More Dramatic WTC-7 Footage
I'd say that this will finally shut up Box Boy about minor office fires, but I know he'll continue to use that line because his paycheck depends on it. We've seen footage from this reporter and his cameraman before; he's the guy who made the comment about, "I've been on this earth for 36 years and I've never been in a war zone. I can only imagine this is what it's like."
Comments open.
posted by Pat @ 7:09 PM
287 comments
287 Comments:
The CIA has obviously re-created lower Manhattan at an abandoned air base in New Mexico ( the same one where they faked the moon landing, and the Vietnam War), and then re-shot it. I mean the fires are exactly where thousands of witnesses said they were, how convenient is that?
Damn, Pat, aren't you embarrassed to cite an article that claims heat-distorted aluminum window frames represent structural damage? This should shut up Gage how?
Damn, Pat, aren't you embarrassed to cite an article that claims heat-distorted aluminum window frames represent structural damage? This should shut up Gage how?
Well, we all knew one person would never shut up: Brian "petgoat" Good, who continues to babble about magic thermite elves destroying WTC 7. Just what I would expect from a failed janitor.
So Brian, all that smoke pouring from WTC 7, was that smoldering carpets? Burnt baboon fur? Magic smoke elves?
Ian, if you would pay attention, you might learn to distinguish illusion from fact.
If you would bother to take a look at the pretty pictures of the NIST reports you would see that your belief that there was smoke pouring from multiple floors is a fantasy. Fire on one floor made smoke, the wind from the NW caused a low-pressure area on the south and east sides, and the smoke roiled up along the wall from the fire on the lower floor giving the illusion of multiple floors of fire.
Shyam Sunder tells us that office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is consumed.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well I guess he does..
Just look at the picture at the top of the Daily Mail page. There's a fire on the 8th floor.
It may look like smoke pouring out of 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13--but look the windows on 9 through 11 are not broken on the north side.
Ian, if you would pay attention, you might learn to distinguish illusion from fact.
I do pay attention. That's why I'm not a "truther".
If you would bother to take a look at the pretty pictures of the NIST reports you would see that your belief that there was smoke pouring from multiple floors is a fantasy.
Well, if a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves says so, it must be true!
Fire on one floor made smoke, the wind from the NW caused a low-pressure area on the south and east sides, and the smoke roiled up along the wall from the fire on the lower floor giving the illusion of multiple floors of fire.
Well, if a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons says so, it must be true!
Brian, what's so entertaining about you is that you think we're going to take your blind assertions as self-evident. I'm not sure exactly where you ever got the idea that normal people care what you have to say, but it's quite funny.
Shyam Sunder tells us that office fires burn at most 20 minutes in one place before all the fuel is consumed.
a) I thought you said Dr. Sunder is a liar? Now you're quoting him? How do you know he's not lying?
b) Who cares?
Just look at the picture at the top of the Daily Mail page. There's a fire on the 8th floor.
It may look like smoke pouring out of 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13--but look the windows on 9 through 11 are not broken on the north side.
Brian, the straws you cling to in order to keep your fantasies about 9/11 alive are hilarious. You should really seek professional help.
Gage should make a cardboard box model of WTC 7, set a fire inside one of the floors of the model and see what happens. Hell, if a cardboard model worked for WTC 1 and 2...
snug.bug writes: "your belief that there was smoke pouring from multiple floors is a fantasy"
And sure enough, here's a video clearly showing smoke pouring from multiple floors.
Surprised that Brian lied again? I'm not.
And sure enough, here's a video clearly showing smoke pouring from multiple floors.
Surprised that Brian lied again? I'm not.
Brian has this bizarre idea that unless massive open flames are visible everywhere, there isn't any fire. That's why he babbles about "smoldering carpets" in towers 1 and 2, and babbles about fire on only 1 floor (the one with open flames visible) in WTC 7.
It's pretty funny.
How about, for an entire day, we pay no attention to Brian?
Make an experiment out of it just to see if he gets mad, sad or just goes crazy.
Ignore every post he makes like he wasn't even here.
What you say fellas?
Don't care what Truthers say (especially Brian), fires brought down those 3 buildings and there's nothing in the world that can change that.
Truthers aren't firefighters & Richard Gage isn't in the fire service.
Don't care what Truthers say (especially Brian), fires brought down those 3 buildings and there's nothing in the world that can change that.
Fires combined with structural damage. Don't forget that.
How about, for an entire day, we pay no attention to Brian?
As one of those who most enjoys taunting Brian, I'll agree to this. Since I've already responded to him today, should we ignore him tomorrow?
Two questions for the goat fucker.
Since you love to cherry pick the NIST Report when it suits your never ending stream of lies and logical fallacies, answer the following questions:
[1] Can we agree that "[t]he initiating local failure that began the probable WTC 7 collapse sequence was the buckling of column 79"? (NCSTAR1A, Chapter 2, Page 21. The failure of column 79 is NOT in dispute, and is evidenced by the collapse of WTC 7's east penthouse)
[2] Can we also agree that "[t]his buckling arose from a process that occurred at temperatures at or below approximately 400 degrees C (750 degrees F), which are well below the temperatures considered in current practice for determining the fire resistance ratings associated with significant loss of steel strength"? (NCSTAR1A, Chapter 2, Page 21.)
NOTE: A simple "Yes" or "No" answer to both questions will suffice.
Babbling and rationalizations are not acceptable and will be considered nothing more than desperate attempts on your part to evade the aforementioned questions.
Once you answer the questions (don't hold your breath), I'll proceed with the remainder of my argument.
Now answer the questions, goat fucker.
Fires combined with structural damage. Don't forget that.
Never have, never will! ;-)
As one of those who most enjoys taunting Brian, I'll agree to this. Since I've already responded to him today, should we ignore him tomorrow?
Starting tomorrow we should ignore him for a whole day.
MR, you don't know what you're talking about. NIST never said there was fire on 45, 46, and 47.
NIST only found fires on 10 floors, and serious fires on only 6. So if you think NIST is lying about where the fires were, mayube you should join us in calling foir new investigations.
WAQo, I know a retired firefighter who's a truther. You ever hear of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?
NIST says structural damage played no part in the initiation of collapse of WTC7. Asymmetrical fires can not cause symmetrical collapses any more than knocking one leg off a table will cause it to fall straight down.
The failure of column 79 began NIST's probable collapse fantasy, but there's no reason to believe that has any relation to reality. NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven, nor have they proven that failure of one floor would take down the floors below it. A perfectly reasonable explanation for the failure of the east penthouse is that somebody cut the beams underneath it with thermite.
No, we can't agree that NIST's buckling process bears any resemblance to reality.
WAQo, since ignorance is your greatest talent, ignoring me is a good idea. So you guys go ahead. You can make stupid statements, I can correct you, and you can stand corrected. Everybody wins.
Goat fucker,
As predicted, I will not receive a straight answer from the goat fucker.
In fact, you're babbling and rationalizing. Obviously, you've been on the phone with your fellow liars at the Ford Foundation trying to get your lies and propaganda straight.
In any case, am I to assume that your answers to both questions are [1] No, and [2] No?
Answer the questions, goat fucker.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...A perfectly reasonable explanation for the failure of the east penthouse is that somebody cut the beams underneath it with thermite."
Really? No kidding?
What evidence do you have to substantiate that assertion?
Can you show me the cut columns? Can you show me evidence that supports your "somebody cut the beams underneath it with thermite" assertion?
And anecdotal evidence garnished with blatant misrepresentation of Barnett, Beiderman and Sisson's research doesn't count, goat fucker.
And I expect direct answers to questions [1] and [2], which can be found at time stamp 02 November, 2011 10:19.
Asymmetrical fires can not cause symmetrical collapses any more than knocking one leg off a table will cause it to fall straight down.
What makes you think the collapse of WTC 7 was symmetrical? Did Kevin Barrett tell you that?
WAQo, I know a retired firefighter who's a truther. You ever hear of Firefighters for 9/11 Truth?
Nobody cares.
No, we can't agree that NIST's buckling process bears any resemblance to reality.
You can't, but that's because you're a failed janitor and lunatic. Nobody cares what you think.
So you guys go ahead. You can make stupid statements, I can correct you, and you can stand corrected. Everybody wins.
