Saturday, December 03, 2011

Is It Over?

I've usually been one to deny that the Norwegian Blues are really dead, they're just pining.  But I gotta wonder.  Consider:

9-11 Troof has almost no content on the front page related to September 11.  The posts as of now include:

1.  A bill in the Senate being co-sponsored by John McCain would apparently make Barack Obama a dictator.  Who woulda thunk it?
2. A civil liberties oversight board is still dormant.
3. Some nonsense about the Oklahoma City bombing by Tim McVeigh.
4. Two tributes to Lynn Margulis, who passed away about a week ago. Our condolences to her family.  She became a Truther late in life; one presumes she will be remembered more for her legitimate contributions to science involving small organisms and not 9-11 nuttery.
5. Two posts about Bush and Blair getting convicted of war crimes by a kangaroo court led by a Truther in Malaysia.  Glenn Greenwald should know better than to give credence to this crap.
6. A post by Washington's blog on the similarities between OWS and the Tea Party faction.
7. Some dribblings from Peter Dale Scott about JFK, Watergate, Iran-Contra, and 9/11. 8. Another post from Glenn Greenwald about the pepper spray incident at Cal-Davis. Meanwhile over at Truth Action, the hot topics are: 1. Rise like Lions, a 9-11 Truther's tribute to Occupy Wall Street 2. The need to keep 9-11 Truth away from Occupy Wall Street 3. A post on some new BS from Robby Balsamo and his clowns which Brian Good and the rest of the "responsible" Troofers disavow. 4. The Official Police Brutality Thread, which is lately dedicated to Occupy Wall Street. 5. A thread on Laura Knight Jadczyk's cult. 6. Nobody can predict the moment of revolution. A thread that pretends that Occupy Wall Street is America's Tahrir Square. Looking pretty silly lately. 7. Walmart shoppers riot over $2 waffle irons. 9-11 Flogger? Down for maintenance, but the latest posts I saw recently didn't have much to do with 9-11. Cleese was right:

237 Comments:

At 03 December, 2011 09:39, Blogger Dylan Unsavery said...

They could always try delivering the troof in this fashion.

 
At 03 December, 2011 09:39, Blogger Ian said...

Well, since we're on the topic of Monty Pyton, and since we have a guy named "Brian" here who has wasted on decade of his life on this nonsense, I feel this is appropriate:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlBiLNN1NhQ

Look on the bright side, Brian. You might be an unemployed janitor with no friends and no family and with the one thing you really dedicated your life to being a failed conspiracy cult but at least....um, at least your parents were wealthy enough to keep you from becoming homeless. I guess that's a plus!

 
At 03 December, 2011 10:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Pat,

Aren't the troops in the process of withdrawing from Iraq?

Of course, it's probably just a coincidence that the troofers would go silent (or nearly silent) as the war in Iraq draws to an end.

Yes, Obama’s plan would still leave 68,000 troops in Afghanistan. An increasing number of Americans, however, including some in Obama's administration and in Congress, are arguing that Afghanistan is no longer a vital US security interest, especially at a time of financial crisis at home.

Another coincidence? Maybe. Then again, maybe not.

Nothing to see here, folks, move along.

 
At 03 December, 2011 10:17, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I predict that the majority of prominent 9/11 troofers will abandon their creative facial hair, burn their black shirts and learn to bathe. Who knows, they may also--gasp--acquire girlfriends. Meanwhile, the same prominent 9/11 troofers will go to university, where they'll earn business degrees and become Wall Street stock brokers after graduation, as did Jerry Rubin and his generation of "radicals."

LOL!

 
At 03 December, 2011 10:28, Blogger Ian said...

Meanwhile, the same prominent 9/11 troofers will go to university, where they'll earn business degrees and become Wall Street stock brokers after graduation, as did Jerry Rubin and his generation of "radicals."

C'mon, do you actually think people like Pat Cowardly are capable of passing a college level finance course? LOL!

 
At 03 December, 2011 10:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I doubt that Pat Cowardly could pass a course in underwater basket weaving. On the other hand, if crazies like Jerry Rubin and his generation of [cough] "radicals" can manage to become wealthy business leaders and prominent advocates of the "Reagan Revolution," I suppose just about anything is possible.

 
At 03 December, 2011 11:58, Blogger Ian said...

GuitarBill,

Neither here nor there, but I don't get the boomer generation very much at all. Constantly patting themselves on the back for all they "accomplished". Constantly re-fighting 1968 on both the left and right. Completely oblivious to the fact that they were born into that moment in history when the US was the undisputed ruler of the economic world (by virtue of the rest of the world having been destroyed by WWII) and thus incapable of seeing that the younger generations don't have that luxury. The rest of the world has caught up with us.

The idiocy of everyone from Newt Gingrich to Brian Good strikes me as a product of being from that generation.

 
At 03 December, 2011 12:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

As a gen-Xer (b. 1966), I can't say that I disagree with you, Ian.

It's no secret, however, that the departure of the majority of the so-called "hippies" from their makeshift "communes" and "radical lifestyle" coincides precisely with the withdrawal of US troops from Vietnam.

Deja Vu!

Perhaps the 60s "radicals" are the origin of today's "chicken hawk" neo-"conservative movement"?

After all, the baby boomers threw their country under the bus by refusing to serve in Vietnam (to save their skins, I'm sure); the same generation threw their parents under the bus by rejecting generally accepted societal norms; the same generation went on to advocate the "Reagan Revolution," which tossed the baby boomer's children and grandchildren under the (failed Reagan economic policy) bus.

Of course, that's probably a coincidence, too. So maybe it's just me.

Move along, nothing to see here, folks...

 
At 03 December, 2011 17:08, Blogger Ian said...

Yeah, I was born in 1980. It's quite an experience to have gone through high school and the early part of college in the 90s, with the economy booming and communism gone, only to hit adulthood and have 9/11, the Iraq War, and the 2008 economic collapse hit you.

That's why it irks me to no end that the boomers are still re-fighting 1968. Hello? Yeah, we've got enough current problems that you clowns need to deal with, so maybe it's time to stop re-living ancient history. The left and right in this country are both guilty of it.

It also irks me to no end that the consensus in DC appears to be that the New Deal stays for those who are benefiting from it right now, but will be gutted for the generation that came of age in this economy. God forbid we ask the most affluent, privileged generation in human history to make any sacrifices...

 
At 04 December, 2011 06:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

9-11 Flogger? Down for maintenance, but the latest posts I saw recently didn't have much to do with 9-11.

Yeah, but... to a Truther, everything has to do with 9/11.

 
At 05 December, 2011 04:40, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

God forbid we ask the most affluent, privileged generation in human history to make any sacrifices...

Thats because they are the largest voting demographic currently, not to mention those in office.

 
At 05 December, 2011 09:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"I doubt that Pat Cowardly could pass a course in underwater basket weaving." GuiltyShill

Hey Swinging Bitchtits, aren't you and Pat still looking for the difference between iron and rust?

"My sources have gotta be around here somewhere. HAS to be torches... HAS to... or fly ash... yeah, FLY ASH! Oh wait, that's wrong too...? *sniff*...well you're RETARDED! I win! Where's lunch?"
-Pat Curley

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, ArseHooligan?

Are Brian "goat fucker" Good's despicable "debate" tactics all you have at this point?

You know, for example, deliberately misrepresenting my argument and the evidence I presented?

=============================

The RJ Lee Report reads,

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

• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics

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

• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials

RJ Lee Report, Page 16.

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

RJ Lee Report, Page 3

=============================

So how many times do you plan to misrepresent the content of the RJ Lee Report, while you utterly fail to present one iota of evidence to support your cockamamie pseudo-science?

Or, like Brian "goat fucker" Good, are you trying to hijack another thread?

Do yourself a favor, Mr. phony "radical." Splash a glass of milk on your zit covered mug and let the cat give you a shave.

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:16, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Hey Bitchtits,

Why didn't you post the part that says iron melted 'during the wtc event'? Did Pat's obesity get in the way, or was it your own?

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo bitch, why don't you directly quote the RJ Lee Report instead of deliberately misrepresenting the content found therein?

Oh, that's right! You can't quote the RJ Lee Report because you're a phony "radical" who never met a lie he didn't love.

FAIL

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo ArseHooligan, you wouldn't deliberately spread right wing misinformation, would you?

You know, for example, right wing misinformation written and promoted by neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers who try to masquerade as fiercely anti-Bush "leftists"?

Risking Their Freedom--A group of 'internationally renowned scholars' probes 9/11. And, to the surprise of no one, identifies a familiar enemy.

Nah, you wouldn't be that stupid, now would you, ArseHooligan?

Nothing to see here, folks, move along...

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Gosh ArseHooligan, those neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers would never mount a misinformation campaign aimed at discrediting the real left and advancing their own agenda by insinuating their own anti-Israel spin into the mix, now would they?

Go to Hell--you neo-fascist fruitcake.

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:35, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Yeah...why bother with the more likely explanations?

 
At 05 December, 2011 10:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

GMS, notice that "Pat Cowardly" steadfastly refuses to present direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report. Of course, this means that he refuses to substantiate his assertions.

Now why is that?

He wouldn't be a neo-fascist liar who masquerades as a "far leftist," would he?

 
At 05 December, 2011 11:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS wrote: "they are the largest voting demographic currently".

It's not about the votes. It's about the campaign contributions.

 
At 05 December, 2011 11:26, Blogger Ian said...

Thats because they are the largest voting demographic currently, not to mention those in office.

Right, I know why it's that way, but it doesn't make it any easier to stomach.

GMS wrote: "they are the largest voting demographic currently".

It's not about the votes. It's about the campaign contributions.


Whatever the reason, you should be very happy about the way thing are, Brian. In any other age or country, someone with your mental health issues and inability to work would be starving in the streets. Instead, you live comfortably enough to spend every waking hour posting dumbspam all over the internet.

 
At 05 December, 2011 11:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 December, 2011 11:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ah so here's ButtGale to demonstrate obvious disinfo techniques for us, such as Accuse the Opposition of What You Do Yourself, and Change the Subject When You're Shown to be Wrong.

ButtGale doesn't actually read the papers he cites; that would make his lips too tired. He just mines lying propaganda websites for his endless showers of brownish strong-smelling dataspam.

PC is right. ON P. 17 RJ Lee says the iron spheres were created during the WTC event. ButtGale has no answer to that, so he starts babbling about anti-semites.

