, and 42 PhD engineers at AE911Truth are not mental midgets.

 
At 26 October, 2011 13:11, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie and lie. You must think the people who read these comments are stupid. And in the case of most of those who comment here, obviously you're right, because if they had half a brain they would recognize that your unchallenged lies hurt their credibility.

Poor Brian. I've pwn3d him again and all he can do is squeal!

Perceptions of reality contradict themselves. Sometimes it's day and sometimes it's night, and idiots like you think that's a contradiction.

Squeal squeal squeal! No, Brian, nobody thinks day and night are contradictions. However, we do think claims that thermite brought down the towers followed by claims that explosives brought down the towers are contradictions. And you babble about both all the time.

 
At 26 October, 2011 13:15, Blogger Ian said...

DK, thanks for proving my point. The 50 structural engineers, 40high-rise architects, and 42 PhD engineers at AE911Truth are not mental midgets.

Brian, you have no point. There is nobody in AE911Truth except Richard Gage, who is quite obviously a mental midget.

A fire is not going to bring down a house symmetrically.

Brian, babbling about houses when talking about 9/11 is rather pointless, don't you think?

Also, your odd obsession with symmetry is even weirder than your lust for Willie Rodriguez. Maybe it's a product of your mental illness, but I have no idea what it has to do with 9/11.

 
At 26 October, 2011 13:34, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, enough about 9/11, Brian. It's boring. Let's talk about something else.

Do you like The Decemberists? They're pretty good. I think "Castaways and Cutouts" is one of the best records of the last decade. "The Crane Wife" has great parts but is uneven. "The King is Dead" is very good, even if it sounds a bit too much like Neil Young or REM at times. I'm not sure about "Picaresque" yet, as I only recently bought it.

 
At 26 October, 2011 13:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

A fire is not going to bring down a house symmetrically.

And compare it with what you claimed:

Nobody has credibly explained how fire can bring down a building symmetrically at near-freefall acceleration.

The answer is: CONTRADICTION!

 
At 26 October, 2011 13:50, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Those Truthers were right, Brian does like to make contradictory claims all the time.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:09, Blogger Billman said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:09, Blogger Billman said...

"The reason debunkers have a very low success rate is"

Wait.. what? Did "9/11 was an inside job" get proven or go mainstream.. EVER?

Does the Truth movement even exist anymore?

No? Oh, then this thing Brian said is bullshit.

Sorry buddy, but our "success rate" is apparently %100.. and troofers have never proved anything, except to themselves and their own delusions.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Billman, truthers have proven that the official story is full of holes, full of contradictions, and unscientific.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, lousy poetry is not improved by lousy music, and vice versa.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:37, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Billman, truthers have proven that the official story is full of holes, full of contradictions, and unscientific.

But then again your Truther "friends" say quite to opposite of what you're claiming. They say you have nothing to go on, that you attacked them without reason.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

None of my friends accuse me of attacking people without reason.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:48, Blogger Ian said...

Billman, truthers have proven that the official story is full of holes, full of contradictions, and unscientific.

You have a strange definition of the word "proven", Brian.

Ian, lousy poetry is not improved by lousy music, and vice versa.

Poor Brian. He listens to "California One" and it makes reference to driving down to Big Sur with a lover, and Brian is too poor to afford a car, and can't spend more than 15 minutes with a woman before the pepper spray comes out, so I could see why he's so bitter about those who make music for a living.

None of my friends accuse me of attacking people without reason.

Well, that would be because you have no friends, Brian.

 
At 26 October, 2011 14:51, Blogger Ian said...

Of course, I don't think Brian has any idea who the Decemberists are. He still thinks it's 1968, which is probably the year he did one too many hits of acid and destroyed his brain.

 
At 26 October, 2011 15:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Billman, truthers have proven that the official story is full of holes, full of contradictions, and unscientific.

How do you account for the failure of something as important as 9/11 Truth to take hold in the public consciousness?

 
At 26 October, 2011 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

If it had, how would you know?

 
At 26 October, 2011 16:12, Blogger Ian said...

If it had, how would you know?

Well, for one, normal people would have joined the movement and politicians would be addressing the movement. Just look at the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street for examples of movements that have taken hold in the public consciousness.

Instead, the truth "movement" is just a handful of people like a certain failed janitor and liar who wears women's underwear and stalks Carol Brouillet and was banned from wikipedia.

 
At 26 October, 2011 16:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

On Planet Ian, maybe. On Planet Earth, 70% of Americans suspect there was a plot to kill JFK, but I don't see any politicians calling for new investigations.

You are very confused. If you weren't positively disposed toward OWS you would be claiming that there are only 30,000 or so OWSers, less than 1/2 a football stadium full, so therefore 300,000,000 Americans must be anti-OWSers. You'd also be pointing out that the $300,000 OWS has raised won't even buy a quarter of a condo in Manhattan.

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

On Planet Ian, maybe. On Planet Earth, 70% of Americans suspect there was a plot to kill JFK, but I don't see any politicians calling for new investigations.

Yes, there was a plot to kill JFK. Lee Harvey Oswald plotted to kill JFK and succeeded.

But by all means, keep babbling about ancient history. I bet 70% Austrians think there was a plot to kill Archduke Franz Ferdinand. I bet 70% of Italians think there was a plot to kill Julius Caesar.

Back on topic, we're talking about 9/11 "truth", which is a tiny collection of liars and lunatics that is ignored by everyone except those (like me) who enjoy mocking it.

You are very confused. If you weren't positively disposed toward OWS you would be claiming that there are only 30,000 or so OWSers, less than 1/2 a football stadium full, so therefore 300,000,000 Americans must be anti-OWSers. You'd also be pointing out that the $300,000 OWS has raised won't even buy a quarter of a condo in Manhattan.

Wait, I'm positively disposed towards OSW? I thought I was a Bushbot?

Anyway, I said that the truth movement only has liars and lunatics, and then you go post the above dumbspam confirming my point. Thanks, Brian. You're just so easy to pwn.

 
At 26 October, 2011 17:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

70% of Americans suspect that more than one person was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. And yet we don't see any politicians calling for new investigations. It's not ancient history. It continues to have ite effects today. Many Obama apologists believe that his life has been threatened by the people who killed Kennedy, and that's why he's such a tool of the 1%.

I never said you were a Bushbot, just as I never said you were a girl. You're just not very smart, that's all. Like UtterFail you've worked very hard to get where you are and you're not bright enough to realize it's nowhere.

 
At 26 October, 2011 21:07, Blogger Ian said...

70% of Americans suspect that more than one person was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy.

Nobody cares. Kennedy has been worm food for almost 50 years now. Try living in this century, OK?

It's not ancient history. It continues to have ite effects today.

It's ancient history. You're a pathetic burnt out old man who doesn't know what decade it is. You have grasp of reality.

Many Obama apologists believe that his life has been threatened by the people who killed Kennedy, and that's why he's such a tool of the 1%.

Brian, I happen to know that they found a dead modified attack baboon inside Air Force One, so you might be right about this. However, those who killed Kennedy were fond of attack orangutans, so it's probably a different group.

I never said you were a Bushbot, just as I never said you were a girl.

False and false.

You're just not very smart, that's all. Like UtterFail you've worked very hard to get where you are and you're not bright enough to realize it's nowhere.

My, such squealing!

 
At 26 October, 2011 21:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you seem to have real difficulties in distinguishing the point from the subject, and the map from the territory. The point is not Kennedy, who would surely be dead by now anyway.