Brian, since when have you ever "corrected" anyone? Think of Craig Ranke and Kevin Barrett. You tried "correcting" the truth movement about them, and got yourself expelled, while they're still in high esteem.
And let's not even get into the thousands of pages of dumbspam that you've posted about American hero Willie Rodriguez....
This comment has been removed by the author.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven...[blah][blah][blah]."
Really? No kidding?
Are you seriously trying to convince us that steel doesn't expand when it's exposed to heat?
Are you seriously trying to make that outrageous assertion with a straight face, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?
If so, you're even more physics illiterate than I suspected.
So, what's taking you so long to answer my questions, goat fucker?
Let me guess: You're cowering in the corner hoping and praying that I go away.
Pussy. Coward. Liar. Cross dresser. Sex predator. Weakling. Intellectual midget.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven...[blah][blah][blah]."
Really? No kidding?
As I recall, linear expansion in a steel beam or column is defined by the following equation:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Where ∆L is defined as the fractional change in length of the beam or column, L0 is defined as the original length of the beam or column, α is the linear expansion coefficient (13 x 10^-6/degree C @ 20 degrees C), and ∆T is the change in temperature. Thus, the relationship is linear. A 2 degree C change in temperature will result in twice as much expansion as a 1 degree C change in temperature.
So, what part of that simple relationship do you fail to understand, goat fucker?
And how can you possibly claim that "NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven"?
Are you out of your mind? Or are you a thoroughly corrupt liar who will say anything, no matter how idiotic, in your quest to spam SLC with your never-ending stream of lies and stupidity?
How about, for an entire day, we pay no attention to Brian?
Totally on board for this.
FFS, is Brian really trying to pretend WTC 7's collapse was symmetrical? sure sign your dealing with a delusional personality.
http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/?action=view¤t=WTC7StraightDown.png
Seriously Brian, you just demonstrated how removed from reality you are.
UtterFail, no, I didn't say steel doesn't expand when it's heated. Read it more slowly.
And as usual here you come with your irrelevant data-spam. That's why you can't get a job Bill--'cause you don't know the difference between a data-dump and a point.
NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven. They had to go through all kinds of contortions to make it happen, including removing the sheer studs, heating the steel but leaving the concrete slab unheated, and assuming a fire that had burned out an hour before.
GMS, the collapse was symmetrical. The roofline is almost level.
FFS, is Brian really trying to pretend WTC 7's collapse was symmetrical? sure sign your dealing with a delusional personality.
He also tries to pretend that WTC 2's collapse was symmetrical, even though the tower fell over to the side, as one would expect given that it was struck off-center.
The only one that fell in a way that appeared (from the north, at least) to fall symmetrically was WTC 1, which was hit by AA 11 pretty much dead center, so we would expect that.
On a side note, maybe the lowest of many low points of "Loose Change, an American Coup" was when the narrator in calm tones told us that WTC 2 fell symmetrically into its own footprint....even as they show a video of WTC 2 falling over to the side as it comes down. I laughed out loud at that part.
NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven.
But your magic thermite elves theory has lots of evidence to back it up, right?
They had to go through all kinds of contortions to make it happen, including removing the sheer studs, heating the steel but leaving the concrete slab unheated, and assuming a fire that had burned out an hour before.
Of course, and your magic thermite elves theory requires no such contortions.
GMS, the collapse was symmetrical. The roofline is almost level.
Hey guys, who are you going to believe, your lying eyes, or an unemployed lunatic who wears women's underwear?
The goat fucker dissembles, "...no, I didn't say steel doesn't expand when it's heated."
False.
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
The goat fucker squeals, "...That's why you can't get a job Bill--'cause you don't know the difference between a data-dump and a point."
I know when you're lying and spewing bullshit, goat fucker.
In fact, I'm the part-owner of an IT security company, goat fucker. That's why I make the big bucks and you're a lowly unemployed janitor who barely makes it from month-to-month.
But enough of your 100% fact-free rhetoric and cowardly evasions.
Now, back to the question.
The goat fucker squeals, "...NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven. They had to go through all kinds of contortions to make it happen...[blah][blah][blah]."
False.
All they had to do was make a simple calculation--a simple calculation that you can't do without making huge errors.
Given a 53 ft beam, at a temperature of 400 degrees C, use the following equation to determine the fractional change in length of the beam:
∆L/L0=α∆T
To show you what a nice guy I am, I'll do the algebra and give you the equation you'll need to solve the problem
∆L=L0α∆T
Now, plug the numbers in, goat fucker, and give me the answer. That is, if you can preform the calculation without making a huge error.
And when you're finished, lie to us and tell us that there's no conceivable way that the beam and the truss seat could have failed.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Goat fucker,
I've given you over 30 minutes to plug the numbers in and give me an answer. And all I hear, however, are--you guessed it--crickets.
So much for your alleged "scientific reputation."
Ian, WTC 2 started to fall over to the side, but that was stopped when it blew up 1000 feet in the air. Dr. Bazant had to pretend that it rotated around a centroid to make his piledriver theory seem plausible.
We wouldn't expect WTC1 to fall symmetrically, because neither the the damage nor the fires were symmetrical.
I don't have any theories involving magic or elves.
Ooo, UtterFail is part-owner of an
IT security company. Yeah, so are about 10,000 other unemployed code-monkeys.
NIST's simple calculation required them to go through all kinds of contortions, including removing the sheer studs, heating the steel but leaving the concrete slab unheated, and assuming a fire that had burned out an hour before.
I'm not jumping through your irrelevant hoops, silly.
The goat fucker squeals, "...I'm not jumping through your irrelevant hoops, silly."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
That's not an answer, goat, it's an evasion.
You won't give me the answer because you can't perform the calculation without making huge errors. In addition, you refuse to perform the simple calculation because to do so will blow a hole a mile-wide in your bullshit argument.
You're corrupt, a liar and a fraud.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Now HURRY, goat fucker, squeal, lie and whine in an effort to bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of dumbspam.
"...There are two reasons for the things a man does: The good one, and the real one." -- JP Morgan
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Ian, WTC 2 started to fall over to the side, but that was stopped when it blew up 1000 feet in the air.
Ah yes, it must have been the force field that stopped it from falling over.
Anyway, glad to see you realize that it wasn't a symmetrical collapse.
We wouldn't expect WTC1 to fall symmetrically, because neither the the damage nor the fires were symmetrical.
Don't worry, it didn't.
I don't have any theories involving magic or elves.
False.
GoaterBill, I won't answer because it's a waste of time. You're so ignorant you don't know why it's a waste of time. I'm going to let you fret and fume for three days, and then I'm going to show that you've been making a fool of yourself for three days. Kinda like when you claimed that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized, which is not true for reasons that are obvious to anyone that knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC.
Ian, according to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the tilting top block of WTC 2 should have fallen off the building. That is why Dr. Bazant is driven to the extreme and ludicrous claim that it rotated around a centroid. Maybe that was Dr. Bazant's way of telling us "Pay no attention to me, I'm lying!" Ron Hamburger pulled a similar stunt. He told a Stanford audience that the planes couild not have hit the towers any lower than they did because the towers were surrounded by tall buildings. Ummm, excuse me Ron, but the WTC was not surrounded by 75-story buildings.
That's right, goat fucker! Don't answer the questions. Pound your irrelevant lies and straw men.
Do you honestly think we're fooled by such tranparent nonsense?
You're a coward. You constantly run from me, and you run from William Rodriguez. And now you're running from WAQ.
You da "man," goat fucker! You da "man."
You have no idea what a silly billy you are.
Really?
That's hurts. And especially so when one considers that your latest attempt at evasion is the product of a cretin who can't do simple arithmetic. (Was the part where you subtract one temperature from the other (∆T) a little too much for a "genius" of your caliber? After all, I gave you the remainder of the values. Or was the multiplication part the killer? Idiot.)
Perhaps you should stick to wearing women's underwear and showing your junk to little old ladies in Golden Gate Park?
GutterBall, I think I'm the one who introduced the concept of ∆T to this board. You're just a poseur.
Perhaps you should admit that your capabilities end at making up lies about people you'll never know?