 
At 05 December, 2011 11:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...ON P. 17 RJ Lee says the iron spheres were created during the WTC event."

False.

And your complete inability to provide a direct quote proves that you're lying.

Nice try, goat fucker--you neo-fascist liar.

So goat fucker, have you attended any Holocaust denial seminars lately?

 
At 05 December, 2011 12:03, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, why are you lying about the contents of page 17? And especially so when the content on page 17 IS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE VERBIAGE FOUND ON PAGE 16 OF THE RJ LEE REPORT, WHICH I QUOTED ABOVE?

Qoute mining again--you neo-fascist liar?

Of course you're quote mining.

 
At 05 December, 2011 12:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, what part of the content of the RJ Lee Report, page 16, do you fail to understand?

"...Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are: Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents."

Oh, that's right! You think that quote mining is a "scam."

So goat fucker, have you attended any Holocaust denial seminars lately?

 
At 05 December, 2011 12:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 December, 2011 12:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

17 RJ Lee says the iron spheres were created during the WTC event.

The Report states, multiple times, that the iron microspheres were produced by the burning of building materials. It lends no support to any other theory.

 
At 05 December, 2011 12:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, I'm waiting patiently for all of your alleged evidence to support your neo-fascist lies and bullshit.

Of course, you won't provide that evidence because you know that I'll catch you quote mining again, won't you--you neo-fascist liar?

 
At 05 December, 2011 13:24, Blogger Ian said...

Brian wonders why we just talk about him instead of 9/11. Brian, if you'd come up with something worth talking about in regard to 9/11, we'd talk about it. Instead, you just repeat nonsense about magic thermite for the billionth time.

If you don't want us pointing out that you're a liar and failed janitor who wears women's underwear and was expelled from the truth movement, come up with something else for us to talk about.

 
At 05 December, 2011 13:42, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

I got thing to say about Brian, he knows whose bitch he is. He's MY bitch! LMAO

Taken from the "Washington's Blog Dumps 9-11 Truth (Mostly), Starts Getting Cited" thread:


"You're not just degenerating to Ian's level, RGT, you're degenerating to WAQo's level with the bad drama."

 
At 05 December, 2011 13:48, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Did Pat's obesity get in the way, or was it your own?

You know Cowardly (Brian) WTF ever your name is. You come here on a daily basis to stalk and harass James B. and Pat. Don't you know that it's a felony to commit a crime of INTERNET TERRORISM? Anyone here can call or e-mail any law enforcement and have them trace your IP Address to your location. Do you honestly think that you're coming here for shits and giggles every time you want to make an harassing point and people, like me, know that what you're truely doing is criminal and neglagent?

 
At 05 December, 2011 13:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian,

I don't think you want to disturb the goat fucker at this time of the day.

After all, it's time for the goat fucker to face Munich, unzip his pants and "rub one out" for the Third Reich. Like all neo-fascists, he "pines" for the days when Ernst Roehm, "a stocky, bull-necked, piggish-eyed, scar-faced...homosexual," [*] gathered with his butt buddies--Edmund Heines, Karl Ernst, Captain Rohrbein, Captain Petersdorf, and Count Ernst Helldorf--at the Bratwurstglockl (a notorious "gay" bar in Munich) to plot the assassination and brutal extermination of their fellow homosexuals.

Remember, it's not easy living a double life. You know, a phony [cough] "leftist" "radical" by day, and a flag-worshiping Nazi by night.

NOTE: [*] A quote from William Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:02, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"truely doing is criminal and neglagent?"
-Obedient without Questions

You mean like your spelllllling?

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, it's time to change the subject, right ArseHooligan?

I guess that's the way it goes when you can't substantiate your neo-fascist propaganda.

Why is that, stupid?

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Poor GrimeyBalls. Can't understand a scientific report, even when it's read to him out loud at bedtime by Pat.

You'll try anything to cover up your ignorance, GuiltyShill, but the more you post on this thread (as in every other), the worse you look.

Why do you think Pat and James don't even dare post on the threads anymore?

"it was torches...no, it was Fly Ash, like GB says...no he's actually a retard...oh I don't know... but it's an anomaly anyway...feed me!!!!"

At least Pat and James know when they're helpless against the facts, and they shut the fuck up. You have no such filter. amusing to watch.

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You just spammed the thread with 5 paragraphs of nonsense and a phony quote that you falsely attributed to Pat.

All that effort and you still can't substantiate your argument.

Why is that, ArseHooligan?

You wouldn't happen to be a neo-fascist liar who masquerades as a "leftist," would you, ArseHooligan?

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Come on, ArseHooligan, quote mine page 17 of the RJ Lee Report. I dare you.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Go for it, Herr Shit-For-Brains.

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo Herr Scheiße für Gehirne,

I'm waiting patiently for your evidence. Unfortunately for you and your alleged "credibility," all I hear are

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

LOL!

 
At 05 December, 2011 14:57, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I'm waiting patiently for your evidence.

No point discussing facts with a tosser like Cowardly. You should know that by know.

Go home and relax.

 
At 05 December, 2011 15:35, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

You mean like your spelllllling?

What does his spelling have to do with your criminal intentions on this blog?

 
At 05 December, 2011 15:37, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Why do you think Pat and James don't even dare post on the threads anymore?

Has it occured to you that they have called law enforcement and that you are being tracked, as we speak, for internet terrorism?

 
At 05 December, 2011 15:58, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Yes. It's over.

Brian and Pat Cow are angry too. The music stopped and they're left standing with nithing and nowhere to go.

The RJ Lee report found nothing pointing to a conspiracy or controlled demo, just a catastrophic event. Not one of the team which put the report together flagged anything as suspicious. Why? Yet a delusional Theologian, a trust-fund Palo Alto nutjob, and a bunch of clowns read it their own special way.

Yeah, it's over.

 
At 05 December, 2011 16:41, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

As the years ticked by, we find out that the Truthers are the ones commiting crimes and not Debunkers.

Truthers called us murderers, but yet the Truthers managed to grab the spotlight and they, themselves, were the ones committing murder.

 
At 05 December, 2011 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, that's correct, the RJ Lee report states several times that the iron spheres were created in the fires. It even says so on p. 16, which ButtGale is trying to deny. So thank you, RGT, for showing that PC is correct and Pat and ButtGale are wrong. No evidence has been provided that the spheres come from concrete fly ash. RJ Lee says they were created during the event.

If these guys want to claim that the spheres come from concrete, it shouldn't bee too difficult to find a chunk of WTC concrete out at Fresh Kills and assay it for iron spheres. But of course, though any diligent scientist would do this, NIST either did not do it or did it and does not want to admit it.

MGF, RJ Lee found iron microspheres in the dust that they believe come from the fires. There's one little problem. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

 
At 05 December, 2011 18:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...It even says so on p. 16, which ButtGale is trying to deny."

I didn't "deny" anything--you neo-fascist liar. I quoted the RJ Lee Report, Page 16, VERBATIM at time stamp 05 December, 2011 10:08.

Once again, all you have are lies and deliberate misrepresentation of my argument.

And what does page 6 of the RJ Lee Report say, goat fucker?

"...The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash." -- The RJ Lee Report, Page 6.

And what does page 16 of the RJ Lee Report say?

"...Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents."

And what is one of the "iron-bearing building components" of the WTC?

Answer: The lightweight concrete is an "iron-bearing building component."

And what does the USGS say about the WTC's concrete dust?

"...Particles identifiable as concrete in WTC dust are those constituting the Portland cement component. Portland cement particles will usually have a high Ca peak accompanied by Si and/or Al, Mg, Fe." -- USGS, Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust, by Heather A. Lowers and Gregory P. Meeker.

Thus, the USGS confirms the presence of iron (Fe) in the dust.

And how is iron introduced into concrete?

The one AND ONLY answer is Fly ash.

Wikipedia: Lightweight Concrete.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Now, go soak your shit-filled head--you neo-fascist liar.

 
At 05 December, 2011 19:33, Blogger Ian said...

Once again, Brian is simply repeating the same debunked nonsense for the billionth time.

Brian, I've already told you many times that if you don't want us mocking you for being a liar and a pervert and an unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and looks like and insane homeless person, you should come up with some new stuff to talk about.

The fact that you can't come up with anything new shows how dead the "truth" movement is.

 
At 05 December, 2011 20:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

So thank you, RGT, for showing that PC is correct and Pat and ButtGale are wrong.

So this is what Cowardly has been obsessing about? Pat once suggested cutting torches while the RJ Lee report said building materials? That's pretty deranged behavior.

At any rate, couldn't there have been multiple benign sources of iron microspheres?

 
At 05 December, 2011 21:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you need to learn to read. Your own quote says "The conflagration ... caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) ... or fly ash."

The conflagration caused the spheres and created the fly ash. Nowhere does RJ Lee claim that there was fly ash in the concrete. Your emotionalism about these issues is inconsistent with rationality.

RGT, it certainly seems possible that iron microspheres came from fly ash. But the people who claim that RJ Lee says it did are lying, and nobody has made any effort to show that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete, nobodfy has made any effort to address my point that including iron microspheres in a concrete admixture for lightweight concrete made no sense when they could be removed with ordinary industrial electromagnets such as are used to loading scrap steel onto railroad cars, and when the iron was worth more than then entire cost of the fly ash.

Furthermore, though any diligent scientist would want to settle the issue by assaying WTC concrete fragments for microspheres, NIST either did not do so--or they did so and do not want to admit it because the results were not to their liking.

There is not a shred of evidence to support the WTC-microspheres-from-fly-ash theory.

 
At 05 December, 2011 21:30, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, it certainly seems possible that iron microspheres came from fly ash.

That's where it came from, Brian. If you were capable of thinking logically, you would have figured this out ages ago.

But the people who claim that RJ Lee says it did are lying, and nobody has made any effort to show that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete, nobodfy has made any effort to address my point that including iron microspheres in a concrete admixture for lightweight concrete made no sense when they could be removed with ordinary industrial electromagnets such as are used to loading scrap steel onto railroad cars, and when the iron was worth more than then entire cost of the fly ash.

Brian, this gibberish isn't going to change the facts. Fly ash. Iron microspheres. Learn to deal with reality.

There is not a shred of evidence to support the WTC-microspheres-from-fly-ash theory.

It's not a "theory", Brian. It's reality.