The point is that 70% of the American people think it likely that the people who killed him got away with it. The point is also that your metric, the participation or lack thereof of politicians in seeking new investigations, is thus bogus.

 
At 26 October, 2011 21:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you seem to have real difficulties in distinguishing the point from the subject, and the map from the territory. The point is not Kennedy, who would surely be dead by now anyway.

Kennedy would surely be dead? My grandmother is still alive, and she was born 2 years before him. You make up your facts.

The point is that 70% of the American people think it likely that the people who killed him got away with it. The point is also that your metric, the participation or lack thereof of politicians in seeking new investigations, is thus bogus.

Brian, 70% of Austrians probably think those who murdered Archduke Franz Ferdinand got away with it. You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 26 October, 2011 21:45, Blogger Ian said...

Anyway, Brian, I'm not sure how endless dumbspam about Kennedy is supposed to get the widows questions answered, but feel free to keep babbling about it. It's very entertaining.

 
At 27 October, 2011 07:11, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

None of my friends accuse me of attacking people without reason.

How about Craig Ranke, Willie Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, Carol Brouillett & the Truthers over @ truthaction.com?

 
At 27 October, 2011 07:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Jesus had Judas, Caesar had Brutus, Lincoln had Booth, Ferdinand had Sarajevo & Kennedy had O. Lee.

One person with one motive to "decapitate" a Government & failed.

All it takes is 1 person to change history. There's no conspiracy there!

 
At 27 October, 2011 08:20, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

The point is that 70% of the American people think it likely that the people who killed him got away with it.

Sounds like the same present who believe in astrology or ghost. When it come to things like JFK these people easily change their minds when confronted with facts and not the popular Pablum. Same with people who make 9/11 inside job noises. When someone like me comes along and punches hole in what they believed most will admit their don’t know as much as they should. Biggest thing I get from them is “Oh, I didn’t know that” Once they do know they start to divest themselves of conspiracy theorist thinking.

 
At 27 October, 2011 08:26, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

There are a lot of things that are popular legend that are 100% bull. That is why scientific facts are not based on peoples opinions. Evolution is fact. Oswald shot JFK, No frozen aliens at Roswell. Truthers are idiots and will be for ever.

 
At 27 October, 2011 08:27, Blogger Ian said...

When someone like me comes along and punches hole in what they believed most will admit their don’t know as much as they should. Biggest thing I get from them is “Oh, I didn’t know that” Once they do know they start to divest themselves of conspiracy theorist thinking.

Right, which is why that leaves you with nothing but a small group of hardcore lunatics. You know, failed janitors who wear women's underwear and post dumbspam all over the internet 18 hours a day and call people "girls" when they get pissed off.

 
At 27 October, 2011 08:30, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I'm getting sick of these Truthers saying that I'm not a firefighter, that I'm a "fake".

I've been through fire training, I know what fire is capable of doing & I have my certificates proving that I am a firefighter.

Next it'll be my blood these freaks will want to see if i'm human.

 
At 27 October, 2011 08:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"70% of Americans suspect that more than one person was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy. And yet we don't see any politicians calling for new investigations."

I used to be one of those 70% so let me start off with this. Those people need to pull their heads out of their collective asses and smell reality.

There was a second house panel that looked into the JFK assassination, they concluded a likely conspiracy, based on bad evidence. Either way the MAerican people got their second investigation, yet the consiracy rubes just keep moving the goal posts.

Those 70% assume that the consiracy dorks know what they're talking about. They don't. They feed off eachother to build bigger lies.

The biggest lie? The shots were impossible to make from Oswald's position in the Depository. That lie only works if one never goes to Dallas and visits the site. I did and it's just an easy shot to make. The conspiracy falls apart from there. No second gunman, no grand conspiracy.

 
At 27 October, 2011 08:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, since you're a liar you're a fake, and it doesn't matter whether you're a firefighter or not. When you came on this board you claimed you were FDNY. Tha4 wasn't true. You're a fake.

 
At 27 October, 2011 09:01, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, since you're a liar you're a fake, and it doesn't matter whether you're a firefighter or not. When you came on this board you claimed you were FDNY. Tha4 wasn't true. You're a fake.

And you keep on forgetting that I have a friend in the FDNY. I never made such a claim that I was personally connected with FDNY, I never admitted that I was with the FDNY.

Tell you what Brian, I'll give you time to find a statement I made where I claimed that I was with the FDNY. If you can't do that then it's you that's lying about me.

Tick tock, tick tock.

 
At 27 October, 2011 09:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

If Brian can't research my posts', then it's clear that he never made any type of research about 9/11.

I challenge Brian to show me my own post where I claimed to be with the FDNY. Failure to do so will prove that he's guilty of lying about ALL firefighters.

 
At 27 October, 2011 09:45, Blogger Ian said...

WAQo, since you're a liar you're a fake, and it doesn't matter whether you're a firefighter or not. When you came on this board you claimed you were FDNY. Tha4 wasn't true. You're a fake.

Brian knows he lost, so all he can do is squeal about how people are liars. That's his escape route from having to deal with being pwn3d every day.

 
At 27 October, 2011 10:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, you claimed you were FDNY on December 15, 2010 at 10:52 in the "Explosive Theory" thread. You said your qualifications have been "verified by my fellow brothers in arms, the FDNY. If you're still calling me a 'liar', then in ann (sic) seriousness & reality, you're calling the FDNY 'liars'."

Then at 11:17 you wrote this:

What would you say if I told you that I'm a FDNY firefighter?

Then you'd be calling that FDNY "liars" when you're calling me a "liar". Therefore you're the one that would be a liar because the FDNY can't lie to the fire investigator or the to Mayor.

So if you call me a "liar", one more time, consider that you're calling the FDNY "liars".


http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=27396589&postID=8653072593984503182

See, this is why some of us are better equipped to understand 9/11 than you are. Because we have the skills to uncover the facts--and you don't. All you know how to do is go to some propaganda website and parrot talking points you don't even understand.

 
At 27 October, 2011 10:18, Blogger Ian said...

Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!

 
At 27 October, 2011 10:32, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Here's the WHOLE psot that wasn't quote mined:

"At 15 December, 2010 10:52, WhyAskQuestions said...

"WAQo 9:53, the claimed qualifications of an anonymous internet poster like yourself are meaningless because they can't be verified."

Brian,

But yet they are verified by my fellow brothers in arms, the FDNY.

If you're still calling me a "liar", then in ann seriousness & reality, you're calling the FDNY "liars".

"Even if they were genuine, they're an irrelevant argument from authority unless you substantiate your claims. When you show your ignorance and when you lie, you blow your credibility"

You have no qualifications to make such an arguement against me. You'd have to be a fellow firefighter to prove me wrong. But you're not a firefighter so it's your credibility that's blown.

"The problem with your narrative of the collapse is that there is no physical evidence to support it."

Actually fire is a very real & dangerous form of physcial evidence. You should hold your hand over your stove & burn it, see if fire isn't "real".

"I don't need to be a structural engineer."

You certainly don't need to proetend to be one. In the real world we call that falsification of credentuals.

"WAQo 9:58. Your belief that I should be impressed by the opinions of an anonymous internet poster at the David Icke forum is just wow loony."

That "loony" just proved you wrong about explosives being used on 9/11. Stop being such a big crybaby!"


I quote: "But yet they are verified by my fellow brothers in arms, the FDNY."