So, any votes for album of the year? I haven't heard it yet, but I bet all the critics are gonna choose the new PJ Harvey.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...I think I'm the one who introduced the concept of ∆T to this board. You're just a poseur."
You didn't introduce the concept of delta T (∆T)--you scurrilous liar.
Anyone with a background in the physical sciences--which obviously excludes you--is familiar with ∆T.
Which, of course, explains why you can't subtract one number from another or multiply three values.
In fact, you're the poseur as I've demonstrated time and time again. And that's precisely why I refer to you as "Mr. Bogus 'scientific reputation.'"
The proof's in the pudding, goat fucker. For example,
Tell us, cretin, for a guy with an alleged "scientific reputation," why do you live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor?
Loser.
Actually about Eric Lawyer of "Firefighters for 9/11 Truth", here's what a real firefighter thinks about him:
Firefighters & the 9/11 Truth Movement
firegeezer.com/2011/07/25/firefighters-and-the-911-truth-movement-part-one/
"I usually ignore such trash but it was sent by a non-firefighter with the note "this is legit." Lawyer says that "our communities trust us" and cites that as a reason for firefighters to sign a petition and to become involved in trafficking in absurdities and ridiculous assertions. Such folly can have grave implications. I sincerely hope we know better but I wouldn’t necessarily bet on that." - FF Eric Lamar
So Eric Lawyer isn't really a firefighter, how does Eric Lamar know about this? Well he did some background checks on Mr. Lawyer and found no records of him ever being in the fire service. So in reality Mr. Lawyer is a fraud.
As far as ignoring Brian for a day, I'm living up to my promise.
I can see that he's getting mad @ me for ignoring him. In all honesty, Brian can't even correct himself because he constantly contradicts himself on a daily basis. So actually it's a win for SLC.
"So, any votes for album of the year? I haven't heard it yet, but I bet all the critics are gonna choose the new PJ Harvey."
Way to stay on topic, Johnboy.
Seems like 'dramatic' footage is enough to convince Pat of just about anything. Good thing he isn't a skeptic, or he'd require a bit more data before ejaculating (and then retracting) any asinine claims. Remember your big oxyacetylene MELTDOWN, Pat? Boy, did you look stupid. Again.
I can see that Brian's petgoat "Pat Cowardly" is talking about those iron spheres again.
All anyone has to do is get a used brillo pad, light it with a lighter and you'll get those iron spheres.
Of course we all know that Truthers love to lie out their ass.
Way to stay on topic, Johnboy.
So you prefer Radiohead's King of Limbs?
GoaterBill wrote: Anyone with a background in the physical sciences--which obviously excludes you--is familiar with ∆T.
Right, which is why I had to introduce the concept here. None of you poseurs are familiar with it. MGF has admitted he was never taught about the energy of fusion.
You don't even know that your formula about thermal expansion is ludicrous.
Where do you get the idea that I live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor?
WAQo, I'm sure Eric Lawyer will be amused by your notion that he is not a firefighter.
So what's your point about the Brillo pads? RJ Lee said 6% of the particles (not 6% of the weight, as GutterBall stupidly assumed) were iron microspheres. So are you claiming that there were Brillo pad warehouses in the WTC? Where, exactly?
No, like the goat fucker, the ArseHooligan is into the Village People--the cowboy to be precise.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...Right, which is why I had to introduce the concept here."
You didn't "introduce" anything, goat fucker. Proof? You can't provide a hyperlink to substantiate your bogus argument.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...None of you poseurs are familiar with it."
Care to substantiate that assertion, math illiterate?
The goat fucker squeals, "...You don't even know that your formula about thermal expansion is ludicrous."
If that's true--and it isn't--you've utterly failed to provide a scintilla of evidence to substantiate your argument.
FAIL.
The remainder of your comment is merely another attempt to hijack the thread and bury your latest humiliating defeat in squeal spam.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
So goat fucker, for a clown with an alleged "scientific reputation," why do you live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor?
I can provide a hyperlink, but the game is not worth the candle here.
Your formula about thermal expansion is ludicrous. Check it, Einstein.
Where do you get the idea that I live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor?
To return the thread to its topic--Pat, what exactly is dramatic about the footage in this silly Daily Mail article that thinks that bent aluminium window frames represent structural damage?
The goat fucker dissembl;es, "...I can provide a hyperlink, but the game is not worth the candle here."
In other words, you're lying again, goat fucker. The truth is that you can't substantiate one word of your lies and propaganda.
FAIL.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...Your formula about thermal expansion is ludicrous. Check it, Einstein."
Ditto.
In other words, you're lying again, goat fucker. The truth is that you can't substantiate one word of your lies and propaganda.
FAIL.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...RJ Lee said 6% of the particles (not 6% of the weight, as GutterBall stupidly assumed) were iron microspheres."
Shall I prove, once again, that you and the ArseHooligan (aka, "Pat Cowardly") repeatedly misrepresented the content of the RJ Lee Report, goat fucker?
So goat fucker, for a clown with an alleged "scientific reputation," why do you live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor?
In other words, your prolixity is not worth refuting.
Your formula about thermal expansion is ludicrous. Check it, Einstein."
RJ Lee said 6% of the particles (not 6% of the weight, as GutterBall stupidly assumed) were iron microspheres.
You provide no evidence that I live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor. Your apparent assumption that there is some difference between a Puerto Rican janitor and a Russian janitor would appear to be racist.
I'm not going to allow you to hijack the thread, goat fucker.
Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, use the following equation to determine the fractional change in length of the beam:
∆L=L0α∆T
So, why you can't subtract one number from another or multiply three values?
You're a fraud, a charlatan and a liar.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Oh, so now you're changing the expression that you claimed I couldn't solve--eh, Mr. Applied Mathematics?
Bwa ha ha ha ha!
You're a joke.
Goat fucker,
I didn't change anything, as my post at time stamp 02 November, 2011 17:17 proves beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Are lies all you have, goat fucker?
FAIL.
I'll bet dollars to donuts that you can't derive the three forms of ∆L/L0=α∆T.
So let's have a demonstration of your alleged "math skills," Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Iron microspheres or iron oxide (commonly known as RUST) is every where.
So how can thermite be present where there's rust on every piece of metal known to man?
Just because something as abundant as iron oxide is every where, isn't proof that thermite was the cause.
Everyone, but Brian, gets my point.
WAQ, knock it off. You're just as guilty of hijacking the thread as the goat fucker.
Stay on topic.
So, any votes for album of the year? I haven't heard it yet, but I bet all the critics are gonna choose the new PJ Harvey.
Nine Types of Light by TV on the Radio is my favorite of 2011.
More talk about Erik Lawyer @ JREF:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=183072
GB,
Perhaps you didn't get the memo I wrote yesterday:
"How about, for an entire day, we pay no attention to Brian?
Make an experiment out of it just to see if he gets mad, sad or just goes crazy.
Ignore every post he makes like he wasn't even here.
What you say fellas?"
Not "hijacking" the thread, 'm just ignoring Brian and he's getting pissed. My experiment is working.
Since this post is about WTC 7, I'd still like to point out how absurd it is to make WTC 7 the smoking gun of the conspiracy theorists. Apparently, 4 hijacked planes, 2 destroyed iconic skyscrapers, and 3000 dead people wouldn't have been enough to get Americans on board with the Bush war agenda, so it was necessary to destroy an obscure unoccupied building hours after the fact. THEN the American people would want to invade Iraq.
GoaterBill, you lie. You changed the expression.
WAQo, iron microspheres may be iron oxide but iron oxide is not iron micropsheres. Please substantiate your claim that microspheres are everywhere, liar.
Ian, your idea of turning SLC into a popular music blog is a great idea. Maybe they could actually get some traffic that way.
WTC7 fell outside it's own footprint, as indicated on various videos & photographs. Also there wasn't any sounds of explosives going off & you can hear th firefighters talking about how WTC7 was groaning & leaning & also they remarked that they couldn't fight the fires because there was no way inside because they deemed the structure unsafe and evacuated the building from further fire operations. They also maintained a parimeter around the buildings so noone else would get hurt or killed when it collapsed.
There's nothing "suspicious" about WTC7. It was a fire that was left to burn & resulted in the building collapsing. It's standard proceedure to let things burn themselves out if the operations fail.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...You changed the expression."