You can babble all you want about magic spray-on nanothermite and invisible elevator repairmen, but don't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 
At 05 December, 2011 21:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, with your extremely emotional and aggressive defenses of your evidence-free theories you much remind me of kooky-truthers such as the Citizen Investigation Team, the pod-planers, and the no-planers.

 
At 05 December, 2011 21:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, as I pointed out, though it would be very easy to demonstrate that the microspheres came from the concrete--if it were true--nobody has done so. For you to assume, in the absence of evidence, that what you want to believe is true is very unscientific.

You're like somebody's dumb uncle that will just say any fool thing expecting to be believed just because you're old and a failure.

 
At 05 December, 2011 22:20, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, as I pointed out, though it would be very easy to demonstrate that the microspheres came from the concrete--if it were true--nobody has done so.

What makes you think nobody has done so? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

For you to assume, in the absence of evidence, that what you want to believe is true is very unscientific.

So does this mean you're no longer going to babble about thermite? Because you've never had a shred of evidence for that.

You're like somebody's dumb uncle that will just say any fool thing expecting to be believed just because you're old and a failure.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, it's funny that you mention "old and a failure" given that you're pushing 60 and have no job and have spent the last decade babbling about 9/11 truth without accomplishing anything.

Or did the widows get their questions answered today and I missed it? HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 05 December, 2011 22:21, Blogger Ian said...

ButtGale, with your extremely emotional and aggressive defenses of your evidence-free theories you much remind me of kooky-truthers such as the Citizen Investigation Team, the pod-planers, and the no-planers.

Don't forget the kooks who believe thermite was used to destroy the WTC. They're nuts too.

 
At 05 December, 2011 22:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

False, goat fucker. I gave you the rock solid evidence for the multiple sources of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres at time stamps 05 December, 2011 10:08 and 05 December, 2011 18:59, and you gave us your worthless, lying, unscientific opinion.

Furthermore, your idiotic argument is a red herring. Why? No one--not the RJ Lee Group, or any other investigator--has proven the "source" of even so much as ONE iron-rich or alumino-silicate microsphere that was examined at Ground Zero. Nor is such a determination necessary.

Fire science is well-established. Thus, as the RJ Lee Report states, "combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust." The collapse of the WTC structures, on the other hand, would naturally produce large volumes of pulverized concrete, as the videos of the collapse confirm. The concrete contained Fe (iron), as was confirmed by the USGS. The iron in the concrete can only come from one source: Fly ash. Fly ash, of course, is composed of iron-rich microspheres--period. End of debate. There's no evidence, moreover, for homicidal elevator mechanics, magic thermite elves, incendiary baboon fur, adamantium beavers, controlled demolition, or "explosives," including thermite, thermate and "nanothermite."

Thus, once again, you FAIL.

 
At 05 December, 2011 22:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there's plenty of evidence for thermite. There's the molten steel, there's the evaporated steel, there's the sulfidated steel.

ButtGale, since you clearly are not competent to read English, the fact that you presented a text is meaningless. Your quotes do not support your position.

Your assumption that iron in concrete can only come from fly ash is typical ButtGale absurdity. Anybody who knows anything about concrete knows that the rebar and wire mesh is often rusted before it is placed in the concrete. And if you would bother to google "cement" you'll find that it often contains iron compounds.

 
At 05 December, 2011 23:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The illiterate goat fucker squeals, "...Your assumption that iron in concrete can only come from fly ash is typical ButtGale absurdity."

That's not what I said, goat fucker. I clearly stated that there are multiple sources for the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres at time stamp 05 December, 2011 22:32"

"...I gave you the rock solid evidence for the multiple sources of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres at time stamps 05 December, 2011 10:08 and 05 December, 2011 18:59..." -- GuitarBill

See how you are, goat fucker? You have the reading comprehension skills of a drug-addled baby boomer, who dropped out of high school, and sniffs model airplane glue for kicks.

The remainder of your "argument" is 100% fact-free hogwash, and doesn't deserve a reply.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 05 December, 2011 23:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 December, 2011 23:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 05 December, 2011 23:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, at 22:32 you said "The iron in the concrete can only come from one source."

But a half hour later you're claiming "there are multiple sources for the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres".

You're impressing only yokels like WAQo, whose lips get so tangled up in "alumino-silicate" that they wonder "Wow, how did he cut-and-paste that? He must be really smart!"

Now let's brace ourselves for a flame-attack over whether 29 minutes is a half hour, and how anti-semites try to deny basic reality such as time.

ButtGale, you flutter in your own breeze. You're embarrassing yourself.

 
At 06 December, 2011 00:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker--you illiterate fool--pretend that my post's at time stamps 05 December, 2011 10:08 and 05 December, 2011 18:59 don't exist.

And you're also pretending that I never wrote the following passage at time stamp 05 December, 2011 22:32--and I quote:

"...Fire science is well-established. Thus, as the RJ Lee Report states, "combustion products [ie., iron rich and alumino-silicate microspheres) - ed] would be expected to be present in WTC Dust." The collapse of the WTC structures, on the other hand, would naturally produce large volumes of pulverized concrete, as the videos of the collapse confirm."

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

That said, you really need to learn to lay off the model airplane glue, Mr. "cardboard electronics."

 
At 06 December, 2011 00:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, I'm not pretending anything. You only repeat the same irrational boilerplate. Your quotes do not support your position. If you were a truther, you'd be laughed out of the movement in nothing flat.

Cardboard electronics are substantiated in the literature, and even by yourself--you claim you made paper circuit boards as a child.

 
At 06 December, 2011 01:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 December, 2011 01:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal.

Don't try to weasel out of your latest humiliating defeat, goat fucker.

After all, as I've already proven, you're either an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker?

Your choice, Herr Scheiße für Gehirne! Behind Door Number One, we have an illiterate, and behind Door Number Two, we have an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Go for it, Herr Scheiße für Gehirne!

 
At 06 December, 2011 01:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, all you do is blow more stink to try to cover up the stink you already blew. Do us all a favor and put a cork in it.

 
At 06 December, 2011 01:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squeal, squeal, squeal.

Good little neo-fascist liar. Always accuse your opponent of the crimes you commit.

So goat fucker, what would Carol Brouillet think if she discovered that you refuse to answer questions?

So which is it, Herr Scheiße für Gehirne! Behind Door Number One, we have an illiterate, and behind Door Number Two, we have an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Pick your poison--you deranged baggertarian.

 
At 06 December, 2011 01:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're just skunking over the fact that your own RJ Lee quotes don't say what you claim, poofypooter.

 
At 06 December, 2011 02:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You always know that the goat fucker is lying when he uses the vile phrase "the fact that," because facts never follow.

As William Strunk noted, liars always give their "facts" advance billing.

"...poofypooter"?

Is that the nickname you gave to Willie Rodriguez, too, Aunt Fancy?

 
At 06 December, 2011 03:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 06 December, 2011 03:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Umm, your own RJ Lee quotes don't say what you claim. Are you trying to change the subject?

No, I don't recall giving any fart-based nicknames to Willie R.

 
At 06 December, 2011 04:36, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Indeed...anyone remember Brian "fact" that John Cole's cutter charges were "self consuming"?

 
At 06 December, 2011 05:28, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there's plenty of evidence for thermite. There's the molten steel, there's the evaporated steel, there's the sulfidated steel.

Like I said, no evidence of thermite. Thanks for proving my point.

Your assumption that iron in concrete can only come from fly ash is typical ButtGale absurdity. Anybody who knows anything about concrete knows that the rebar and wire mesh is often rusted before it is placed in the concrete. And if you would bother to google "cement" you'll find that it often contains iron compounds.

Poor Brian. He's been pwn3d again, and as a failed janitor and liar with no friends who was thrown out of the truth movement, he can't take it any longer, so he's just going to post dumbspam over and over again.

 
At 06 December, 2011 05:35, Blogger Ian said...

ButtGale, I'm not pretending anything. You only repeat the same irrational boilerplate. Your quotes do not support your position. If you were a truther, you'd be laughed out of the movement in nothing flat.

My, such squealing!

Brian, it's funny that you mention being laughed out of the truth movement, given that you were thrown out of the movement. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!! You've been thrown out of a movement that considers Kevin Barrett, Bill Deagle, and Jim Fetzer members in good standing. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Cardboard electronics are substantiated in the literature, and even by yourself--you claim you made paper circuit boards as a child.

And now, after being thoroughly pwn3d and exposed as a pathetic liar, Brian goes back to babbling about cardboard semiconductors, showing again why he is a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

Now you just need to call us "girls", Brian, to complete your usual cycle of idiocy.

You're just skunking over the fact that your own RJ Lee quotes don't say what you claim, poofypooter.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Umm, your own RJ Lee quotes don't say what you claim. Are you trying to change the subject?

Brian, you tried to change the subject because you were pwn3d again. And given that you're a pathetic liar who babbles about magic thermite elves and wears women's underwear, it's probably wise to do so.

So let's talk about something else. When you came up with your "meatball on a fork" model, were you high on model airplane glue or rubber cement?

 
At 06 December, 2011 08:38, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Bitchtits-Bill is lying again, and Pat and James cower in silence as usual. They all know they can't explain all that melted iron, so they pretend RJ Lee's report says something it doesn't.

Ian clearly doesn't understand the report, so he contributes nothing, as usual.

Carry on, imbeciles. Your shortcomings in the discussion og the evidence cannot be made more obvious. Keep it up!

 
At 06 December, 2011 09:10, Blogger John said...

Carry on, imbeciles. Your shortcomings in the discussion og the evidence cannot be made more obvious. Keep it up!

So still no investigation, huh?

 
At 06 December, 2011 09:23, Blogger Ian said...

Carry on, imbeciles. Your shortcomings in the discussion og the evidence cannot be made more obvious. Keep it up!

Still haven't gotten laid yet, have you?

My advice is to cut the hideous beard, stop wearing black t-shirts everywhere, and give up on idiotic conspiracy theories. These things tend not to attract too many women.

 
At 06 December, 2011 09:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo ArseHooligan, if I can't read, why did you manage to miss this passage from page 1 of the RJ Lee Report?