MY FELLOW BROTHERS IN ARMS, THE FDNY!

See, I didn't claim that I was in the FDNY and Brian just quote mined my entire post.

 
At 27 October, 2011 10:45, Blogger Ian said...

Wow, Brian quote mining? He never does that! Everything he quotes from Dr. Sunder and Dr. Asanteh-Asl and the NIST report is the full quote, leaving everything in context.

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

LOL @ Ian.

Brian quote mines, naw he's just copying and pasting and leaving out the important words in the whole quote.

He's a slicing and dicing machine when it comes to quotes.

 
At 27 October, 2011 10:51, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

See, this is why some of us are better equipped to understand 9/11 than you are. Because we have the skills to uncover the facts--and you don't. All you know how to do is go to some propaganda website and parrot talking points you don't even understand.

That's a nice piggy, roll around in the mud and get yourself dirty. That's a good pig!

 
At 27 October, 2011 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, any idiot can make the specious claim that any quote is taken out of context. You can always point out that I didn't quote the entire paragraph, the entire post, the entire thread, or the entire book. And then you can post a bunch of spam that nobody is going to read. And you can create the illusion that your lie has some validity. It's a transparent Bushbot ploy. You are a liar.

You implied that you were FDNY. And later you tried to cover over your lie by claiming that the posts in question had been written by your friend who was FDNY. And clearly that claim was a lie too.

You guys really suck. You can't even lie competently.

 
At 27 October, 2011 11:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, any idiot can make the specious claim that any quote is taken out of context.

So you're calling yourself an idiot then?

You can always point out that I didn't quote the entire paragraph, the entire post, the entire thread, or the entire book.

You never fully quote anything cause you lie all the time about it.

And then you can post a bunch of spam that nobody is going to read.

Everyone reads the labels on a can of Spam, except you cause you're illiterate.

And you can create the illusion that your lie has some validity. It's a transparent Bushbot ploy. You are a liar.

Oh really, and this coming fom a fucking crack addict who can't even make one coherent theory because he's too busy making himself look like an ass in front of everyone on this blog?

FYI: I heard that Bush left office and its now Obama.

Keep on squawking like a parrot by saying "You're a liar."

Put your money where your mouth is to prove that all of us on here are "liars". Otherwise STFU!

 
At 27 October, 2011 11:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

You implied that you were FDNY. And later you tried to cover over your lie by claiming that the posts in question had been written by your friend who was FDNY. And clearly that claim was a lie too.

You failed to prove that I'm with the FDNY cause you quote mined my post.

You guys really suck. You can't even lie competently.

So says the crack addict who clearly looks like he's on substance abuse.

 
At 27 October, 2011 11:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I bet that Brian, as a baby, joined the Crack Baby Olympics.

 
At 27 October, 2011 11:52, Blogger Cinderella said...

thanks for the international news.
Bollywood Movies

 
At 27 October, 2011 12:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

Look at WAQo, trying to spam away his shame after I showed that he lied, I showed where he lied, and I showed that he lied about the lie.

 
At 27 October, 2011 12:14, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Nobody has credibly explained how fire can bring down a building symmetrically at near-freefall acceleration"

Dr. Sunder did.

"None of my friends accuse me of attacking people without reason."

You have no friends, and the voices in you head don't count.

"Billman, truthers have proven that the official story is full of holes, full of contradictions, and unscientific."

So are Real Numbers, Brian. Pi lies between the number 3 and the number 4 on a numberline. If we plat your game then we can't count to four until we follow Pi to it's conclusion.

Sometimes stuff doesn't add up...but it does.

 
At 27 October, 2011 12:21, Blogger Ian said...

Look at WAQo, trying to spam away his shame after I showed that he lied, I showed where he lied, and I showed that he lied about the lie.

Brian, all this babbling about "lies" isn't going to get the widows questions answered or get a new investigation. C'mon, buddy, focus!

 
At 27 October, 2011 12:33, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Look at WAQo, trying to spam away his shame after I showed that he lied, I showed where he lied, and I showed that he lied about the lie.

You're trying to prove that this statement is a "lie"?:

But yet they are verified by my fellow brothers in arms, the FDNY.

No where did I say about myself being with the FDNY.

You really are trying to prove something that clearly isn't there. Epic fail man!

 
At 27 October, 2011 12:50, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

So did Pat ever prove that he didn't sodomize his father with a knife in front of the true Scotsmen that he saw leave Gage's lecture?

No?

GB must be so disappointed...

 
At 27 October, 2011 13:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

So WAQo, what would you say if I told you I have a doctorate in crystallography, and my colleagues at NASA will verify my credentials? If you call me a liar, you're calling my NASA colleagues liars.

So that's not implying that I have a PhD and I work at NASA?

 
At 27 October, 2011 13:24, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Someone contact Ryan Mackey, Brian's having delusionas of being a NASA engineer.

 
At 27 October, 2011 13:31, Blogger Ian said...

Someone contact Ryan Mackey, Brian's having delusionas of being a NASA engineer.

Actually, that's nowhere near as delusional as his belief that "meatball on a fork" will make it into a journal of engineering, or that the government will do a new investigation of 9/11, or that a majority of Americans are truthers.

 
At 27 October, 2011 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

No, WAQo, that was my friend from NASA who wrote that post, not me--you liar.

Ian I have never had any ambitions to publish in an engineering journal, and I don't know how you've concocted the notion that I did. Fantasizing about me seems to be your favorite pastime.

 
At 27 October, 2011 13:58, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No, WAQo, that was my friend from NASA who wrote that post, not me--you liar.

Whatever Jason "I'm not caling anyone a liar, you are a liar." Bermas Jr.

Just do me a favor Brian, eat the corn outta my shit, cause it looks like you're hungry.

 
At 27 October, 2011 14:09, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

“No, WAQo, that was my friend from NASA who wrote that post, not me--you liar.“

AHH, that’s cute, Brian’s got an imaginary astronaut friend. Is his name Buzz?

 
At 27 October, 2011 14:12, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

What would you say if I told you that I'm a FDNY firefighter?

You can’t even hold down a janitorial job.

 
At 27 October, 2011 14:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Ha ha, somebody has kindly posted a photo of Pat Cowardly. He has a big mouth for such a sawed-off little prick.

 
At 27 October, 2011 14:29, Blogger Ian said...

Ian I have never had any ambitions to publish in an engineering journal, and I don't know how you've concocted the notion that I did.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x205525

"I have reason to believe that one of these days you're going to
see some diagrams from more authoritative sources that look
something like these."


What are those "more authoritative sources" if not engineering journals? Maybe you didn't expect to have your scribbles published yourself, but you expected another scientist to publish something like your scribbles.

And that leads to the hilarious post at the end of the thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=205525&mesg_id=235514

 
At 27 October, 2011 14:37, Blogger Ian said...

Heh, if you scroll down to the bottom of Brian's thread, you see that Democratic Underground is yet ANOTHER place where he was banned.

This appears to be the only place where Brian can still post. No wonder he posts so much dumbspam here.

 
At 27 October, 2011 14:43, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

AHH, that’s cute, Brian’s got an imaginary astronaut friend. Is his name Buzz?

Dave,

I think his names LightBeer, I mean Lightbulb, I mean Lightbeard, I mean Goodyear, I mean Lightyear.

Don't even ask where Woody's at. LOL!

 
At 27 October, 2011 16:22, Blogger Billman said...