Lying again, goat fucker? Of course you are.
Here's what I wrote at time stamp 02 November, 2011 17:17:
"...Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, use the following equation to determine the fractional change in length of the beam:
"∆L/L0=α∆T
"To show you what a nice guy I am, I'll do the algebra and give you the equation you'll need to solve the problem
"∆L=L0α∆T"
In other words, I did the math for you and gave you the form of the equation you'll need to answer my simple question.
And as usual you balked and utterly failed to answer the question.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
So goat fucker, for a clown with an alleged "scientific reputation," why do you live in fear of a Puerto Rican janitor?
So, goat fucker, solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the question:
Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
After all, I've given you all the values of the variables, and yet, you steadfastly refuse to answer my question.
Why is that, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?
The answer is simple: You're a fraud.
Iron microspheres is about CORROSION.
Corrosion protection by polyaniline-coated latex microspheres
http://asura.apphy.u-fukui.ac.jp/~aoki/publication/PDF/JEC583_133.pdf
The iron plate covered with films of polyaniline-coated polystyrene latex (PANI–PS) microspheres were protected against corrosion
in 0.01 mol dm 3 HCl and 3% (w/v) NaCl aqueous solution. PANI–PS particles 1.85 ± 0.06 lm in diameter were synthesized
by polymerizing chemically aniline on polystyrene (PS) latex in the suspension. The conducting state (emeraldine salt) of PANI film
shifted the corrosion potential of the underlying iron toward a positive from the insulating state of PANI (leucoemeraldine form).
The film from which core-polystyrene was removed by dissolution in tetrahydrofuran had the similar anti-corrosive properties. Tafel
plots, open circuit potential–time diagrams were used to examine the corrosion properties of PANI–PS coated and uncoated
electrodes.
Wow, this is going to blow Brian's mind!
WAQ, iron-rich microspheres are NOT the subject of the thread.
You're taking the goat fucker and "Pat Cowardly's" bait.
Stay on topic.
Corrosion protection by polyaniline-coated latex microspheres
http://asura.apphy.u-fukui.ac.jp/~aoki/publication/PDF/JEC583_133.pdf
Part taken from Introduction:
A well-known technique of coating the large metal surface is to spread suspensions of microparticles and to dry them [33,34], like painting. If PANI–PS microspheres are spread on a substrate to form a film, the problems of the poor processability and roughness of
film thickness on a large area will be solved.
So it was nothing but a film resembling paint in order to protect the steel from the corrosive elements of the salty sea air of the North Atlantic.
So, those "iron microspheres" mean absolutely NOTHING.
Wow, this is going to blow Brian's mind!
Who?
On another note, I have tickets to see My Morning Jacket play MSG in December. I was a little disappointed in Circuital, but I think that's only because Z and Evil Urges were so good.
GB,
Actually I'm showing facts about those microspheres and not directing my attention to Brian.
Take it easy, its my experiment that I'm running.
You don't get it, do you WAQ?
This is how they hijack threads. When they're losing the debate, they automatically CHANGE THE SUBJECT.
It's the oldest troofer tactic in the book--and you're falling for it.
Stay on topic, please.
WAQo, so you're changing the subject from microspheres to footprints. That's because you can't defend your claims on any particular subject.
killed when it collapsed.
There's certainly something "suspicious" about WTC7. Asymmetrical fires can not cause symmetrical collapse, and 1600 architects and engineers are willing to put their careers on the line to say so.
UtterFail, you're still quoting an unsolvable expression.
You seem to think there's something complicated about "∆L=L0α∆T". Why is that? Would a guy who really had junior high school algebra really think there was something complicated about that?
Where do you get the idea that I live in fear of a janitor? And why would you think that his Puerto Rican heritage would be a factor?
You're not very bright, are you?
WAQo, you provide no evidence that polyaniline-coated latex microspheres were present at Ground Zero. You're only showing your desperation.
GB,
This is about WTC7, it reguards about those "iron microspheres" too.
I've been on topic about the issue.
Don't take it out on other people GB because of Brian's childish behavior. If you'd just ignore him for a day you'd realize that he's a big fat nothing. Whatever he brings up you should be able to use a link to counter his claims. That's what I'm doing.
As of today I'm not going around claiming this and that about WTC7. My name isn't Brian Good (thank God).
Just because some gutless coward who hides behind the name "snug-bug" can't provide links to his information then he's the one going around changing the subject and hijacking the threads.
The link:
http://asura.apphy.u-fukui.ac.jp/~aoki/publication/PDF/JEC583_133.pdf
Shows different types of microspheres that can be found, especially on steel products that are in he line of fire with corrosion.
So to talk about those microspheres we have to read about what other microspheres there are so we can eliminate the possiblity that thermite was used. This is what researching is all about: Process of elimination!
The goat fucker dissembles, "...you're still quoting an unsolvable expression."
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
FAIL.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...You seem to think there's something complicated about "∆L=L0α∆T"."
There's nothing complicated about solving the equation. In fact, you're the one who finds it "complicated"--which explains why you can't solve it.
It's obvious that you live in fear of Willie. And we know this is true because you ran screaming and squealing from his numerous challenges to debate.
So when do you plan to answer my simple questions, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?
You're a fraud.
WAQ wrote, "...Just because some gutless coward who hides behind the name "snug-bug" can't provide links to his information then he's the one going around changing the subject and hijacking the threads."
Then perhaps you can explain why you're talking their bait and helping them hijack the thread?
Again, stay on topic.
Google: "corrosion iron spheres" look for:
The Civil engineer and architect's journal, Volume 27
In that book it talks about corrosion and iron. It also talks about iron spheres
Why do you expect a paper published in 2005 to be relevant to a skyscraper constructed in the 1980s?
Your desperation is showing.
I still can't figure out what the motive for destroying WTC 7 was, and no "truther" has ever been able to explain it either. They have no idea why it's so important to their conspiracy theories.
I said as much to a hippie chick at OWS who said she doubted the official story because of WTC 7. After I went over all the reasons why WTC 7's destruction would just hurt any conspiracy, she seemed to think differently.
Most people who accept some truther ideas just haven't seen the other side. The only ones who are truly hopeless are the scrawny 24-year-old virgins in black t-shirts (Pat Cowardly) who are doing this to get back at the jocks who picked on them in high school. Also, the burnt-out baby boomers who still think it's 1968 are pretty hopeless too.
GB,
Don't direct your attention at me, ok?
I am on topic and debating about the issue & ignoring Brian at the same time.
He hasn't even baited me, he's getting pissed off that I won't direct my attention at him and it's working flawlessly.
Why can't you do the same and ignore him for a day?
Still trying to hijack the thread, goat fucker?
Of course you are.
So why can't you answer my simple questions, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?
The answer is obvious: You steadfastly refuse to answer my questions because to do so will blow a hole a mile-wide in your bogus argument.
WAQ wrote, "...Don't direct your attention at me, ok?"
I'll direct my attention anywhere I damned well please--and I won't ask you for permission.
Stay on topic, and learn to stop taking their bait.
Speaking about desperation. Why hasn't that loser Brian shown us any sources for his claims?
I've backed up my arguements with links to sources.
The only THING that's desprite around here is that no good lying son of a bitch Brian Good.
He can't even make a single coherent theory without contradicting himself in the process.
I think GB is asking for me to ignore him too for a day.
Apparently Brian has got him where he wants him. Of course this is just an assumption.
The goat fucker whines, "...There's nothing complicated about solving the equation."
If that's the case, why can't you solve the equation for L?
Why can't you subtract two numbers and multiply three values?
I hand the equation to you on a silver platter and still you manage to balk.
Why is that, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?
This comment has been removed by the author.
The only reason why Brian is hijacking & going off topic is because that's what Truthers do when faced with the facts & evidence that contradicts their views.
If you respond to the TROLL, you'll just be feeding it what it wants the most, ANGER. Trolls, like Brian, feed off our negative responses. The best thing to do is ignore the TROLL and don't feed it with your anger.
You cut off the TROLLs supply, it'll move on to something else.
^
^
^
^
^
GB,
Please try to understand the post I made above.
Wrong again, WAQ.