"...The collapse of a major building can produce significant quantities of dust and debris comprised of the construction materials and the contents of the building. Fires in commercial office buildings can produce combustion products including soot, partially combusted aerosolized particles [ie., iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres. - ed] and organic vapors. The amounts and portions of the various products of combustion will depend upon the source materials, the combustion temperatures, the availability of oxygen and other oxidants, the duration of the fires, and other factors. The WTC disaster uniquely combined several cataclysmic destructive processes in a single event." -- The RJ Lee Report, Page 1.

Thus, office fires do, in fact, produce "combusted aerosolized particles."

What does that tell us about your idiotic and totally unsubstantiated conspiracy theory?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

And how about this little goody from page 3?

"...The catastrophic structural collapse of the WTC resulted in coarse fragmentation as well as fine particle dust generation including asbestos and various chemicals of concern. The hazardous materials in the dust originated from many common sources." -- The RJ Lee Report, Page 1.

Thus, according to the RJ Lee Report, which you constantly misrepresent, the dust, and the materials found therein, "originated from many common sources." The collapse of the WTC towers produced "coarse fragmentation as well as fine particle dust generation."

Common sources? The collapse was expected to produce "coarse fragmentation as well as fine particle dust generation"?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So who can't read, ArseHooligan? I think it's abundantly obvious who can't read.

Now, I've asked you on at least 100 occasions to substantiate your argument with quotes from the RJ Lee Report; yet, you steadfastly refuse to substantiate your argument.

Why is that, shit-for-brains?

I'll tell you why you can't substantiate your argument: You're misrepresenting the content of the RJ Lee Report by a combination of willful ignorance and the thoroughly intellectually dishonest practice known as quote mining.

But, then again, should we expect any less from a pair of brain-dead neo-fascist liars?

Probably not.

So where are the direct quotes from the RJ Lee Report that substantiate your argument, Herr Scheiße für Gehirne?

(I won't hold my breath waiting).

 
At 06 December, 2011 10:13, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"My advice is to..."
Ianside No-Job

And why would anyone take advice from a jobless loser whose incompetence led to his lay-off?

 
At 06 December, 2011 10:52, Blogger Ian said...

And why would anyone take advice from a jobless loser whose incompetence led to his lay-off?

Who said anything about jobs? I was giving you advice on how to get laid given that you've really set yourself up for a life of celibacy with the idiotic beard and the black t-shirts and the dedication to moronic conspiracy cults.

Women don't tend to go for ugly, obnoxious guys who are dumb as a post.

But it's funny that you've latched onto my having lost my job. You're obviously desperate to find something to hit back at us. The constant taunts about your dating prowess must really sting, huh?

 
At 06 December, 2011 11:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Your shortcomings in the discussion og the evidence cannot be made more obvious.

The microspheres are from building materials. The discussion is over, and the Truthers lost again.

 
At 06 December, 2011 12:35, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

there's plenty of evidence for thermite.

There's also plenty of evidence that thermite burns at a slow rate and doesn't do anything to damage steel. There's video evidence that it just boils out of it's container and goes every where. No video from 9/11 shows any kind of thermite splashing on all 110 floors from both Towers.

 
At 06 December, 2011 12:37, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

There's the molten steel, there's the evaporated steel, there's the sulfidated steel.

All the makings of a steel mill. But alas, there were no founderies underneath those Towers.

Strike 2!

 
At 06 December, 2011 15:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, you have no evidence that the microspheres are from building materials. RJ Lee says they were produced during the fires. But jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

TAW, if you would bother to watch the 5-minute video "Incendiary Experiments" you will see that 2 pounds of thermate can cut through a substantial I-beam in ten seconds.

That video also discusses National Geographic's fraudulent experiment where 180 pounds of thermite just boiled out of the hopper.

There's no need for thermite to splash on all 100 floors of the towers.

There were no foundries under the towers, but molten steel was attested to by 4 PhDs, an FDNY Captain, and others. Two of the PhDs are engineering professors. One was president of Notre Dame. See the video "The 9/11 Deep Mystery and the Crazy Engineers".

 
At 06 December, 2011 15:35, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, if you would bother to watch the 5-minute video "Incendiary Experiments" you will see that 2 pounds of thermate can cut through a substantial I-beam in ten seconds.

Thermite, thermate, superthermite, nano thermite = SAME STUFF

Making up a name for thermite is just too idiotic if you know WTF I mean.

That video also discusses National Geographic's fraudulent experiment where 180 pounds of thermite just boiled out of the hopper.

LMAO and yet they can't comment about the Mythbusters episode where they took 1,000 lbs. of thermite and put it on an SUV where it didn't burn through that sheet metal and engine block?

Dude, seriously you have a fucked up mind.

 
At 06 December, 2011 15:36, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

but molten steel was attested to by 4 PhDs, an FDNY Captain, and others.

Notice none of them are steel workers from a steel mill?

What a fucking idiot you are.

 
At 06 December, 2011 15:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...There were no foundries under the towers, but molten steel was attested to by 4 PhDs, an FDNY Captain, and others."

Bullshit! We've been over this a dozen times, goat fucker, so stop misleading the reader.

It's not possible to eyeball "molten metal" and determine its composition. Until an assay is performed by a competent chemist, the composition of the "molten metal" will remain a mystery.

And then there's the thorny issue of the paper that's embedded in the "ingot" of alleged "molten steel." Paper burns at 471 degrees F. So, if the "ingot" is composed on "molten steel," as you assert, how did the paper manage to survive contact with "molten steel," which melts at a temperature of 2750 degrees F?

Thus, once again, we can see that you're full-of-shit.

And then there's the issue to spraying water on the alleged "molten steel." The firemen who sprayed millions of gallons of water on the pile would have been killed if water came into contact with the alleged "molten steel." The water boils on the molten steel and an horrific steam explosion ensues. In fact, several foundry workers in Chicago were killed when water accidentally came into contact with a vat of molten steel.

Thus, once again, we can see that you're full-of-shit.

FAIL.

 
At 06 December, 2011 15:56, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, RJ Lee found iron microspheres in the dust that they believe come from the fires. There's one little problem. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel."

Why do the microspheres have to come from melting steel? I guess I need to point out to your retarded ass the amount of iron microspheres could not have been generated by thermite on a handfull of steel beams. It took the combined fires from all of the WTC structures, and the steel didn't need to melt to generate them.

The salt air made for rust and oxidation throught the entire steel skeletons of all the buildings at the site. Rust melts at a lower temperature. This is why the RJ Lee guys see nothing extraordinary in their data.

This is why you have nothing, your continued failure to grasp the obvious.

 
At 06 December, 2011 19:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT said the photographic evidence of molten steel was very strong. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl told PBS that he saw "melting of girders".

Dr. James Glanz of the NYT reported seeing a stalagmite of formerly molten steel in the basement. So that makes 5 PhDs.

The 40-pound ingot of formerly molten iron has no paper embedded in it. You get your talking points from lying propaganda websites.

MGF, why do you impose the condition "a few beams"? Gee, do you put your thumbs on the scale much? Do you think that cutting "a few beams" could bring down a highly-redundant structure that was built to withstand a hurricane? It had design wind loads of 45 pounds per square foot, 2-1/4 times the design load for the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building.

What makes you think the RJ Lee guys saw nothing extraordinary in their data? You live in a fantasy world.

 
At 06 December, 2011 21:37, Blogger Ian said...

ButtGale, Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT said the photographic evidence of molten steel was very strong. Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl told PBS that he saw "melting of girders".

Stop lying, petgoat.

Dr. James Glanz of the NYT reported seeing a stalagmite of formerly molten steel in the basement. So that makes 5 PhDs.

False.

The 40-pound ingot of formerly molten iron has no paper embedded in it. You get your talking points from lying propaganda websites.

False and false. You're not doing too well here, petgoat.

MGF, why do you impose the condition "a few beams"? Gee, do you put your thumbs on the scale much? Do you think that cutting "a few beams" could bring down a highly-redundant structure that was built to withstand a hurricane? It had design wind loads of 45 pounds per square foot, 2-1/4 times the design load for the Chrysler Building and the Empire State Building.

Your incredulity is not an argument, petgoat.

What makes you think the RJ Lee guys saw nothing extraordinary in their data? You live in a fantasy world.

Seek professional help, petgoat.

 
At 06 December, 2011 21:40, Blogger Ian said...

Hey petgoat, just one question: Are your pathetic lies an attempt to convince us that you're right, or are they an attempt to convince yourself that you're right. It's obvious that you're not going to convince normal people by lying, so I have to guess that you're doing this in order to keep your delusions of grandeur going.

"Yeah, I may be an unemployed janitor who spends every waking hour posting idiocy all over the internet, but someday I'll be proven right and you girls will be sorry!"

 
At 06 December, 2011 21:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

Here's what Dr. Glanz (he has a PhD in astrophysics) wrote: "A 3-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower."

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2001-11-16/news/0111160084_1_world-trade-center-debris-collapse

He told Thomas Friedman "One steel beam had melted into a stalagmite about three feet high." (See p. 393 in "Longitudes and attitudes: the world in the age of terrorism".)

James Glanz is both a scientist and a journalist and he wouldn't say it was steel if it wasn't steel. You lie, Ian.

 
At 07 December, 2011 04:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, you have no evidence that the microspheres are from building materials. RJ Lee says they were produced during the fires. But jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

The report indicates that iron micropheres were expected from the event, and indicates "building components or contents" as the primary source.

The table on page 7 indicates that many components were found in unusually high concentrations. Why the disproportionate interest in iron?

 
At 07 December, 2011 06:34, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie.

False.

Here's what Dr. Glanz (he has a PhD in astrophysics) wrote: "A 3-foot stalagmite of steel, which looks for all the world like a drip candle, sits next to one of the immense steel columns that held up the north face of the tower."

Nobody cares, petgoat.

He told Thomas Friedman "One steel beam had melted into a stalagmite about three feet high." (See p. 393 in "Longitudes and attitudes: the world in the age of terrorism".)

Nobody cares, petgoat.

James Glanz is both a scientist and a journalist and he wouldn't say it was steel if it wasn't steel. You lie, Ian.

Your desperation is amusing, petgoat. Your desperation is also important in that it makes me realize that I'm on the right track.

 
At 07 December, 2011 07:09, Blogger Ian said...

Also, Brian, does James Glanz think thermite was responsible for destroying the towers? Answer the question.

 
At 07 December, 2011 09:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, the interest in iron is because there's so much of it. Also, elemental iron is one of the end products of the thermite reaction.