Ha ha, somebody has kindly posted a photo of Pat Cowardly. He has a big mouth for such a sawed-off little prick.

Thank you so much for this.

 
At 27 October, 2011 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 27 October, 2011 16:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your belief that "more authoritative sources" must necessarily be engineering journals seems to be based on nothing more than your own powers of invention.

 
At 27 October, 2011 20:46, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your belief that "more authoritative sources" must necessarily be engineering journals seems to be based on nothing more than your own powers of invention.

So you're not denying that you're Petgoat anymore? Well, at least that laughably obvious lie has stopped.

 
At 27 October, 2011 21:26, Blogger Ian said...

Ha ha, somebody has kindly posted a photo of Pat Cowardly. He has a big mouth for such a sawed-off little prick.

He pretty much looks exactly like I expected him to. Remember, 9/11 truthers fall into two camps: scrawny 24-year-old virgins in black shirts (Pat Cowardly) or hopelessly burnt-out unemployed baby boomers (Brian Good).

 
At 28 October, 2011 08:31, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

This is what Brian looks like when he doesn't take baths and harases children:

youtube.com/watch?v=g2OJsROIfI0&feature=related

 
At 28 October, 2011 08:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you haven't a shred of evidence that I am petgoat.

 
At 28 October, 2011 08:57, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Check this out (Brian pay attention):

forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?t=185842

Stannrodd writes:

"Well there doesn't appear to be many offerings yet. I have nothing to offer."

Dave52 writes:

"Errr... evidence to back up the Official Narrative... Hmmm... That's a tough one. I've never been asked that before...

Ummm... Well, I got nothing."


Wispy writes:

"No, I don't think there's anything at all."

And that's the first 3 people who said they've got nothing because they ignore the evidence that the offical story provides and they're confused about it.

 
At 28 October, 2011 08:59, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you haven't a shred of evidence that I am petgoat.

Sigh...are you ever going to stop lying so transparently and stupidly, petgoat?

 
At 28 October, 2011 09:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Well, I go away on business for a couple of days, and when I return to SLC what do I find?

As expected, the goat fucker managed to hijack another thread.

And no, Ian, the goat fucker will never stop lying because he's a compulsive liar. Worse, he'll continue to trash the blog because people who should know better steadfastly refuse to do anything about the useless troll.

Carry on, goat fucker, you're doing a bang up job of destroying the blog.

 
At 28 October, 2011 10:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you haven't a shred of evidence that I am petgoat.

 
At 28 October, 2011 10:29, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you haven't a shred of evidence that I am petgoat.

Brian, repeating the same dumbspam doesn't change the fact that you are a liar.

You claimed credit for being petgoat ON THIS BLOG. So either you were lying then or you're lying now. Given how much you defend "petgoat" and his scribbles and his rakes and meatballs, I think it's safe to say you're lying now.

But by all means, Brian. Keep squealing and lying. The more time you spend lying about being petgoat, the less time you'll spend trying to get the widows questions answered.

 
At 28 October, 2011 10:36, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I think Brian doesn't want me to bring up posts from his past of being "PetGoat" does he?

I've read everything there is about Brian, I've looked at his posts when he went undercover using a different screen name each time. I know he's lying about not being "PetGoat".

 
At 28 October, 2011 10:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I did not claim credit for being petgoat on this blog.

You have shown yourself to be one who puts a heavy coat of veru eccentric interpretation on everything you read.

Why shouldn't I defend the rakes and meatballs scribbles? They make perfect sense. A hell of a lot more sense than phony piledrivers that don't exist--and wouldn't even be a good model if they did. When's the last time you saw a piledriver sink a piling out of sight in one blow?

WAQo, no doubt when you compile a list of 50 internet personages you believe to be me, you will consider yourself a great success. Happy hunting!

 
At 28 October, 2011 11:01, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I did not claim credit for being petgoat on this blog.

Stop lying, petgoat.

You have shown yourself to be one who puts a heavy coat of veru eccentric interpretation on everything you read.

Stop squealing, petgoat.

Why shouldn't I defend the rakes and meatballs scribbles?

Because they're idiotic, petgoat.

They make perfect sense.

Only to a liar and lunatic like you, petgoat.

A hell of a lot more sense than phony piledrivers that don't exist--and wouldn't even be a good model if they did. When's the last time you saw a piledriver sink a piling out of sight in one blow?

Please stop babbling about things you don't understand, petgoat.

WAQo, no doubt when you compile a list of 50 internet personages you believe to be me, you will consider yourself a great success. Happy hunting!

Please see a psychiatrist. You're suffering from severe mental illness, petgoat.

 
At 28 October, 2011 11:23, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, no doubt when you compile a list of 50 internet personages you believe to be me, you will consider yourself a great success. Happy hunting!

So you aren't lying about being other people on the net behind anonymous screen names?

 
At 28 October, 2011 11:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,

Stop spamming the thread with your inane pseudo-science.

Your pile driver analogy is as stupid as everything else you post to this blog. For example, a pile driver is pounding a column into solid bedrock. Bazant's pile driver theory is entirely different. Unless, of course, you want to falsely equate snapping the bolts that fasten the WTC tower's trusses to the columns as equivalent to driving a column into bedrock.

You're an idiot. A pseudo-science spewing moron with a hard-on for your own never-ending stream of lies and stupidity.

Do the World a favor: Eat shit and die.

 
At 28 October, 2011 11:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, piledrivers do not pound pilings into solid bedrock. As usual you don't know what you're talking about.

Right, Bazant's piledriver theory is "entirely different". It has nothing to do with realworld piledrivers--and so it operates mostly on an intuitive basis with ignorant people like you as a piece of propaganda.

 
At 28 October, 2011 12:03, Blogger Ian said...

Right, Bazant's piledriver theory is "entirely different". It has nothing to do with realworld piledrivers--and so it operates mostly on an intuitive basis with ignorant people like you as a piece of propaganda.

So we'll see an engineer challenge it with something like "meatball on a fork", right petgoat?

This isn't just the ignorant babbling of an insane unemployed janitor, is it petgoat?

 
At 28 October, 2011 12:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...piledrivers [SIC] do not pound pilings into solid bedrock. As usual you don't know what you're talking about."

False.

ICEUSE.com wrote, "...Pile driving equipment is used where the bedrock is much deeper. Vertical beams, or piles, are driven through the soil and into the bedrock."

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

The ignorant, lying failure monkey dissembles, "...Right, Bazant's piledriver [SIC] theory is "entirely different". It has nothing to do with realworld piledrivers [SIC]--and so it operates mostly on an intuitive basis with ignorant people like you as a piece of propaganda."

"[I]ntuitive basis"? That's hilarious coming from an ignorant liar who relies on anecdotal "evidence" as opposed to cold, hard facts.

Again, idiot, there's a World of difference between pile driving into solid bedrock and snapping wimpy bolts and welds. And especially so when one considers that the top of the towers struck the lower portion of the buildings with a force equivalent to 30 times the upper sections' mass.

You're an idiot.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 28 October, 2011 12:17, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Brian couldn't pile drive a woman, if you get my drift.

 
At 28 October, 2011 12:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No WAQ, not quite. No self-respecting woman would allow the goat fucker to pile drive her.

Big difference.

 
At 28 October, 2011 13:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, meatball-on-a-fork actually quite aptly addresses the divergent weight-to-resistance ratios between the core and the outer floors. But I can't expect a graphical illiterate like you to understand that.