The best way to deal with a troll is to ban the SOB. That's why he's been banned from practically every 9/11 website on the 'net.
GB,
Pat & James have said to you many times before that they can't ban him.
The ONLY way to ban him is to not let ANYONE use the comment sections in any of their threads.
Why do you think that Pat & James don't let us post comments on certain threads? Answer: Because of Brian.
Do you want us all to sit here reading what Pat & James bring up and not have the luxury of commenting on the issue?
WAQ wrote, "...Pat & James have said to you many times before that they can't ban him."
False.
In fact, they can ban him--and I've given them TWO perfectly viable solutions.
And that fact alone invalidates the remainder of your argument.
Try again, WAQ.
So goat fucker, when do you plan to answer my questions?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
GB,
I hate to say this but you're just as bad as Brian is. He's suckered you too deeply into showing your anger and now you're directing that anger at other people.
I can sit here all day telling you what Pat & James have been telling you but you won't listen to reason.
I bet Brian is laughing at you for taking it out on me and I wouldn't doubt that's why he's remained silent.
Can you see this is what Brian wants, he wants us to fight each other and play his games?
This comment has been removed by the author.
You're a logic cesspool, WAQ.
FACT: I'm not angry. I have his back against wall, which explains why the goat fucker can't answer my simple questions.
Furthermore, my comment's are on-topic.
You, on the other hand, are helping them hijack the debate.
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you're one of them. And you're doing your level best to discredit us.
Now, stay on topic.
Then the logical thing to do is to let Pat & James disconnect all of us from ever commenting on SLC.
Is that what you truely want GB?
Answer the question please.
I said shut the fuck up, WAQ.
If you can't stay on-topic, get the fuck out.
Is that simple enough for you, WAQ?
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised in the least if you're one of them. And you're doing your level best to discredit us.
Most absurd thing I've ever heard. Truely!
How can I be "one of them" when I'm fighting all of them on a regular basis?
The force isn't strong with this one.
Guitar Bill, your problem is that you take Brian seriously. If you do that, he wins.
I, on the other hand, just mock him and post non-sequiturs and it drives him nuts. He wants serious attention, and he's not going to get it anywhere else but here, but only if you give it to him.
What part "shut the fuck up" do you fail to understand, WAQ?
You're not "fighting" anyone. In fact, you're discrediting us with your errors and doing your best to hijack the thread.
Again, the subject isn't iron microspheres. The subject is the collapse of WTC 7.
Now shut the fuck up, WAQ.
If you can't stay on-topic, sit on your hands.
Is that simple enough for you, WAQ?
What's simple enough for me to understand is that Brian has you wrapped around his little finger.
You've got too much anger and directing it at the wrong person.
Since you won't use common sense or reason or "cool your jets" you need a time out for a change.
Pat or James,
Please disable the comment sections on future threads. Since GB wants to ban Brian, this is the only way it can be achieved.
Anyone reading this will have GB to thank if Pat & James does disable the use of the comments sections.
I'm done bickering with infants!
Guitar Bill, your problem is that you take Brian seriously. If you do that, he wins.
Exactly Ian!
Ian wrote, "...Guitar Bill, your problem is that you take Brian seriously. If you do that, he wins."
Really? No kidding?
If that's true--and it's not true in the least--why does the goat fucker steadfastly refuse to answer my simple questions?
In fact, he wins when you allow the SOB to CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND HIJACK THE THREAD.
If GB wants to continue his little charade of hostilities he needs to open up his own blog where only him & Brian can fight.
"...I'm done bickering with infants!"
Of course you are "done", Brian.
Now take your sock puppets and cowardly misdirection and thread hijacking tactics and go back to "truthaction.org" where you belong.
If that's true--and it's not true in the least--why does the goat fucker steadfastly refuse to answer my simple questions?
Just so you can get really pissed off, like you're doing now.
Don't you know that Brian jerks off when he doesn't answer yours or anyone elses questions?
Of course you are "done", Brian.
Since when does Brian live at two places @ the same time? He lives in Palo Alto, CA, I live in Johnstown, PA.
Now take your sock puppets and cowardly misdirection and thread hijacking tactics and go back to "truthaction.org" where you belong.
Just because you see red doesn't mean everything else should be red.
Take a chill pill!
Still trying to hijack the thread, "WAQ"? Or should I refer to you as Brian?
And remember, I'm just asking questions...
So goat fucker, when do you plan to answer my questions?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
Obviously GB is infatuated with Brian.
Everyone he knows is Brian Good, including Pat, James, M Greogory Ferris, Ian, Billman, John, Mike Rosefierce & myself.
I'm sorry, but GB has lost his God damn mind.
See Bill? You've let Brian annoy you to the point where you're making wild accusations about others being Brian's sockpuppets.
The solution is to either completely ignore him or to just taunt him. Nothing gets accomplished when Brian is taken seriously. Certainly, he's not a threat to anyone (except maybe a few middle-aged women in the SF area).
This is just weird. I type in "guitarbill 9/11" on Google & there's 2 links showing: "Maxwell C. Bridges"
WTF is this?
Wrong again.
I not annoyed with the goat fucker. I'm annoyed with WAQ who is trying desperately to hijack the thread and make us look like idiots.
The goat fucker made the unsupported assertion that says "NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven."
That assertion is patently false. And his steadfast refusal to answer my question is proof positive that I'm right.
No "scientist" or "engineer" would balk at the chance to whip out his calculator and substantiate his argument. And that's precisely why the goat fucker refuses to answer my questions.
He won't answer my questions because he doesn't have the knowledge or the education to answer them.
It's as simple as that, Ian.
Another example of your infinite ignorance, WAQ?
"Maxwell C. Bridges" is Glenn Maxey of A&E 9/11 truth. And I can prove it.
Look, the muppets are fighting!
The goat fucker made the unsupported assertion that says "NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven."
Who cares what unsupported assertions he makes?
He won't answer my questions because he doesn't have the knowledge or the education to answer them.
So what?
Brian is not an engineering professor at Stanford. He's not a federal prosecutor. He's not some well-known political commentator. He's NOBODY. Why let someone like him get you worked up, especially when pointing out that he's nobody makes him so upset?
I not annoyed with the goat fucker. I'm annoyed with WAQ who is trying desperately to hijack the thread and make us look like idiots.
GB,
In all seriousness it's you that's making us look like idiots.
And look @ what Brian has wrote. He's jerking off because we're fighting. What I tell ya?
Here's the proof that "maxbridges" is Glenn Maxey.
Whois information for maxbridges.us.
Notice the line that reads,
administrative Contact Name: Glenn Maxey
And who is Glenn Maxey?
Right here, genius.
Glenn Maxey's A&E 9/'11 truth profile.
Maybe you should learn to do your homework,
You're an idiot.
The goat fucker whines, "...Look, the muppets are fighting!"
So goat fucker, when do you plan to answer my questions?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
You're an idiot.
Ok I get it, you're just like Brian and want to act like a child. I surrender!
UtterFail, you clearly don't know what an equation is.
Max's site provided some useful insight on the tactics y'all emply here.
Lesson #1: The first part of any response should be to personally attack the opponent.
Lesson #2: Put incorrect words into your opponent's mouth.
Lesson #3: Misconstrue your opponent's message purposely so as to build a straw man argument that is easier to knock down than your opponent's real argument.
Lesson #4: Take all of the weaknesses in your own position and project them onto your opponent, whether or not true.
Lesson #4b: Take all of the strengths in your opponent's position and project them onto your position, whether or not true.
Lesson #5: Rather than addressing your opponent's points head-on, insult their intelligence instead and extrapolate your claim of their lack of intelligence as being the reason why their points fail.
Lesson #6: Purposely mislabel your points as "fact", so that it is harder for your opponent to question it.
Lesson #7: Repeat your lie over and over until it sinks in as a possible truth.
"Hype - Associate - Twist - Egg - Repeat".
But seriously, if Pat & James disable the comments in future threads we all have to thank GB for it.
Frankly I enjoyed the silence when they did that the last time.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...you clearly don't know what an equation is."
That's not answer goat fucker. It's another attempt to hijack the thread. In fact, Glenn Maxey's bullshit is a perfect description of your tactics.