Ian, you're right--nobody cares. You lie and lie and lie and nobody cares. Everyone on his board who claims that there's no evidence of molten steel is pretending that the testimony does not exist of Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Edward Malloy, Dr. James Glanz, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY.

Ian, unlike you, I don't pretend to know what Dr. Glanz thinks. Given his degree in astrophysics, he surely knows that jet fuel fires didn't melt that steel.

 
At 07 December, 2011 09:35, Blogger Admin said...

For lots of funny and amazing stuff...please visit... www.KisKut.com

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

RGT, the interest in iron is because there's so much of it. Also, elemental iron is one of the end products of the thermite reaction.

Elemental iron is also one of the major components of steel. But you're right, it was probably thermite that was responsible for the iron microspheres found in the wreckage of a massive steel-framed skyscraper.

 
At 07 December, 2011 09:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're right--nobody cares. You lie and lie and lie and nobody cares.

Poor petgoat. He's been pwn3d again so he's starting to squeal a lot. I guess that's all he's got when he's a failed janitor who can't get the widows questions answered.

Everyone on his board who claims that there's no evidence of molten steel is pretending that the testimony does not exist of Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. Edward Malloy, Dr. James Glanz, and Captain Philip Ruvolo, FDNY.

Stop lying, petgoat.

Ian, unlike you, I don't pretend to know what Dr. Glanz thinks.

So no evidence of thermite. Thanks for proving my point, petgoat.

Given his degree in astrophysics, he surely knows that jet fuel fires didn't melt that steel.

There was no molten steel, petgoat. The fact that you think there was goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11, petgoat. Maybe you should see a psychiatrist, petgoat.

 
At 07 December, 2011 11:15, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian Good is suggesting that Jon Cole's experiment is "flawless". While at the same time the Mythbusters thermite experiment shows us (with video evidence) that thermite can not cut through steel sheeting nor did it cut through an engine block of an SUV.

After considering the evidence, it's determined that thermite, alone, can not do what Brian is suggesting.

If Brian would like to do an experiment with thermite and post a video of it cutting through steel, then by all means let us ask him to do this type of experiment and disprove his silly theories once and for all.

 
At 07 December, 2011 11:18, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I personally challenge Brian Good to show us his experiment that thermite can cut through 2 inches of steel plate. He must post a video of his experiment and he must show his face on the video as proof that he's the one doing the experiment and not anyone else.

His failure to do this challenge will prove that thermite can not cut through 2" steel and it will prove that he was lying.

 
At 07 December, 2011 11:22, Blogger Ian said...

TAW,

Don't bet on Brian doing any such thing. He used to claim that jet fuel combustion would not have damaged the WTC and claimed that the smoke from the towers came from "smoldering carpets".

I asked him to fill his house with jet fuel and ignite it to see if the combustion would damage his house. He didn't do it.

He's also been challenged to demonstrate his "meatball on a fork" model by throwing a meatball in the air and catching it on a fork, and he refused.

Also, Brian once claimed that the WTC was like a bird's nest on a post. People at Democratic Underground asked him to make a video of him throwing a bird's nest at a post. As far as I know, he never did.

 
At 07 December, 2011 13:51, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Ian,

Good point.

Brian Good is like David Ray Griffin, Ryan Mackey challenged DRG to a debate about Ryan's paper on Hardfire, DRG refused to comment.

So Brian is a gutless yellow nobody, like his hero DRG.

But my challenge still stands if that gutless yellow turd wants to try and disprove everyone.

 
At 07 December, 2011 14:11, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, the goat fucker is holding up Dr. James Glanz' opinion as "proof" of a conspiracy on 11 September 2001?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a passage from Dr. James Glanz' "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...The first part of the calculation would have been quite simple. The towers had been designed to withstand the forces of windstorms with gusts of at least 120 miles an hour. Specifically, they were supposed to hold up against at Least forty-five pounds of lateral force on every square foot without shearing off and toppling. Each tower would be about 1,350 feet tall and 209 feet across on each face: 282,150 square feet. So if a wind sufficient to exert forty-five pounds per square foot of force was blowing directly against one of the faces. That would be about 13 million pounds. all told. And the tower should stand, with a standard safety margin of perhaps 30 to 40 percent to spare.

"To figure out if the plane had a chance of tipping the tower over. Mal Levy’s engineers needed to estimate how much force the collision might produce. A Boeing 707 made a B-25 look like an insect in comparison. With a tip-to-tip wingspan of 131 feet and a fuel capacity of more than twenty thousand gallons. a fully loaded 707 can weigh 300,000 pounds on takeoff, and its cruising speed is about 600 miles per hour. The engineers knew that parts of the little B-25 flew all the way through the limestone-encased Empire State Building and out the other side. So it might have been reasonable to assume that the bigger. faster 707. after plowing into the much more compliant facade of a World Trade Center tower, would not come to a complete stop before it reached the opposite side of the floor, 209 feet away. It is a complicated problem to figure out precisely how hard the plane might push on the tower during a collision, but given the plane’s known weight. initial speed, and stopping distance, any freshman engineering student could come up with a rough estimate. The number turns out to be 17 million pounds, probably within the safety margin.

"Levy’s engineers had discovered that not even a speeding 707 would shear off one of the towers."
-- Dr. James Glanz "City in the Sky."

"...perhaps"???????

"...probably within the safety margin"???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see, the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was "probably within the safety margin"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what passes for "accuracy" that the "design for impact" analysis provided in the insane world view of Dr. James Glanz and cretins like the goat fucker.

Obviously, Dr. James Glanz couln't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass. And you're citing that clown, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 07 December, 2011 14:32, Blogger Ian said...

That's excellent, GuitarBill, given that Brian likes to mindlessly babble about how the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 707 at a certain speed, which means that a larger plane (767) traveling at a faster speed would, of course, not harm the towers either.

Brian must have been sniffing glue the day they went over f=ma in high school, which is also why he keeps thinking that this is stated in the laws of thermodynamics.

Brian knows physics about as well as one would expect an unemployed janitor to do so.

 
At 07 December, 2011 14:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Ian,

If you like my last post, you'll love this post. Read on...

And then we have the testimony of Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer, who published an article for the NEA back in the spring of 2002--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

So what were you saying, goat fucker?

And how did the illustrious Dr. James Glanz manage to miss Robertson's paper? That's some stellar "research" on the part of Dr. Glanz, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 07 December, 2011 17:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We should not and can not design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

So what changed in the engineering World between 1964 and 2002?

In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community.

So where did "the towers were built to withstand jet impacts" assertion come from, you ask?

Dr. James Glanz gives it always in the following passage from "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...Wien called reporters to his office high above Forty-second Street, where the elegant silhouette of his most prized possession--the Empire State Building--was framed perfectly in his picture window...The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe, especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse...What the real estate people did not know was that Levy already had his script prepared. Nor could they have known how far the Port Authority was willing to go to protect its project. On February 14, the day after Wien made his allegations. Lee Jaffe summoned reporters for a briefing at Port Authority headquarters. She distributed a three-page telegram sent that day from Richard Roth, one of the partners at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center. Under the prestigious imprimatur of his firm, Roth had sent in an urgent rebuttal of Wien’s claims. The telegram "authoritatively refutes the false allegations of ‘real estate figures’ published in THE NEW YORK TIMES today," Jaffe snarled in the memo she gave to one of those reporters. The telegram was impressive and detailed—pointing out, for example, that for the World Trade Center design.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

"Point number three on the list of design features was this:

"3. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE SAFE IN AN ASSUMED COLLISION WITH A LARGE JET AIRLINER TRAVELING AT 600 MILES PER HOUR. ANALYSIS INDICATES

"There was no elaboration on that assurance, but after a lengthy list of endorsements supposedly given by other architects and engineer, the telegram ended on this note:

"11. THE TOWERS MAY BE SAID TO BE THE FIRST BUILDINGS OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE DESIGN CONCEPTS WHICH THEY EMBODY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN SOME MEASURE IN EVERY FUTURE HIGH RISE BUILDING EVER BUILT.

RICHARD ROTH
EMERY ROTH & SONS

Mal Levy, Lee Jaffe. and the Port Authority’s engineers had bested the great Lawrence Wien."
-- Dr. James Glanz, "City in the Sky."

Thus, we can see that Mal Levy and Lee Jaffe DID NOT HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED WTC WOULD WITHSTAND A HIGH SPEED IMPACT WITH A FULLY LOADED 707, LET ALONE A 767.

As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing, that they neither understand or have the intellectual background to justify.

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 07 December, 2011 17:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now dig your heels in, goat fucker, and, of course, rationalize, squeal and lie as per your Standard Operating Procedure. After all, everyone knows that you're incapable of admitting that you're wrong--you fucking cretin.

FAIL.

 
At 07 December, 2011 18:02, Blogger Ian said...

Nice job, Bill. It made me think of something.

Brian constantly babbles about how the work done by the engineers who investigated collapse is "incomplete, dishonest, unbelievable" and so on, but he never casts a critical eye towards the work done by the people who built the towers. He never asks if their work was "dishonest, incomplete, unbelievable, etc."

Of course not. Like all religious fanatics, he has come to a non-falsifiable belief and goes off in search of evidence supporting that belief while ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

 
At 07 December, 2011 18:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Well said, Ian. I couldn't have have summed up the situation better myself.

But, then again, you must remember that, in the eyes of RGT, MGF and others, I'm a "crazy" and a "coincidence theorist," so, naturally, everything I've written to this blog is suspect.

Of course, there's nothing strange or unusual about any of that, I suppose.

So move along, folks, nothing to see here...

 
At 07 December, 2011 18:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, so you're saying the microspheres came from the structural steel? Then you're admitting that the steel melted. How do you explain that when jet fuel can't melt steel?

TAW, I never said anyone's experiments were flawless. The mythbusters proved only proved that if you do a half-assed job with incendiaries you get a no-ass result.

Mr. Cole has showed that he can cut a substantial I-beam with 2 pounds of thermite. You can see this feat in the youtube video "Incendiary Experiments".

Ian, jet fuel combustion did not damage the WTC structurally and NIST does not say it did. The jet fuel burned off in a few minutes.

ButtGale, what you seem to be missing is that the 767s did not shear off the towers, and thus the impact was in fact within the safety margin. You are also missing the fact that Dr. Glanz's analysis is not Mr. Skilling's analysis.