As to the piledriver, you are arguing MY point--that for Bazant to use the inept "piledriver" analogy is a matter of propaganda, and not science--because there is no comparison between a piledriver and the top part of the towers, and because a piledriver does not destroy the piling. What you don't seem to understand is that pilings are used when the soil is too soft to build on. Trying to drive a piling into the rock runs the risk of damaging the rock or damaging the piling.

 
At 28 October, 2011 13:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

More anecdotal "evidence" backed by the 100% fact-free opinion of a science illiterate and liar? What else should we expect from you, goat fucker?

And I didn't argue your point--you illiterate cretin.

As usual, you deliberately misinterpret everything I've written, and then attack the straw man of your creation.

FACT: You lied about pile driving into bedrock.

FACT: You falsely equate pile driving a column into bedrock with an accreted mass slamming into an assembly at 30 times the upper sections' mass. And you conveniently omit that the towers were fastened together with welds and bolts that are only designed to withstand 3 times their rated gravitational load.

And now, in addition to lying and spewing logical fallacies, you're trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in dumbspam.

You're not only an idiot and a thread hijacker, you're a lying asshole with the morals of a street walking whore.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 28 October, 2011 13:54, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't falsely equate a piledriver with the twin towers. Dr. Bazant did. I'm glad you agree with me that Bazant (and thus NIST) is FOS.

 
At 28 October, 2011 13:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, just keep attacking your straw man--you "intellectual" midget.

You're an idiot.

Tell us more about your alleged "scientific reputation," Mr. college dropout and science illiterate.

 
At 28 October, 2011 14:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

So all you can do is engage in name-calling after making a fool of yourself ignorantly and unwittingly ridiculing the intellectual foundation of the NIST report.

 
At 28 October, 2011 15:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, keep up the deliberate misinterpretation of my argument while you pound your straw man.

Once again, you're trying to claim that you know the meaning of what I wrote better than I do. (Actually, you're deliberately misinterpreting my comment in order to sow confusion).

You're arrogant, stupid, corrupt and totally dishonest. What a charming combination.

Is it any wonder that your parents disowned you?"

 
At 28 October, 2011 15:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now lie to us, goat fucker, and claim that you didn't make the following statement at time stamp 28 October, 2011 10:55:

"...When's the last time you saw a piledriver [SIC] sink a piling out of sight in one blow?" -- The goat fucker spewing more BS per cubic meter than a broken black water line.

Thus, you're deliberately and stupidly trying to equate pile driving a column into bedrock with an accreted mass slamming into an assembly at 30 times the upper sections' mass, while you conveniently omit that the towers were fastened together with welds and bolts that are only designed to withstand 3 times their rated gravitational load.

Once again, you're a proven liar, goat fucker.

 
At 28 October, 2011 17:13, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug.bug writes: "that for Bazant to use the inept "piledriver" analogy is a matter of propaganda,"

Where does Bazant mention a "piledriver"? I downloaded 4 of his WTC articles and don't see that term anywhere.

 
At 28 October, 2011 17:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Mike,

See Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure's Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning From the World Trade Center and Building Demolitions.

 
At 28 October, 2011 17:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 28 October, 2011 17:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

My mistake, Mike. The "piledriver" name for Dr. Bazant's theory was applied by Ron Hamburger, one of the authors of the FEMA report. It doesn't change the Lysenkowist nature of Bazant's theories, which violate Newton's 3rd Law and engage in such amazing logical contortions as supposing that the top block of WTC2 rotated about a centroid--an absurd attempt to wave away the violation of the law of conservation of angular momentum.

 
At 28 October, 2011 18:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Here we go again. The science illiterate and proven liar is spewing 100% fact-free anecdotal "evidence" without substantiating one word of his argument.

Do you honestly believe that we're impressed by 100% fact-free references to "Newton's 3rd Law" and "rotated about a centroid" as a substitute for actual argument, goat fucker? The only person you fool is yourself.

Hell, as a college dropout and compulsive liar, you're not capable of understanding Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure's paper, let alone performing a critical analysis.

Furthermore, the correct term isn't "piledriver" [SIC] (and learn how to spell pile driver, idiot), it's crush up-crush down.

You're an idiot, goat fucker.

Now go play in the middle of US highway 101.

 
At 28 October, 2011 20:18, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug.bug writes: The "piledriver" name for Dr. Bazant's theory was applied by Ron Hamburger

Where does Ron Hamburger apply the "piledriver" name to Bazant's theory?

 
At 28 October, 2011 20:20, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"It doesn't change the Lysenkowist nature of Bazant's theories"

It's too bad the reviewers of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics were fooled into accepting Bazant's "Lysenkowist"[sic] propaganda not just once, but again, again, and again. Surely if they had Brian around to explain ninth-grade physics, things would have been different.

 
At 29 October, 2011 08:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, you can not back up your claim that I lie. You have nothing to say about 9/11 because you know nothing about 9/11. All you do is cast asparagus at me.

Newton's 3rd Law is a fact. Maybe you should study it, since you seem to be ignrorant. Bazant's claim that WTC2 rotated about a centroid is quite conspicuous to anyone that has actually read his papers.

"Crush up-crush down" is only Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption to Newton's 3rd, so it's hardly an appropriate moniker for the more general collapse theory.

Mike, if you would bother to google ... piledriver Bazant Hamburger .... you could answer your own question with less effort than it takes to type it. Mr. Hamburger spoke at Stanford in the fall of 2001.

It's too bad the reviewers of the Journal of Engineering Mechanics rushed Dr. Bazant's nonsense into
print before considering that it was contrary to the laws of physics. Now it appears that they are invested in their mistake and unwilling to admit that they were wrong.

In the months after 9/11 people such as MIT's Eduardo Kausel, and Matthys Levy, greatly embarrassed themselves by claiming in Scientific American and on NOVA that jet fuel could melt steel. There was a great rush to explain the collapses with little regard for reality.

 
At 29 October, 2011 09:23, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Again, where does Ron Hamburger apply the "piledriver" name to Bazant's theory? Give the exact quote, please.

 
At 29 October, 2011 09:47, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

No WAQ, not quite. No self-respecting woman would allow the goat fucker to pile drive her.

Big difference.


Oh that's right, Carol did say that he had a tiny unit anyways. ;-)

 
At 29 October, 2011 10:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you can not back up your claim that I lie. You have nothing to say about 9/11 because you know nothing about 9/11. All you do is cast asparagus [SIC] at me."

All, "asparagus" aside, I know more about 9/11 than you'll ever know, goat fucker. In fact, I've caught you lying in this thread as well. See my comment at time stamp 28 October, 2011 13:45

Who do you think you're fooling, goat fucker?

The goat fucker squeals, "...Newton's 3rd Law is a fact. Maybe you should study it, since you seem to be ignrorant [SIC]. Bazant's claim that WTC2 rotated about a centroid is quite conspicuous to anyone that has actually read his papers."

Again, as someone who's fluent in Newtonian mechanics, I can assure you that I also know more about Newton's 3rd law than you'll ever know. All you've managed to do is cast "asparagus" on Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure's paper without substantiating your argument.

Again, no one is impressed by 100% fact-free references to "Newton's 3rd Law" and "rotated about a centroid" as a substitute for actual argument. The only person you've managed to fool is yourself.

The ignorant, lying failure monkey dissembles, "...'Crush up-crush down' is only Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption to Newton's 3rd, so it's hardly an appropriate moniker for the more general collapse theory."