So goat fucker, when do you plan to answer my questions?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
Hey Ian, pass the beer and the popcorn. LOL!
The goat fucker dissembles, "...Max's site provided some useful insight on the tactics y'all emply [SIC] here."
Nice job, spelling bee champ.
In fact, "Maxwell C. Bridges" doesn't exist, as my post at 03 November, 2011 13:17 proves beyond a doubt.
Max Bridges is that identity thief Glenn Maxey of A&E 9/11 truth.
And old Glenn is every bit as much of fraud as you are, goat fucker.
So goat fucker, when do you plan to answer my questions?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
You know, I was considering contributing to this scintillating conversation, but these 2 children just ain't worth the time.
So, Ian, is the new Decemberists worth my time?
2 idiots fighting over who can beat Pat at misreading, misleading, and generally spouting unfounded bullshit at every turn.
How amusing.
I know John.
Everyone tried to reason with those 2 (GB & Brian) and what happens? We get shafted.
John the Decemberists is lousy poetry that is not improved by lousy music, and vice versa.
Shut up, chewy--you freaking idiot.
You're such a dolt that you fell for the "Maxwell C. Bridges" fraud.
What does that say about your alleged "debunking," and "investigative" skills?
You couldn't find your ass with a hunting dog and a compass.
So goat fucker, when do you plan to answer my questions?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
GB,
Stop acting like a child and grow up. You're acting like a 5 yr. old who can't get his way.
As Yoda once said:
"Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger, anger leads to suffering."
What's the matter, goat fucker? Cat got your tongue?
After all, no "scientist" or "engineer" would balk at the chance to whip out his calculator and pad and pencil and substantiate his argument.
So what are you afraid of, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation"?"
GMS, the collapse was symmetrical. The roofline is almost level.
LMAO!!! So the roofline almost being level somehow negates it leaning north, the collapse of the EMP, and the damage to surrounding structures? It is nowhere near the endof collapse which means its leans continued further
The reference lines of the standing buildings show that the structure is far out of plumb or level. This is fact. Your delusions have no effect on reality.
Yup...delusional.
So Chewy, how do you explain away the fact that you fell for the "Maxwell C. Bridges" fraud?
And what does your reign of error say about your alleged "debunking," and "investigative" skills?
Chewy,
Don't give me that crap about "[a]cting like a child and grow up."
You're the one who mentioned "Maxwell C Bridges"--you fool.
What's the matter, genius? You can't stand having your infinite gullibility exposed for all to witness?
Actually if you compare the plumb and level of WTC 7 with the surrounding structures you can see in the visible area of the roof and vertical perimeter its the equivalent of 1+ stories out. That's "near" level in your world? Thank god you're not responsible for anything of importance.
Can I prove that Glenn Maxey (aka, "Maxwell C. Bridges") is an identity thief?
Of course I can prove he's an identity thief.
First, Glenn Maxey created a "legend" to hide his identity from his employers, who would fire him in a microsecond if they ever discovered his activities on behalf of A%E 9/11 "truth."
The photos he uses on his blog and Facebook page are of a man named Craig Hawley.
Source: "Max"'s Blogspot.com Page: maxwellbridges.blogspot.com.
Source: Facebook: Max's Facebook Page.
Here are the bogus photos:
Photographic Source: "Max Bridges'" blogspot.com photo.
Notice that "Maxwell C. Bridges" photo is of a man named Craig Hawley (read the URL line of your browswer for proof).
Photographic Source: "Max Bridges" (FaceBook Mugshot).
Notice that Craig Hawley's photo bears no resemblance to Glenn Maxey's A&E 9/11 "truth" mugshot.
Continued...
Continued...
There's only one problem. "Max" made the mistake of giving us several links to his vanity website: maxbridges.us.
Anyone can use the UNIX 'whois' command to learn specifics about ANY website. So, I brought up an xterm on my Linux machine and issued the following command:
whois maxbridges.us | grep "Registrant Name"
and here's what the command returned:
Registrant Name: Glenn Maxey
So, the owner of "maxbridges.us" is a guy named "Glenn Maxey". And he stole a man named Craig Hawley's photograph to hide his real identity. Clearly, he uses Craig Hawley's photograph and an assumed name--Maxwell C. Bridges"--to hide his real identity from his employers. And that, folks, is identity theft. I also have a good mind to turn the SOB in to the FBI for prosecution.
So, who's the real Glenn Maxey, you ask?
A simple Google search reveals the truth:
Google search string: site ae911truth.org Glenn Maxey
And what do we find if we click on the first link?
Source: Glenn Maxey's ae911truth.org User Profile: User Profile: Glenn Maxey.
So, "Maxwell C. Bridges" does not exist. It's an alias used by Glenn Maxey while he trolls forums like AlterNet and collegian.com.
"Max" is also a nut-bar, who believes that Jesus spoke to him about 911:
Source: Jesus Spoke to Me about 9/11.
In addition, he's an anti-Semite who believes that Ehud Barak Pulled Off 9-11.
Thus, "Max" is a nutter and a fraud.
For those of you who don't have access to a UNIX computer, you can access the aforementioned 'whois' information for maxbridges.us at the following link:
Whois information for maxbridges.us.
Again, notice that the "registrant name" is Glenn Maxey, not "Maxwell C. Bridges."
So GMS, you're claiming the roof is out of level? Let's see, 12 feet out of level over 330 feet = 96.4% level last time I checked. Thanks for playing.
John,
You wanted to see evidence for my claim that A&E 9/11 "truth" lists an identity thief as a member, correct? Well, there's your proof.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...Let's see, 12 feet out of level over 330 feet = 96.4% level last time I checked."
What does that prove, goat fucker?
You've just proven GMS's point.
FAIL.
Thanks for playing, numb nuts.
Furthermore, GMS isn't talking about the roof, numb nuts. He's talking about the building's pronounced lean to the east. Did you even bother to look at the photo, or are you merely throwing out another red herring?
You're a fraud.
I said the roofline was almost level. 96.4% level is almost level. All you guys can do is quibble.
"But it wasn't freefall, it was only 2/3 the acceleration of freefall! It wasn't freefall, it was only 2.25 seconds of freefall! It wasn't almost level because it was 3.6% out of level." You might as well argue that it wasn't sex 'cause you were wearing a condom on your tongue.
Here's GMS's photo, douche bag.
http://s8.photobucket.com/albums/a19/grnadmastershek/?action=view¤t=WTC7StraightDown.png
Clearly, he wasn't talking about the roof.
FAIL.
So what part of "vertical reference lines" don't you understand, idiot?
If he was talking about the roof, he'd use HORIZONTAL REFERENCE LINES.
You're an idiot.
FAIL.
UtterFail, your comments might be less embarrassing to you if you would actually read the thread before commenting on it. It must be very frustrating to be you.
There's your proof
Thanks.
The goat fucker dissembles, "...your comments might be less embarrassing to you if you would actually read the thread before commenting on it. It must be very frustrating to be you."
Nice try, goat fucker. Of course, once again, you're trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in another pile of dumbspam.
I read the thread, and it's obvious that GMS is talking about WTC 7 as it leans to the EAST, not the roof.
So what part of "vertical reference lines" do you fail to understand, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation?
That said, when do you plan to answer my questions, goat fucker?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
Oh, that's right! You're just as math illiterate as you are physics illiterate. My bad.
To call you a douche bag is an insult to douche bags. After all, douche bags are somewhat useful.
UtterFail, your belief that your incompetently-quoted expression represents some kind of challenge only discredits you.
Another 100% fact-free assertion, ass (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the goat fucker)?
Just admit it, goat fucker. You can't answer the questions because you're a liar, sex predator and pseudo-"educated" ass who wears women's underwear. In addition, you couldn't pass a formal examination in high school-level math or physics.
Is it any wonder that you're an unemployed janitor who was disowned by his parents?
You don't seem to realize that since your conclusion is the same as your premise, in effect you're eating your shit.
Another logical fallacy, ass?
As opposed to what, jerkoff? Your specialty? That is, an argument in which its conclusion doesn't follow from its premise?
Tell us more, Mr. Non Sequitur.
So when do you plan to answer my questions, goat fucker?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
UtterFail, you seem to think simple (and incompetently framed) equations are difficult, and that the chain rule is some esoteric secret.