A few days before 9/11 Leslie Robertson told a German audience that he'd designed the WTC for a 707 to smash into it.

Dr. Thomas Eagar of MIT estimated the energy of impact as 1.3 billion joules. He said it was "like a bullet hitting a tree".

Ian, the towers were designed to take a hit from a 707 at 600 mph. That's faster than the 767s hit it.

UtterFail, Dr. Glanz is surely bright enough to understand that Leslie Robertson is hardly objective on the subject of planes hitting buildings. Too bad you're not, but it's not my fault.

Really, dude. There's nothing wrong with being dense. Many very valuable people are dense. The problem is when you don't recognize that you're dense.

And now you're quote-mining the Roth telegram. Why did you leave out the part that says that analysis indicated that the building would suffer only local damage that could not cause collapse?

And where do you get your opinion that the necessary calcs could not be done with a slide rule? After all, Dr. Glanz said any freshman engineering student could calculate the energy of impact.

GIGOFail, your inability to prove what seems obvious to you is obviously very frustrating to you. Maybe you should take up a hobby. Have you considered knitting?

 
At 07 December, 2011 18:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...And where do you get your opinion that the necessary calcs could not be done with a slide rule? After all, Dr. Glanz said any freshman engineering student could calculate the energy of impact."

That's not what I said, goat fucker.

Once again, you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument.

Here's what I wrote--and I quote:

"...In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community...As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing..." -- GuitarBill, time stamp 07 December, 2011 17:24.

So, I suppose that you're prepared to PROVE that slide rules are suitable for Finite Element Analysis, which CAN ONLY BE PERFORMED WITH FEAS and modern high speed computers.

I won't hold my breath.

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 18:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

So many words, so little smarts.

If a) computers are necessary for FEA and if b) FEA is necessary to determine whether the building can take a hit from a 707, then c) computers are necessary to determine whether the building can take a hit from a 707.

You seem to miss the fact that your assumptions are as worthless as your conclusions. You haven't demonstrated either a) or b).

 
At 07 December, 2011 18:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...ButtGale, what you seem to be missing is that the 767s did not shear off the towers, and thus the impact was in fact within the safety margin. You are also missing the fact that Dr. Glanz's analysis is not Mr. Skilling's analysis."

What part of "the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was 'probably within the safety margin'" do you fail to understand, idiot?

Furthermore, it wasn't "Mr. Skilling's analysis"--you liar.

The faulty "analysis" was performed by "Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center."

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, you're still mixing apples and rutabegas. The analysis you're lampooning as inexact is Dr. Glanz's, not Mr. Skilling's. Leslie Robertson said he designed it for a 707 to smash into it. The fact that the towers did not fall immediately shows that in fact the plane strike was within the margin of safety.

Where do you get the notion that the analysis was Roth's? You seem determined to demonstrate your incompetence in every post.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...If a) computers are necessary for FEA and if b) FEA is necessary to determine whether the building can take a hit from a 707, then c) computers are necessary to determine whether the building can take a hit from a 707."

There are more logical fallacies in that paragraph than you can shake a stick at, goat fucker.

To be specific, your argument is pure circular logic, garnished with huge leaps of logic.

Again, you can read. As Leslie Robertson wrote--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Wikipedia write, "...The method was again provided with a rigorous mathematical foundation in 1973 with the publication of Strang and Fix's An Analysis of The Finite Element Method, and has since been generalized into a branch of applied mathematics for numerical modeling of physical systems in a wide variety of engineering disciplines."

Thus, the tools to perform a rigorous mathematical analysis didn't exist UNTIL 1973, well after the design of the WTC was completed.

Source: Finite element method.

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you're still mixing apples and rutabegas. The analysis you're lampooning as inexact is Dr. Glanz's, not Mr. Skilling's."

Another bald-faced lie.

The analysis, according to Glanz OWN WORDS was performed by "Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center."

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, come on, goat fucker, give us more of your 100% fact-free malarkey.

Notice, folks, that the goat can't substantiate his argument with secondary or tertiary sources. All he has is his worthless, unscientific, unprofessional and dishonest opinion.

Why is that, goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The illiterate goat fucker squeals, "...you're still mixing apples and rutabegas [SIC]."

That's right, goat fucker, accuse your opponent of the crimes YOU commit.

Good little neo-fascist liar.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, when do you plan to APOLOGIZE to each and every one of us for lying when you falsely claimed--and I quote: "...the towers were built to withstand jet impacts"?

Be a "man" for once in your misreable, rotten life, and take off those ridiculous women's underwear, and admit that you're wrong.

After all, I've just blown a hole through your idiotic conspiracy theory that's wide enough to drive an 18-wheel truck through it.

FACE IT! You have no credibility, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you get paid by the word, ButtGale, GIGOFool?

Your claim that there were no tools for rigorous mathematical analysis until 1973 is shown to be irrelevant by the fact that the towers obviously were engineered, as claimed, to withstand a hit from a 707. What kind of fool would claim that they were not?

Glanz doesn't say the analysis was performed by Roth. You don't know what you're talking about, and I don't think you even read the stuff you cut and paste.

 
At 07 December, 2011 19:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, it's obvious that the towers were built to withstand jet impacts--because they DID withstand jet impacts.

 
At 07 December, 2011 20:30, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Your claim that there were no tools for rigorous mathematical analysis until 1973 is shown to be irrelevant by the fact that the towers obviously were engineered, as claimed, to withstand a hit from a 707. What kind of fool would claim that they were not?"

Answer: The only living engineer who worked on the Twin Towers, Leslie Robertson.

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

You know, the same Leslie Robertson who's a fine source when YOU want to quote mine him, but suddenly he becomes "hardly objective on the subject of planes hitting buildings" when he contradicts your never-ending lies.

Thus, we can see that you cherry pick your sources and contradict yourself with abandon.

FAIL.

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

And I still don't see any secondary or tertiary sources that substantiate your worthless, unscientific, unprofessional and dishonest opinion.

Why is that, goat fucker?

The goat fucker continues to dissemble, "...Glanz doesn't say the analysis was performed by Roth."

More of your worthless opinion masquerading as "fact," goat fucker?

AND WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE WHO PERFORMED THE CALCULATIONS? As Leslie Robertson pointed out, the "charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft."

See how you are, goat fucker? You're trying to substitute irrelevant twaddle, while you lie, ignore and misrepresent my argument.

Thus, your commentary is less than worthless, because the opinion of an insane liar, sex stalker and homosexual who wears women's underwear has no validity whatsoever. And it never will.

You're merely trying to bury the substance of my post's under an avalanche of squealspam--you underhanded cocksucker.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 20:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...it's obvious that the towers were built to withstand jet impacts--because they DID withstand jet impacts."

They did nothing of the sort.

The towers collapsed on 11 September 2001. The towers collapsed due to a combination of damage caused by the airliners and fire.

Thus, it's clear that the calculations that were performed in 1964 were in error.

So goat fucker, when do you plan to APOLOGIZE to each and every one of us for lying when you falsely claimed--and I quote: "...the towers were built to withstand jet impacts"?

Be a "man" for once in your misreable, rotten life, and take off those ridiculous women's underwear, and admit that you're wrong.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 20:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now, goat fucker, I have better things to do than argue with a neo-fascist liar who can't substantiate his argument with anything more than lies, propaganda and deceptive 100% fact-free rhetoric.

In the future, do try to do a better job, because as things stand now, your credibility is less than ZERO.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 21:30, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, so you're saying the microspheres came from the structural steel? Then you're admitting that the steel melted. How do you explain that when jet fuel can't melt steel?

It MAY have come from the structural steel. It may have come from fly ash. All I know is that it didn't come from thermite.

Also, it could have come from structural steel without the steel melting. If you hadn't been sniffing glue in your high school chemistry class, you'd understand why.

Ian, jet fuel combustion did not damage the WTC structurally and NIST does not say it did. The jet fuel burned off in a few minutes.

Hey, if a liar and failed janitor in women's underwear says so, who are we to argue?

Ian, the towers were designed to take a hit from a 707 at 600 mph. That's faster than the 767s hit it.

How do you know? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you this?

 
At 07 December, 2011 21:36, Blogger Ian said...

Your claim that there were no tools for rigorous mathematical analysis until 1973 is shown to be irrelevant by the fact that the towers obviously were engineered, as claimed, to withstand a hit from a 707. What kind of fool would claim that they were not?

It's amazing that petgoat continues to babble about the towers being built to withstand the impact of jets even though he has no evidence of this.

So, like I said, when engineers claim something that jives with petgoat's deranged belief in magic thermite elves, it's incontrovertible evidence. When engineers say something that contradicts petgoat's deranged belief in magic thermite elves, it's "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable".

Thanks for proving my point, petgoat.

UtterFail, it's obvious that the towers were built to withstand jet impacts--because they DID withstand jet impacts.

The towers collapsed, petgoat. Learn to Google.

 
At 07 December, 2011 22:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 07 December, 2011 22:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, once again you demonstrate your incompetence and dishonesty. Robertson is talking about 747s and A-380s. I don't think you even read the stuff you post. You just copy it by the yard from some lying propaganda website.

GIGOFool, it may come as news to you, but NIST says the impact damage did not bring down the buildings.

Leslie Robertson told a German audience a week before 9/11 “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.”

5 PhDs and a FDNY Captain testified to molten steel, which NIST has not explained. Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel.

Ian, pray tell--how do you get microspheres from structural steel without melting it?

NIST says the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes (see NCSTAR 1 section 8.3.4). You don't know what you're talking about.

I know it was designed for a 707 at 600 mph because the Associate Architect, Richard Roth, said so in 1964. He said the plane would cause only local damage and could not cause collapse. NIST exhaustively analyzed the speed of the 767s.

Ian, the towers withstood the jet impacts. The analysis under discussion was whether the jets could extert sufficient lateral pressure to shear the tops off the towers, or topple the towers. GagaFool seemed to think they could. Dr. Thomas Eagar thought they couldn't. And clearly they didn't.

We don't know what brought the towers down until NIST explains the symmetry, totality, and speed of collapse; the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses, and the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

 
At 07 December, 2011 22:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...once again you demonstrate your incompetence and dishonesty. Robertson is talking about 747s and A-380s. I don't think you even read the stuff you post. You just copy it by the yard from some lying propaganda website."

No, that's not what Mr. Robertson said--you incompetent, lying cretin.