Zdeněk Bažant and Mathieu Verdure never claimed an exception to the third law. Thus, once again, you're exposed as a liar. Did you even bother to read Bažant and Verdure's paper? Obviously not.

In fact, you're deliberately misinterpreting their paper in order to attack them with another straw man--which is SOP for an intellectually dishonest clown of your ilk.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 29 October, 2011 10:01, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"Crush up-crush down" is only Bazant's rationalization for his claimed exemption to Newton's 3rd, so it's hardly an appropriate moniker for the more general collapse theory.

Bazant claims no exemption to any physical law.

 
At 29 October, 2011 11:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Bazant claims an exemption to Newton's third law when he claims that a lightly-built 15 story building can batter down a more-heavily built 90-story building without itself being battered to pieces. If you believe Bazant's ludicrous theory, then just try to break through a concrete wall with your head--and then maybe you'll learn something about Newton's 3rd Law.

 
At 29 October, 2011 11:19, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Bazant's calculations implicitly take into account Newton's third law.

Response of Bazant and Jia-Liang Le to a truthtard:

The discusser [James R. Gourley] is not correct in repeatedly claiming that Newton’s third law is violated in the paper and particularly in concluding that the “two-phase collapse scenario is scientifically implausible because it ignores Newton’s third law and the equal but opposite upward force dictated by it.” As explained at the outset in every course on mechanics of materials, this law is automatically satisfied, since all the calculations are based on the concept of stress or internal force, which consists of a pair of opposite forces of equal magnitude acting on the opposite surfaces of any imagined cut through the material or structure. This concept is so central to the discipline of structural mechanics and self-evident to structural engineers that Newton’s third law is never even mentioned in publications.

 
At 29 October, 2011 11:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, and the stress of the upward force on the lightly-built 15 story upper structure should have dismembered it before the collapse had even progressed to the 70th floor. And yet Bazant claims that it did not.

 
At 29 October, 2011 11:57, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Wrong. See point #4 in Bazant and Le's response to the truthtard. (Page 917, here).

 
At 29 October, 2011 12:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Bazant claims an exemption to Newton's third law

No. He doesn't. Your grasp of Newton's third law is just poor.

If you believe Bazant's ludicrous theory

Bazant's theory is unrefuted.

 
At 29 October, 2011 16:33, Blogger Billman said...

So.. where's Arhoolie (aka Pat Cowardly) been hiding ever since his picture was posted? His hateful rage filled comments haven't been appearing lately...

 
At 29 October, 2011 19:01, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Billman said...
"So.. where's Arhoolie (aka Pat Cowardly) been hiding ever since his picture was posted? His hateful rage filled comments haven't been appearing lately..."

He's at "Occupy Mom's Basement" until further notice

 
At 30 October, 2011 14:18, Blogger Ian said...

It's good to see that petgoat spent his weekend babbling about physics laws he doesn't understand. One of the funniest things about petgoat is that he honestly thinks anyone will take his babbling seriously.

There's a reason you're an unemployed janitor and not an engineer, petgoat.

 
At 30 October, 2011 16:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I understand the laws of physics just fine.

RGT, Bazant's paper is refuted by reality. The video of the north tower shows that the top "Block" disintegrated before the lower structure started to fail, and the persistence of the lower core structure after the outer floors had collapsed shows that there was no "block" to crush up. Bazant's paper is a rationalization of tyhe impossible, and it bears no resemblance to reality. It is thus worthless except as a piece of propaganda to apply a veneer of rigor to NIST's refusal to fulfill theire charge from Congress to explain how and why the buildings collapsed.

 
At 30 October, 2011 16:27, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I understand the laws of physics just fine.

No you don't.

RGT, Bazant's paper is refuted by reality. The video of the north tower shows that the top "Block" disintegrated before the lower structure started to fail, and the persistence of the lower core structure after the outer floors had collapsed shows that there was no "block" to crush up. Bazant's paper is a rationalization of tyhe impossible, and it bears no resemblance to reality. It is thus worthless except as a piece of propaganda to apply a veneer of rigor to NIST's refusal to fulfill theire charge from Congress to explain how and why the buildings collapsed.

See what I mean?

 
At 30 October, 2011 16:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, do you have any specific line of reasoning other than the ad hominem, or do you simply want to rely on your liar's opinion?

 
At 30 October, 2011 17:49, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, do you have any specific line of reasoning other than the ad hominem, or do you simply want to rely on your liar's opinion?

Brian, I'm just here to mock you for being an unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and meatballs on forks. It's not like there's anything unresolved about 9/11, so making you babble and squeal and call people "girls" is all there is to do.

 
At 30 October, 2011 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for making that clear. You have no specific points, no argument other than the ad hominem, and nothing to offer beyond your liar's opinion.

 
At 30 October, 2011 18:38, Blogger Ian said...

Thanks for making that clear. You have no specific points, no argument other than the ad hominem, and nothing to offer beyond your liar's opinion.

False. I have plenty of specific points and arguments. I just have more fun mocking you for being an unemployed janitor who believes in invisible widows, so I choose to do that instead.

 
At 30 October, 2011 18:39, Blogger Ian said...

I mean, regardless of whether I make arguments or just mock you, the "widows" will never have their "questions" answered, there will never be a new investigation, Carol Brouillet will never leave her husband for you, and you will never get "meatball on a fork" published in an engineering journal.

 
At 30 October, 2011 19:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

You just keep throwing your straw dolls on the fire, trying to distract from the fact that Dr. Bazant's paper is completely divorced from what actually happened, and thus serves only as a mathematical propaganda veneer for an investigation that failed utterly to fulfill Congress's charge to explain why and how the buildings collapsed.

 
At 30 October, 2011 19:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The video of the north tower shows that the top "Block" disintegrated before the lower structure started to fail,

One can't tell from the video when the lower structure started to fail.

You have a habit of holding non-native English speakers to extremely specific and literal meanings for words -- "block" for Bazant, "melting of girders" for Astaneh-Asl, "the buildings fell..." for Sunder. Cut the foreigners some slack. Their usage of words is not as precise as you think.

Another thing, you make more typos when you get excited.

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

You just keep throwing your straw dolls on the fire, trying to distract from the fact that Dr. Bazant's paper is completely divorced from what actually happened, and thus serves only as a mathematical propaganda veneer for an investigation that failed utterly to fulfill Congress's charge to explain why and how the buildings collapsed.

Brian, you're not an engineer. You're a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves. What you consider "divorced from what acually happened" is amusing, considering your ignorance and severe mental illness.

We know how and why the buildings collapsed. You don't because you're a liar and ignorant lunatic.

Nobody cares what you think, and posting endless dumbspam doesn't change that.

 
At 30 October, 2011 19:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, from the video you can see that in the first few seconds the top block of the north tower telescopes before the portion below the impact zone fails. The roof comes down, but the impact zone remains intact.

This is absolutely contrary to Dr. Bazant's hypothesis.

Oh, so now Dr. Sunder, who has a PhD from MIT, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who has a PhD from the U of Michigan, don't know how to speak English and so they don't know what words like "melting" and "girders" and "measurements" and "seconds" mean? You're really showing your desperation, dude.

Ian, you have nothing but your liar's opinion.

 
At 30 October, 2011 19:55, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Brian, he actually thinks any of us are "desperate". Brian, what do we have to desperate about? You? You're a failed janitor and lunatic who thinks "widows" have "questions" and calls people "girls". You're a joke to be laughed at and certainly not worth taking seriously.