I remember people in high school math class like you. They had to recite to themselves the formulae for the volume of cones and spheres because somehow they couldn't keep them in their head. They thought that being able to recite pi to 30 decimal points was a sign of intelligence.
Goat fucker, that's not an answer, it's an evasion.
I gave you the values for each variable.
L0 = 53 ft (16.15 meters).
The length of the beam.
α, alpha, the linear expansion coefficient (13 x 10^-6/degree C @ 20 degrees C)
∆T, the change in temperature (400 degrees C - 20 degrees C)
All I'm asking for are the value for ∆L, and the expression that solves for L.
Hell, my oldest daughter can answer those questions. So what's your excuse, goat fucker?
So when do you plan to answer my questions, goat fucker?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Or is elementary algebra beyond your meager [cough] "intellectual" means?
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
You won't provide the answers because you're a pseudo-"educated" fraud who can't pass an elementary examination in mathematics or physics.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
GB, what in the world gave you the impression that I can't answer your questions?
Your OCD is showing, silly guy.
Then why have you studiously avoided answering the questions--you God damned fraud?
The proof's in the pudding, asshole.
And I'm betting the farm that you can't answer the questions without making major errors.
In fact, you won't answer the questions, because to do so will blow a hole a mile-wide in your ludicrous "NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven" assertion.
Now, answer the questions, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
Why should I answer your silly questions? You're not paying me.
You seem to regard the fact that thermal expansion exists as proof that thermal expansion caused the girder at column 79 to fall off its seat.
That's as ridiculous as thinking that the fact that I have a dick proves that Katarina Witt sucked it. You are incompetent at logic, and you can't even write a VERY simple equation in a comprehensible manner.
NIST had to go through all kinds of contortions to make their thermal expansion seem to be plausible, including removing the sheer studs, heating the steel but leaving the concrete slab unheated, assuming heating over the entire length of the beam, and assuming a fire that had burned out an hour before the failure.
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
You won't answer the questions because you can't answer the questions.
You know as well as I do that if you answer the questions, I'll bury you and prove that thermal expansion was the cause of the collapse of WTC 7. It's as simple as that--you God damned fraud.
END OF "DEBATE." Once again, you lose by forfeit.
LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT THE GOAT FUCKER IS UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS THAT INVOLVE NOTHING MORE THAN ELEMENTARY ARITHMETIC AND JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL ALGEBRA.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
UtterFail, let the record show that your belief that because I won't answer your inept and silly question, therefore I can't answer it is typical UtterFail irrationality.
Hint: next time you write a mathematical expression, don't put an equation in the denominator of a fraction. You're a buffoon.
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
An equation doesn't require any alleged "form."
Any competent junior high school student can solve an equation for a given variable. So what's your excuse, goat fucker?
Let's start at the very basic level.
What's the "form" of ∆T? That is, what is ∆T at its most basic level? Break ∆T up into its components (and I've already given you the answer--you idiot).
I'll bet you can't answer that simple question.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
An equation requires a form or it's not an equation.
∆L/L0 = α∆T is an equation.
∆L/L0=α∆T is not an equation.
I'm the one who introduced the concept of ∆T to thei board. That is because, unlike MGF who claims to be a geologist, I have had Chem 101 and learned about the heat of fusion.
That's not answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
A space on both sides of the equals sign is irrelevant--you idiot. Were you educated in a trailer park? Of course you were.
Let's start again, shall we?
What's the "form" of ∆T? That is, what is ∆T at its most basic level? Break ∆T up into its components (and I've already given you the answer--you idiot).
And when you're finished fucking up that simple question, what's the basic form of ∆L?
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
The goat fucker squeals, "...I have had Chem 101 and learned about the heat of fusion."
You didn't learn about ∆T until you allegedly took "chem 101"?!?!?!?!?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I learned about ∆T in 7th grade.
And I passed two quarters of P-Chem with A's in my junior year at university.
Yep, you were "educated" in a trailer park.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
The space is not irrelevant. You put the term "L0=α∆T" as the denominator in a fraction, demonstrating your ignorance.
Wrong again, goat fucker.
∆L/L0=α∆T reads as delta L (the change in L) divided by L0 (the original length of the beam) is equal to the linear expansion coefficient (13 x 10^-6/degree C @ 20 degrees C) multiplied by the difference in temperature, ∆T.
Yep, you were "educated" in a trailer park.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So when do you plan to answer my two simple questions?
[1] What's the "form" of ∆T? That is, what is ∆T at its most basic level? Break ∆T up into its components (and I've already given you the answer--you idiot)?
[2] What's the basic form of ∆L?
Must I spoon feed you--you brain-dead cretin?
What's the matter, goat fucker, you don't want to play anymore?
Or did the orderlies at the insane asylum take away your 'net connection for the night?
Here are the answers to my two simple questions that any 7th grader can answer:
∆T = T1 - T2
and
∆L = L - L0
Clearly, you're an idiot.
So, when do you plan to answer my questions (I won't hold my breath), goat fucker?
[1] Solve the following equation for L:
∆L/L0=α∆T
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
And when you're finished fucking up that simple exercise, answer the second question:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Go for it, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation." I'm waiting patiently--you fraud.
Oh, that's right! You're just as math illiterate as you are physics illiterate. My bad.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
What a maroon!" -- Bugs Bunny
Since you're incapable of answering my questions, goat fucker, I guess I'm forced to spoon feed you once again. That said, here's how you solve for L--you idiot.
Given,
∆L/L0 = α∆T
it follows that
∆L = αL0∆T
Substituting for ∆L yields,
L - L0 = αL0∆T
(See the pretty spaces, goat fucker? Never mind that the spaces are completely unnecessary, and, in fact, redundant)
Hence, solving for L yields (Here comes the answer, goat fucker, so brace yourself--you cretin),
[Drum roll, please]
L = L0[1 + α∆T]
And that's why I make the big bucks, while you remain a lowly, unemployed janitor who wears women's underwear.
Now, answer my second question--you math illiterate cretin:
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Or must I spoon feed you yet again, goat fucker?
So GMS, you're claiming the roof is out of level? Let's see, 12 feet out of level over 330 feet = 96.4% level last time I checked. Thanks for playing.
I love cherry picking too! Where are you getting that standard from? Where are you getting 12 feet from?
As someone who was a foreman in construction and has a certificate in welding from a technical school I will call BS on such a standard. "Near level" has no real quanitifiable meaning and is an attempt to present non evidence as evidence. "Near level" only means from what I have seen & experienced, "well I can't see its out of wack unless I put a level or a transit on it".
Yet again:
Its visibly leaning by at least 1 floor height vertically and horizontally.
The EMP collapsed before the external structure.
It damaged surrounding structures.
= not symmetrical, no matter how many mental backflips you do.
So, Ian, is the new Decemberists worth my time?
Definitely, although they tack off in a new direction with it. In the past, they seemed like the heirs to Jethro Tull or even Simon and Garfunkel at times, but this album has a more Neil Young edge to it (with some REM thrown in for good measure). It's not as good as their towering masterpiece "Castaways and Cutouts", but it's definitely worth having.
Still waiting for a truther to give us the motive for the destruction of WTC 7. Why did it need to be destroyed when nobody knew about the building, nobody was killed in it, and it fell hours after the fact when it could have easily been destroyed when WTC 1 fell.
Oh, I see Professor Bill is still lecturing to empty halls.
Ian, so what's your point? You don't know a reason to blow up WTC7 and therefore it wasn't blown up? That's the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam.
1600 architects and engineers have concluded that the scientific evidence justifies opening new investigations.
John the Decemberists is lousy poetry that is not improved by lousy music, and vice versa.
Brian, your opinions on pop music are just as worthless as your opinions on the collapse of the WTC.
Nobody cares what a failed janitor and lunatic who wears women's underwear thinks about any topic.
Ian, so what's your point? You don't know a reason to blow up WTC7 and therefore it wasn't blown up?
Well, combine no reason to blow it up with no evidence that it was blown up and one can conclude that it wasn't blown up. I know this is hard for you to understand given that you're a liar and lunatic and failed janitor, but it's simple for normal people.