Here's what he said--and I quote:

"...The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened...wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed." -- -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

You just can't stop lying and deliberately misrepresenting my sources, can you, goat fucker?

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

And since when is the NEA defined as a "lying propaganda website"?

Pulling shit out of your ass again, goat fucker? Of course you're pulling shit out of your ass again--you scurrilous liar.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 22:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel."

Ah, the old eyeball "molten steel" scam. It's not possible to eyeball "molten metal" and determine its composition. Until an assay is performed by a competent chemist, the composition of the "molten metal" will remain a mystery, no matter how many times you lying and misrepresent reality.

And if "Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel," why does he say that the building collapsed as a result of "the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened...wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed"???

Contradicting yourself again, goat fucker?

Of course you're contradicting yourself.

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 22:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And goat fucker, why do you constantly delete your posts?

Are you having a hard time keeping your lies straight?

Of course you're having a hard time keeping your lies straight.

I guess that's the way it goes when the model airplane glue and senility start to take their toll.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...once again you demonstrate your incompetence and dishonesty. Robertson is talking about 747s and A-380s. I don't think you even read the stuff you post. You just copy it by the yard from some lying propaganda website."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, goat fucker?

"...The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

No, he wasn't talking about 707's. Not at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"...The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field)." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

No, he wasn't talking about 707's. Not at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

No, he wasn't talking about 707's. Not at all.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Any more lies for us, goat fucker?

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You're sinking faster than a stone, goat fucker. And your alleged "credibility" can be measured in negative engineering units.

Come on, goat fucker, give us another pack of your 100% fact-free lies and deceptive rhetoric.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You just copy it by the yard from some lying propaganda website."

Really? No kidding?

The National Association of Engineers is a "lying propaganda website"?

You really should learn to lay off the model airplane glue, goat fucker.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...Robertson is talking about 747s and A-380s."

Really? No kidding?

Perhaps you'd care to provide a direct quote from Robertson's Reflections on the World Trade Center, and show us where he ever mentioned an "A-380"?

You can't?

Then you should STFU--you scurrilous liar.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really should learn to lay off the model airplane glue, goat fucker.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

GIGOFool, perhaps if you would actually read the documents you quote, you would not make such a fool of yourself. Mr. Robertson mentions 747s and A-380s in the Figures 5, 6, and 7 that he's talking about. That's what makes me think you mine your quotes from lying websites instead of the NAE that you claim to be citing. And it's NAE, stupid, not NEA.

Please tell us when, before 9/11, Leslie Robertson cited the "lost in the fog" specification. In Germany he said "I designed it for a 707 to smash into it." Did he say anything about lost in a fog then? The 600 mph specification was quite conspicuously touted at a press conference in 1964, and Mr. Robertson should have known about it.

Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel. I don't know if it was steel or not. But he said it was. 5 PhDs and an FDNY Captain said there was molten steel.

I'm not contradicting myself. You want to live in a black and white world. Only an idiot wants that. A lazy idiot.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to bury my post's in squealspam--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

I meant NAE, nor "NEA". That was a typo.

And isn't it funny that you can't prove your "mine your quotes from lying websites instead of the NAE that you claim to be citing."

Never mind that I gave you a direct link to the NAE website.

Does the obvious always escape you, asshole?

But you're not going to bury my post's in squealspam--you bastard.

Squeal, piggy, squeal!

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, the goat fucker is holding up Dr. James Glanz' opinion as "proof" of a conspiracy on 11 September 2001?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a passage from Dr. James Glanz' "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...The first part of the calculation would have been quite simple. The towers had been designed to withstand the forces of windstorms with gusts of at least 120 miles an hour. Specifically, they were supposed to hold up against at Least forty-five pounds of lateral force on every square foot without shearing off and toppling. Each tower would be about 1,350 feet tall and 209 feet across on each face: 282,150 square feet. So if a wind sufficient to exert forty-five pounds per square foot of force was blowing directly against one of the faces. That would be about 13 million pounds. all told. And the tower should stand, with a standard safety margin of perhaps 30 to 40 percent to spare.

"To figure out if the plane had a chance of tipping the tower over. Mal Levy’s engineers needed to estimate how much force the collision might produce. A Boeing 707 made a B-25 look like an insect in comparison. With a tip-to-tip wingspan of 131 feet and a fuel capacity of more than twenty thousand gallons. a fully loaded 707 can weigh 300,000 pounds on takeoff, and its cruising speed is about 600 miles per hour. The engineers knew that parts of the little B-25 flew all the way through the limestone-encased Empire State Building and out the other side. So it might have been reasonable to assume that the bigger. faster 707. after plowing into the much more compliant facade of a World Trade Center tower, would not come to a complete stop before it reached the opposite side of the floor, 209 feet away. It is a complicated problem to figure out precisely how hard the plane might push on the tower during a collision, but given the plane’s known weight. initial speed, and stopping distance, any freshman engineering student could come up with a rough estimate. The number turns out to be 17 million pounds, probably within the safety margin.

"Levy’s engineers had discovered that not even a speeding 707 would shear off one of the towers." -- Dr. James Glanz "City in the Sky."

"...perhaps"???????

"...probably within the safety margin"???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see, the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was "probably within the safety margin"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what passes for "accuracy" that the "design for impact" analysis provided in the insane world view of Dr. James Glanz and cretins like the goat fucker.

Obviously, Dr. James Glanz couldn't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass. And you're citing that clown, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then we have the testimony of Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer, who published an article for the NEA back in the spring of 2002--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

So what were you saying, goat fucker?

And how did the illustrious Dr. James Glanz manage to miss Robertson's paper? That's some stellar "research" on the part of Dr. Glanz, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We should not and can not design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

So what changed in the engineering World between 1964 and 2002?

In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community.

So where did "the towers were built to withstand jet impacts" assertion come from, you ask?

Dr. James Glanz gives it always in the following passage from "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...Wien called reporters to his office high above Forty-second Street, where the elegant silhouette of his most prized possession--the Empire State Building--was framed perfectly in his picture window...The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe, especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse...What the real estate people did not know was that Levy already had his script prepared. Nor could they have known how far the Port Authority was willing to go to protect its project. On February 14, the day after Wien made his allegations. Lee Jaffe summoned reporters for a briefing at Port Authority headquarters. She distributed a three-page telegram sent that day from Richard Roth, one of the partners at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center. Under the prestigious imprimatur of his firm, Roth had sent in an urgent rebuttal of Wien’s claims. The telegram "authoritatively refutes the false allegations of ‘real estate figures’ published in THE NEW YORK TIMES today," Jaffe snarled in the memo she gave to one of those reporters. The telegram was impressive and detailed—pointing out, for example, that for the World Trade Center design.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

"Point number three on the list of design features was this:

"3. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE SAFE IN AN ASSUMED COLLISION WITH A LARGE JET AIRLINER TRAVELING AT 600 MILES PER HOUR. ANALYSIS INDICATES

"There was no elaboration on that assurance, but after a lengthy list of endorsements supposedly given by other architects and engineer, the telegram ended on this note:

"11. THE TOWERS MAY BE SAID TO BE THE FIRST BUILDINGS OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE DESIGN CONCEPTS WHICH THEY EMBODY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN SOME MEASURE IN EVERY FUTURE HIGH RISE BUILDING EVER BUILT.

RICHARD ROTH
EMERY ROTH & SONS

Mal Levy, Lee Jaffe. and the Port Authority’s engineers had bested the great Lawrence Wien."
-- Dr. James Glanz, "City in the Sky."

Thus, we can see that Mal Levy and Lee Jaffe DID NOT HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED WTC WOULD WITHSTAND A HIGH SPEED IMPACT WITH A FULLY LOADED 707, LET ALONE A 767.

As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing, that they neither understand or have the intellectual background to justify.

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Bury that in squealspam, motherfucker.

Squeal piggy, squeal.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

So UtterFool does what he does best, bury in spam his complete humiliation. He's just recopying the same quote-mining propaganda boilerplate that's already been debunked.

You're pathetic. You try so hard and you only make a fool of yourself.

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You haven't "debunked" anything, motherfucker.

Do you ever stop lying, goat fucker?

 
At 07 December, 2011 23:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Go for it, goat fucker! Post more of your lying squealspam, and I'll bury you.

Misrepresent my argument one more time, and I'll bury you.

I've had with you--you lying son-of-a-bitch.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...So UtterFool does what he does best, bury in spam his complete humiliation."

That's right, goat fucker, accuse your opponent of the crimes YOU commit.

Now, post more of your lying squealspam or deliberately misrepresent my argument one more time and I'll bury you.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFool, the paper you cited is talking about 747s and A380s. You didn't know that, because you never read the paper for yourself. So you must be relying on some liar for your information.

Pretty pathetic.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stil lying and deliberately misrepresenting my argument, asshole?

He's not talking about A-380's, and the only mention of an A-380 is in figures 5 and 6 of the PDF (titled, "Kinetic energy at impact" and "Combustion energy of fuel").

Nowhere in his verbiage does he mention an A-380.

And that's precisely why you can't provide a direct quote.

You're a liar, who deliberately misrepresents my argument.

And what did I say I'd do if you lie or misrepresent my argument?

You asked for it, Pinocchio.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:35, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, the goat fucker is holding up Dr. James Glanz' opinion as "proof" of a conspiracy on 11 September 2001?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a passage from Dr. James Glanz' "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...The first part of the calculation would have been quite simple. The towers had been designed to withstand the forces of windstorms with gusts of at least 120 miles an hour. Specifically, they were supposed to hold up against at Least forty-five pounds of lateral force on every square foot without shearing off and toppling. Each tower would be about 1,350 feet tall and 209 feet across on each face: 282,150 square feet. So if a wind sufficient to exert forty-five pounds per square foot of force was blowing directly against one of the faces. That would be about 13 million pounds. all told. And the tower should stand, with a standard safety margin of perhaps 30 to 40 percent to spare.

"To figure out if the plane had a chance of tipping the tower over. Mal Levy’s engineers needed to estimate how much force the collision might produce. A Boeing 707 made a B-25 look like an insect in comparison. With a tip-to-tip wingspan of 131 feet and a fuel capacity of more than twenty thousand gallons. a fully loaded 707 can weigh 300,000 pounds on takeoff, and its cruising speed is about 600 miles per hour. The engineers knew that parts of the little B-25 flew all the way through the limestone-encased Empire State Building and out the other side. So it might have been reasonable to assume that the bigger. faster 707. after plowing into the much more compliant facade of a World Trade Center tower, would not come to a complete stop before it reached the opposite side of the floor, 209 feet away. It is a complicated problem to figure out precisely how hard the plane might push on the tower during a collision, but given the plane’s known weight. initial speed, and stopping distance, any freshman engineering student could come up with a rough estimate. The number turns out to be 17 million pounds, probably within the safety margin.