 
At 30 October, 2011 20:08, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The roof comes down, but the impact zone remains intact.

You're confusing "intact" with "stationary".

Oh, so now Dr. Sunder, who has a PhD from MIT, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who has a PhD from the U of Michigan...

Non-native speakers are less precise in their word usage than native speakers. That's also true of PhD engineers. If Truthers could accept that people often make truthful but imprecise statements, it would eliminate 75% of Truther misconceptions.

On a related note, is "Dein Kind! Mach es!" supposed to translate as "It's your baby, run with it"? Did you run that by a native speaker? I'm pretty sure that's off the mark.

 
At 30 October, 2011 20:27, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, you have to remember that Brian flunked out of college after too much acid, so he doesn't have any memories of attending class. If he did, he might have had the experience I did where many of my TAs were foreign PhD students who had less than a perfect grasp of the English language. Many professors were that way too.

Of course, this ignorance of what college is like is understandable for an unemployed janitor. Of course, it still doesn't excuse his lying about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Asanteh-Asl.

 
At 30 October, 2011 20:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, you have to remember that Brian flunked out of college after too much acid, so he doesn't have any memories of attending class.

That would explain a thing or two. The most amazing thing about Truthers, for me anyway, is how they can be so smart and so stupid at the same time. snug is basically an idiot savant -- he has thousands upon thousands of facts about 9/11 committed to memory, but he lacks the thinking skills to tie them together properly. He knows the notes but not the music.

 
At 30 October, 2011 20:48, Blogger Ian said...

snug is basically an idiot savant -- he has thousands upon thousands of facts about 9/11 committed to memory, but he lacks the thinking skills to tie them together properly.

Aspergers, I think. I've learned so much from the truth movement: not about 9/11, of course, but about different learning disabilities and mental illnesses.

 
At 30 October, 2011 21:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you are clutching st straws. "Melting", "measurements", and "girders", and "seconds" are terms of art when it comes to engineering. You might as well argue that foreigners can't do arithmetic. Peer-reviewed papers are supposed to be edited before they're published.

So what's your point, anyway? That Dr. Bazant and Dr. Sunder don't know what they're saying when they say what they do?

 
At 30 October, 2011 21:46, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"...so now Dr. Sunder, who has a PhD from MIT..."

Dr. Sunder also says the fires brought down the towers you retard.

 
At 30 October, 2011 21:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30 October, 2011 21:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Shouldn't you be brushing up on the energy of fusion, Beanie? Who cares what Dr. Sunder claims to believe? He's a liar.

 
At 30 October, 2011 23:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

So RGT, if a foreign-born PhD engineer builds a building that falls down because he doesn't understand the difference between tension and compression, we should just give him a pass? What kind of racist nonsense is that?

I bet you think it's okay that Condi lied under oath, 'cause we just can't expect much from the darkies anyway, right?

 
At 31 October, 2011 01:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So what's your point, anyway? That Dr. Bazant and Dr. Sunder don't know what they're saying when they say what they do?

That the literal meaning of words does not always accurately convey a speaker's thoughts. This is even more true of non-native speakers.

Who cares what Dr. Sunder claims to believe?

You do, sometimes. "Nine and eleven seconds."

So RGT, if a foreign-born PhD engineer builds a building that falls down because he doesn't understand the difference between tension and compression, we should just give him a pass?

We're not talking about technical competence. We're talking about how to extract meaning from words, which you seem to have trouble with, kind of like this guy.

I bet you think it's okay that Condi lied under oath, 'cause we just can't expect much from the darkies anyway, right?

Condi's a native English speaker.

 
At 31 October, 2011 06:22, Blogger Ian said...

Who cares what Dr. Sunder claims to believe? He's a liar.

So does this mean you won't post endless dumbspam about what he told NOVA?

Also, I don't think Dr. Sunder particularly cares what a failed janitor and lunatic who believes in modified attack baboons thinks of him. Just a guess.

So RGT, if a foreign-born PhD engineer builds a building that falls down because he doesn't understand the difference between tension and compression, we should just give him a pass? What kind of racist nonsense is that?

As usual, Brian completely missed the point. Not surprising considering that he's a failed janitor who doesn't understand how reality works.

I bet you think it's okay that Condi lied under oath, 'cause we just can't expect much from the darkies anyway, right?

Brian's deranged obsession with Rice continues. Notice how he never babbles about any other member of the Bush administration, just Rice. I'm sure he'd stalk her too if he could.

 
At 31 October, 2011 08:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

First Brian says this:

"Oh, so now Dr. Sunder, who has a PhD from MIT, and Dr. Astaneh-Asl, who has a PhD from the U of Michigan, don't know how to speak English and so they don't know what words like "melting" and "girders" and "measurements" and "seconds" mean? You're really showing your desperation, dude."

Then he oinks this:

"So what's your point, anyway? That Dr. Bazant and Dr. Sunder don't know what they're saying when they say what they do?"

Then he caps it off with this:

"Who cares what Dr. Sunder claims to believe? He's a liar."

Oink Oink Oink Oink.

You can't have it both ways. You quote Sunder to support your claim, but in the same thread you call him a liar.

You are a rube, a dipshit, assbackwards, wannabe. You bit your own ass, and I assume you like it.

 
At 31 October, 2011 09:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, perhaps you should specify exactly what statements from foreign-born engineers should be subject to your revisionism based on language difficulties. What exactly about "I saw melting of girders" do you not understand? What about "The measurements have indicated that Tower One fell in 9 seconds and Tower Two fell in 11 seconds" do you not understand? What about "The photographic evidence of molten steel is very good" do you not understand? What about MIT professor Eduardo Kausel's estimate of 9 seconds for collapse duration (reported in the new edition of the Popular Mechanics book) do you not understand?

Answer the question. Do you think it's ok for Condi to lie under oath, and is that belief based on a belief that African Americans should be held to a lesser standard than Caucasians?

 
At 31 October, 2011 09:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, I don't quote Dr. Sunder to support any claim other than the claim that he's a liar and we need new investigations.

 
At 31 October, 2011 09:33, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Notice how Brian reacts when he's cornered like a scared rat?

He manages to revert back to his useless claims about Dr. Sunder, Dr. Astaneh-Asl & Dr. Bazant as a security blanket. He has nothing more to go on about and he doesn't know anything to which he's claiming to be.

Brian just loves to lie & make up stories which aren't true.

 
At 31 October, 2011 09:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I don't quote Dr. Sunder to support any claim other than the claim that he's a liar and we need new investigations.

So you're now claiming that what Sunder told NOVA is a lie too? Even though you make it look like that that NOVA interview is some sort of "official" statement?!

 
At 31 October, 2011 09:36, Blogger Ian said...

What exactly about "I saw melting of girders" do you not understand?

Dr. Asanteh-Asl refuted that statement. You're a liar.

What about "The measurements have indicated that Tower One fell in 9 seconds and Tower Two fell in 11 seconds" do you not understand?

Dr. Sunder did not say that. You're a liar.

What about "The photographic evidence of molten steel is very good" do you not understand? What about MIT professor Eduardo Kausel's estimate of 9 seconds for collapse duration (reported in the new edition of the Popular Mechanics book) do you not understand?

Stop lying, Brian.

Answer the question. Do you think it's ok for Condi to lie under oath, and is that belief based on a belief that African Americans should be held to a lesser standard than Caucasians?