1600 architects and engineers have concluded that the scientific evidence justifies opening new investigations.
False.
Still waiting for a truther to give us the motive behind the destruction of WTC 7.
Ian, there is evidence that WTC7 blew up. Eyewitnesses say there were explosions. Sounds of explosions were captured on tape. NIST's collapse simulations bear no resemblance to what actually happened. There's the free-fall acceleration for 2.25 seconds, which has not been explained and requires the sudden simultaneous and symmetrical destruction of the supporting columns. Once again you are arguing from ignorance.
If they would just take a look at the list of tenants of WTC7 any reasonable person can imagine any number of reasons to blow it up.
Brian, I notice that you're early today. Did the homeless shelter's computer lab open up at 8 am instead of 9?
Anyway, thanks for proving my point. You have no evidence whatsoever that the building was blown up, and you have no motive for blowing up the building. You just continue to babble about nothing because you're a failed janitor and lunatic who has nothing else to do.
Anyway, let's get this thread back on topic.
A band everyone should check out is Lucero. They're a little bit punk, a little bit country, and a little bit Tom Waits. I caught them opening for Social Distortion about a year ago, but I'd love to see them as the main act.
Ian, for you to declare that eyewitness testimony, audio tape evidence, and an unexplained freefall collapse are not evidence is just typical Iananity.
You're a liar. You make stuff up and you don't know what you[re talking about.
The goat fucker squeals, "...Oh, I see Professor Bill is still lecturing to empty halls."
Not quite. In fact, I'm lecturing to an empty head. You know, that microcephalic gob of shit on your shoulders.
And I see that you still refuse to answer my 2nd question.
Why is that, goat fucker?
I'll tell you why. Two reasons: [1] You can't answer it because you don't have the education or the skills; [2] to answer the question will prove that NIST's thermal expansion hypothesis is correct.
Why do you fear the truth, goat fucker? That makes no sense--and especially so when you claim to be all about the alleged "truth."
But we know that you couldn't give a flying fuck about the "truth." Right, goat fucker?
So when do you plan to answer my second question, shit-for-brains?
[2] Given a 53 ft beam at a temperature of 400 degrees C, determine the fractional change in length of the beam.
Or must I spoon feed you yet again, goat fucker?
Idiot.
Ian, for you to declare that eyewitness testimony, audio tape evidence, and an unexplained freefall collapse are not evidence is just typical Iananity.
They're not evidence, Brian. Sorry. This is why you're not a forensic investigator. You're a failed janitor.
Squealing about it won't change anything.
You're a liar. You make stuff up and you don't know what you[re talking about.
What did I just say about squealing?
Ian, there is evidence that WTC7 blew up.
The evidence that WTC7 collapsed from fire is more convincing.
"evidence"?
We're "debating" a guy who doesn't understand the fundamentals of elementary mathematics or physics.
He can't understand simple concepts like ∆T, as my comment at time stamp 04 November, 2011 02:26 clearly demonstrates.
And you expect that moron to grasp concepts that are clearly over his head?
It's no wonder that he can't grasp the NIST Report. He doesn't have the intellectual prowess.
We may as well "debate" a potted plant.
Now HURRY, goat fucker, and spew more of your meaningless claptrap in an underhanded attempt to get the thread count to 200--you smarmy fraud.
This comment has been removed by the author.
It's obvious that the goat fucker merely parrots Richard Gage and Jim Hoffman's claptrap. For example, have a look at his comment at time stamp 02 November, 2011 08:45:
"...Fire on one floor made smoke, the wind from the NW caused a low-pressure area on the south and east sides, and the smoke roiled up along the wall from the fire on the lower floor giving the illusion of multiple floors of fire."
That's EXACTLY the same argument Gage made to the BBC's Conspiracy Files. He merely changed Gage's "positive pressure" to "low-pressure area on the south and east sides."
He doesn't think for himself. He merely parrots the so-called "experts," while he sticks his nose in the air and lies in the same manner that Oliver North lied under oath to the Congress back in the 80s.
Again, you may as well "debate" a potted plant.
I've never seen GB this obcessed with Brian. Sweet Jesus!
Anyways I'll let GB be bipolar for a bit cause I ain't gonna deal with that kind of behavior from anyone (including Brian).
Ian, there is evidence that WTC7 blew up.
Yeah, it's called quote-mined firefighter statements. Just because they claim to hear explosions doesn't mean that they also heard explosives.
Here's some types of explosions that don't require explosives:
http://www.workingfire.net/misc12.htm
Smoke explosions.
Gas meter explosions.
Gas pipe explosions.
BLEVE explosions.
Flammable vapor explosions.
Manhole explosions.
Vehicle fuel tank explosions.
Yeah, it's called quote-mined firefighter statements. Just because they claim to hear explosions doesn't mean that they also heard explosives.
Not to mention that thermite is not an explosive.
Brian claims thermite destroyed WTC 7, but when asked to provide evidence, he mentions explosions heard.
Which is it, Brian? Explosives or thermite?
Hey genius, you forgot high voltage electrical component explosions (e.g., generators, capacitors, transformers and the like). You're not particularly thorough, are you?
And you really shouldn't toss around concepts you don't understand, e.g., "bipolar" (ie, manic depressive).
If you think I'm impressed by goat fucker-like babbling, you should think again, Einstein.
Now, gum up the thread with more of your inane comments in a vainglorious attempt to impress us with the breadth and depth of your stupidity.
Hilarious when idiots like Ian still cling to "thermite" as the substance alleged to have brought down the buildings.
It allows you fools to say shit like "thermite isn't explosive", or "Rust and aluminum were already abundant" so they could magically "react" (somehow).
Such is the misdirection of those who pretend not to know about aluminothermic nanocomposites, what they can do, or how they're formulated.
Why do you do this, Ian? Pat? James?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Your belief that an equation proves NIST's hypothesis is irrational.
The scientific consensus is that NIST got it right. Opposition by 1500 architects and engineers is negligible.
UtterFail, I refuse to answer your question because it amuses me to
see you indulge your OCD.
Your belief that an equation proves NIST's hypothesis is irrational. The fact that I have a car does not prove that it can drive 500 mph. Even if the equation did prove that the beam could push the girder off its seat, that doesn't prove any of the other equally unbelievable events in NIST's hypothesized collapse sequence.
Signing off as "Idiot" shows you're developing some self-awareness.
Ian, your belief that WTC7 collapsed from fire is is based on "evidence" that you have mostly imagined--such as your faith in the honesty and authority of the NIST investigators, your belief that the fires were far more extensive and than they were, and your inability to understand that when a structure fails on one side, it does not react by falling straight down. When you saw one leg off a table, it will only fall straight down if it's a one-legged table.
UtterFail, I understand ∆T just fine. I studied heat transfer
and thermodynamics and exothermic chemistry in college. Your reliance on lying ad hominems discredits only yourself.
NIST says the same thing about the vortex on the lee side of WTC7. They probably got it from Gage. And Gage probably got it from me. I remember telling him about it.
WAQo, Utterfail is a very unhappy camper. Charlie Manson was very frustrated musician because he thought his songs were almost as good as the Beatles and yet the world did not reward him. UtterFail has the same problem.
Let's do the math, shall we, goat fucker?
Imagine, if you will, that a steel beam is mounted between concrete at 20 degrees C. What kind of force will the concrete need to exert on the beam in order to suppress expansion of the beam?
If we employ Young's modulus
F/A = Y x ∆L/L0
and use our thermal expansion equation
∆L = L0α∆T
we arrive at the following expression
F/A = Y x L0α∆T/L0 - Yα∆T
Given a linear expansion coefficient of 13 x 10^-6/degree C @ 20 degrees C for steel, and multiply by the total area, we can see that the pressure exerted on the concrete is tremendous. That is, over 4.6 x 10^-6. Or about a million pounds.
So, goat fucker, what were you saying about "NIST's thermal expansion mechanism has not been proven"?
Check and mate
Have a nice day, goat fucker.
Once again, you FAIL.
It must suck to be you, goat fucker.
UtterFail, your belief that you can substitute arithmetic for logic goes a long way to explain why some Pakistani teenager got your job.
I can write e=mc^2 all day long and it won't prove that nukes blew up the WTC.
Post a Comment
<< Home