The question is irrelevant. Condi Rice did not lie and is not African-American.

MGF, I don't quote Dr. Sunder to support any claim other than the claim that he's a liar and we need new investigations.

Nobody cares. Also, he's not a liar and we don't need new investigations.

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. You seem to think lying is funny.

WAQo, I have not studied the timeframe of the collapses and I don't know if what Dr. Sunder told NOVA about it was true or not. It doesn't matter to me. If it was true, then obviously we need new investigations--because NIST has not explained how the collapses could take place "essentially in free fall". If it's not true then we need new investigations because if NIST's lead investigator was confused about an essential point that shows that the NIST investigations are not reliable--and the fact that he never issued a correction or retraction shows that NIST is not honest.

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

The only reason why Brian attacks Condi Rice is because Brian's a racist.

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, I have not studied the timeframe of the collapses and I don't know if what Dr. Sunder told NOVA about it was true or not.

Then why are you sitting here lying about him?

because NIST has not explained how the collapses could take place "essentially in free fall".

NIST isn't a structural engineering firm. Those 3 words meaning nothing since the towers fell slower than free fall (15-16 seconds).

If it was true.....If it's not true then we need new investigations....

Make up your fucking mind, was it true or not?

Brian, noone cares about your infatuation about NIST. NIST is only showing us why we need better firefighting practices and fire prevention.

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:15, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. You seem to think lying is funny.

False. Brian, you're the one lying about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Asanteh-Asl. Also, you lie about whether you are petgoat, and whether you stalked Carol Brouillet. You lie about Willie Rodriguez too.

If it was true, then obviously we need new investigations--because NIST has not explained how the collapses could take place "essentially in free fall". If it's not true then we need new investigations because if NIST's lead investigator was confused about an essential point that shows that the NIST investigations are not reliable--and the fact that he never issued a correction or retraction shows that NIST is not honest.

Brian, we don't need new investigations. Nobody cares what you think, and the above shows the non-falsifiable religious nature of your faith in the Church of 9/11 Truth.

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:16, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, the NIST report does not claim the towers fell "essentially in free-fall". You lie about that just like you lie about the "widows".

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:22, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thanks to NIST, just about every highrise building in America is safe from fires.

The new WTC7 building has new systems to fight fires, the new WTC1 will also have new systems and features to prevent another tragedy.

So Brian is bitching about NIST because he doesn't like any changes to buildings about fire safety. Brian wouldn't care if thousands more died as a result of fire.

 
At 31 October, 2011 10:32, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

LMAO!!! Has Brian contacted Astenah Asl yet? Glad to see he is still parading him around.

 
At 31 October, 2011 11:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

WAQo, the reason I attack Dr. Rice is because a) she is a war criminal who chaired the Principals Committee meeting that approved torture policies several months before John Yoo wrote his memos providing bogus (and now repudiated) legal cover for torture policies and b) she was responsible as National Security Advisor to prevent 9/11 and she ignored warnings from 13 foreign countries, 4 FBI offices, and the CIA and c) she lied under oath to the 9/11 widows.

There is nothing racist about that. To suggest that we should hold African Americans to a lesser standard than others is racist.

I am not lying about Dr. Sunder.

NIST said in section 6.14.4 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA the same thing. Dr. Eagar and Dr. Kausel are quoted in the latest edition of the Popular Mechanics book as saying the same thing. If you don't believe it, you should be joining us in calling for new investigations.

NIST was charged with explaining why and how the towers came down. Since you seem to be acknowledging that they failed to do this, you should be calling for new investigations that explain how and why the towers came down.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

GMS, why should I contact Dr. Astaneh-Asl? He said what he said, he has made clear that he does not want to be contacted, and if I did try to contact him you clowns would accuse me of stalking and harassing him.

 
At 31 October, 2011 11:09, Blogger Ian said...

I am not lying about Dr. Sunder.

Now you're lying about your lies, Brian.

NIST said in section 6.14.4 that the towers came down "essentially in free fall". Dr. Sunder told NOVA the same thing. Dr. Eagar and Dr. Kausel are quoted in the latest edition of the Popular Mechanics book as saying the same thing. If you don't believe it, you should be joining us in calling for new investigations.

Brian, nobody is going to call for a new investigation based on the lies (like the ones above) of an unemployed janitor like you.

Since you seem to be acknowledging that they failed to do this, you should be calling for new investigations that explain how and why the towers came down.

We know how they came down, regardless of whether a deranged lunatic who sniffs glue like you accepts the explanations.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

False.

GMS, why should I contact Dr. Astaneh-Asl? He said what he said, he has made clear that he does not want to be contacted, and if I did try to contact him you clowns would accuse me of stalking and harassing him.

You don't need to contact him, Brian. We know what he thinks happened, and we know that you're a pathetic liar and lunatic. Contacting Dr. Sunder won't change anything, just as your endless dumbspam here hasn't changed the fact that the widows have no questions.

 
At 31 October, 2011 11:16, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

WAQo, the reason I attack Dr. Rice is because.....

You're a flat out racist. Yeah I know all about it.

To suggest that we should hold African Americans to a lesser standard than others is racist.

Actually "we" don't, but you apparently do.

Dr. Sunder told NOVA the same thing.

If Sunder was talking about UFOs or Bigfoot you'd believe him?

NIST was charged with explaining why and how the towers came down.

You want to bitch to NIST about everything? Here ya go ya coward:

General Information:

301-975-NIST (6478)
inquiries@nist.gov

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 1070
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-1070

 
At 31 October, 2011 18:36, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, perhaps you should specify exactly what statements from foreign-born engineers should be subject to your revisionism based on language difficulties.

You're the one urging a new investigation based on a handful of statements. It's on you to demonstrate why the statements are significant. And why those statements outweigh all other evidence, including subsequent statements by the same individuals.

To be fair, it's not just foreigners you make this error with. You've also obsessed over Barnett's "evaporated steel" statement. You just do it more often with foreigners for whatever reason.

Answer the question.

No to both.

 
At 31 October, 2011 20:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

You don't think that statements from 2 engineering professors, the President of Notre Dame, an FDNY Captain and on eof the design engineers about the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile is significant?

What "other evidence" outweighs their statements that they saw molten steel?

 
At 31 October, 2011 21:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What "other evidence" outweighs their statements that they saw molten steel?

The absence of recovered molten steel far outweighs the prior statements of molten steel.

 
At 31 October, 2011 21:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

The "evaporated" steel samples were recovered. A 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel was recovered. You make up your evidence of absence.

 
At 31 October, 2011 21:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The "evaporated" steel samples were recovered. A 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel was recovered. You make up your evidence of absence.

In both cases, the samples were declared "evaporated" or "molten" but not tested as such. These are no better than any other eyewitness accounts.

No molten steel was recovered from any WTC site.

 
At 31 October, 2011 22:22, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You don't think that statements from 2 engineering professors, the President of Notre Dame, an FDNY Captain and on eof the design engineers about the presence of molten steel in the rubble pile is significant? "

No because you've taken their statments out of context because your character flaw undermines your critical thinking skills.

 
At 31 October, 2011 22:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you are down to denying reality. You can't handle the truth. For steel to evaporate it must melt first. The 40-pound ingot is obviously formerly-molten steel. Dr. Astaneh said he saw "melting of girders". Girders are steel.

MGF, pray tell how can one take the statemnent "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center" out of context? That's just the old "quotemining" con, and you're not fooling anybody.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home