"Levy’s engineers had discovered that not even a speeding 707 would shear off one of the towers." -- Dr. James Glanz "City in the Sky."

"...perhaps"???????

"...probably within the safety margin"???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see, the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was "probably within the safety margin"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what passes for "accuracy" that the "design for impact" analysis provided in the insane world view of Dr. James Glanz and cretins like the goat fucker.

Obviously, Dr. James Glanz couldn't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass. And you're citing that clown, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then we have the testimony of Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer, who published an article for the NEA back in the spring of 2002--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

So what were you saying, goat fucker?

And how did the illustrious Dr. James Glanz manage to miss Robertson's paper? That's some stellar "research" on the part of Dr. Glanz, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We should not and can not design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

So what changed in the engineering World between 1964 and 2002?

In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community.

So where did "the towers were built to withstand jet impacts" assertion come from, you ask?

Dr. James Glanz gives it always in the following passage from "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...Wien called reporters to his office high above Forty-second Street, where the elegant silhouette of his most prized possession--the Empire State Building--was framed perfectly in his picture window...The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe, especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse...What the real estate people did not know was that Levy already had his script prepared. Nor could they have known how far the Port Authority was willing to go to protect its project. On February 14, the day after Wien made his allegations. Lee Jaffe summoned reporters for a briefing at Port Authority headquarters. She distributed a three-page telegram sent that day from Richard Roth, one of the partners at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center. Under the prestigious imprimatur of his firm, Roth had sent in an urgent rebuttal of Wien’s claims. The telegram "authoritatively refutes the false allegations of ‘real estate figures’ published in THE NEW YORK TIMES today," Jaffe snarled in the memo she gave to one of those reporters. The telegram was impressive and detailed—pointing out, for example, that for the World Trade Center design.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

"Point number three on the list of design features was this:

"3. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE SAFE IN AN ASSUMED COLLISION WITH A LARGE JET AIRLINER TRAVELING AT 600 MILES PER HOUR. ANALYSIS INDICATES

"There was no elaboration on that assurance, but after a lengthy list of endorsements supposedly given by other architects and engineer, the telegram ended on this note:

"11. THE TOWERS MAY BE SAID TO BE THE FIRST BUILDINGS OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE DESIGN CONCEPTS WHICH THEY EMBODY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN SOME MEASURE IN EVERY FUTURE HIGH RISE BUILDING EVER BUILT.

"RICHARD ROTH
"EMERY ROTH & SONS

"Mal Levy, Lee Jaffe. and the Port Authority’s engineers had bested the great Lawrence Wien."
-- Dr. James Glanz, "City in the Sky."

Thus, we can see that Mal Levy and Lee Jaffe DID NOT HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED WTC WOULD WITHSTAND A HIGH SPEED IMPACT WITH A FULLY LOADED 707, LET ALONE A 767.

As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing, that they neither understand or have the intellectual background to justify.

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Figs. 5, 6, and 7 reference A380s, and he's talking about those figures when he says we can't design buildings to resist them. Your claim that he was referring to 707s was a lie.

You're a lying spamster, running in your lying spamster wheel.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now, go for it, Pinocchio.

Lie and deliberately misrepresent my argument.

If you can't "debate" without misrepresenting my argument, I'll bury you in an avalanche of the truth.

Go for it--you neo-fascist liar.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...Your claim that he was referring to 707s was a lie."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, goat fucker?

All the following quotes are from Robertson's Reflections on the World Trade Center.

"...The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

No, he wasn't talking about 707's. Not at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"...The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field)." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

No, he wasn't talking about 707's. Not at all.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

No, he wasn't talking about 707's. Not at all.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Any more lies for us, goat fucker?

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, tell us, goat fucker, who's lying?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Now I'm going to bury you again, Pinocchio.

You asked for it, asshole. And you have no one to blame but yourself, liar.

 
At 08 December, 2011 00:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, goat fucker, are you wetting your women's underwear because I won't allow you to misrepresent my argument or bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of lies and squealspam?

My heart bleeds purple piss for you.

 
At 08 December, 2011 06:57, Blogger Ian said...

Leslie Robertson told a German audience a week before 9/11 “I designed it for a 707 to smash into it.”

You keep repeating this claim, petgoat, but you show no evidence that it's true.

It's amusing how simple-minded you are. Apparently, you think if you keep babbling about the same thing over and over again, it will miraculously become true.

5 PhDs and a FDNY Captain testified to molten steel, which NIST has not explained. Leslie Robertson said he saw molten steel.

It's amusing how simple-minded you are. Apparently, you think if you keep babbling about the same thing over and over again, it will miraculously become true.

Ian, pray tell--how do you get microspheres from structural steel without melting it?

I'll tell you once you answer a question for me:

When you came up with your "meatball on a fork" model, were you high on model airplane glue or rubber cement?

 
At 08 December, 2011 07:03, Blogger Ian said...

NIST says the jet fuel burned off in a few minutes (see NCSTAR 1 section 8.3.4). You don't know what you're talking about.

Nobody cares, petgoat.

I know it was designed for a 707 at 600 mph because the Associate Architect, Richard Roth, said so in 1964. He said the plane would cause only local damage and could not cause collapse.

Thanks for proving my point, petgoat. When an architect or engineer says something you want to be true, you accept it at face value. When an architect says something you don't like, it's "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable". Of course, you make the mistake of assuming that we care what you think.


Ian, the towers withstood the jet impacts.

The towers collapsed, petgoat. Learn to Google.

We don't know what brought the towers down until NIST explains the symmetry, totality, and speed of collapse; the pulverization of the concrete, the destruction of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses, and the presence of molten steel in the rubble.

"We"? NIST isn't in the business of investigating the delusions of a failed janitor and liar who believes in magic thermite elves, modified attack baboons, and invisible widows.

 
At 08 December, 2011 07:07, Blogger Ian said...

So UtterFool does what he does best, bury in spam his complete humiliation. He's just recopying the same quote-mining propaganda boilerplate that's already been debunked.

You're pathetic. You try so hard and you only make a fool of yourself.


My, such squealing!

Poor petgoat. He's been a total failure at everything in life and can't even get the widows questions answered, so he's reduced to claiming invisible victories. I guess invisible victories go along well with invisible thermite and invisible elevator repairmen.

 
At 08 December, 2011 08:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I didn't misrepresent anything. You, however, misrepresented the Leslie Robertson paper, which you had obviously never read. Clearly you were relying on someone of poor integrity for your information.

He wasn't referring to 707s when he said that buildings could not be designed to resist airplanes. He was talking about 747s and A380s. You only try to cover your lies with more lies.

Ian, if you would bother to ask some homeless person to teach you to google, you would find a report in the Chicago Tribune that Leslie Robertson told a German audience a week before 9/11 “I designed [the WTC] for a 707 to smash into it.”

5 PhDs testified to molten steel at Ground Zero: Dr. Edward Malloy, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. James Glanz, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem. What is your source for the claim that there was no molten steel?

Right, nobody cares that you don't know what you're talking about. Your colleagues at this forum have no problem with you spewing lies and misinformation. What's wrong with them?

The towers withstood the impact of the 767. NIST says so. Dr. Eagar says so. Both of them say the impact was not enough to bring the towers down. This leads to considerable doubt about what did bring the towers down, especially given the fraudulent nature of the official report.

I didn't fail as a janitor. I was quite successful as a janitor. It's a great job for a college student. Once you've got the place cleaned up, you just show up a couple of times a week to shine up the faucets, check the paper towels, clean the mirrors, and take home a fat check.

You can't name one thing I failed at in life.

 
At 08 December, 2011 09:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

There will be new investigations of what happened on 9/11. Historians will not take the official pronouncements at face value, and the historical consensus 100 years from now may be very different from the nonsense you clowns regard as common sense.

Advances in computer power and modeling software mean that it's inevitable that the issue of how the towers came down, an issue that NIST punted on, claiming their computers weren't up to the task, will be studied by engineering schools all over the world--probably within ten years.

There will be new investigations. Murder will out. You can't cover up the truth forever, though you might be able to delay it for a time.

 
At 08 December, 2011 09:25, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, if you would bother to ask some homeless person to teach you to google, you would find a report in the Chicago Tribune that Leslie Robertson told a German audience a week before 9/11 “I designed [the WTC] for a 707 to smash into it.”

You keep repeating this as if anyone cares, petgoat. It's rather amusing.

5 PhDs testified to molten steel at Ground Zero: Dr. Edward Malloy, Dr. Alison Geyh, Dr. James Glanz, Dr. Abolhassan Astaneh-Asl, and Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem. What is your source for the claim that there was no molten steel?

You keep repeating this as if anyone cares, petgoat. It's rather amusing.

Right, nobody cares that you don't know what you're talking about. Your colleagues at this forum have no problem with you spewing lies and misinformation. What's wrong with them?

You keep squealing because after 10 years, you've gotten absolutely nowhere with your crackpot views, and posting dumbspam on this blog is all you have left.

It's quite amusing, petgoat.

The towers withstood the impact of the 767. NIST says so. Dr. Eagar says so. Both of them say the impact was not enough to bring the towers down. This leads to considerable doubt about what did bring the towers down, especially given the fraudulent nature of the official report.

There were also fires in the towers after the impact. You'd know about this if you'd learn to Google, petgoat.

I didn't fail as a janitor. I was quite successful as a janitor. It's a great job for a college student. Once you've got the place cleaned up, you just show up a couple of times a week to shine up the faucets, check the paper towels, clean the mirrors, and take home a fat check.

Stop pretending you went to college, petgoat. Also, now you admit that you were a janitor, so you were lying when you denied being a janitor. It's funny how you keep dropping all the lies that you try to juggle, petgoat.

You can't name one thing I failed at in life.

You've failed to get the widows questions answered, petgoat.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!

 
At 08 December, 2011 09:30, Blogger Ian said...

There will be new investigations of what happened on 9/11. Historians will not take the official pronouncements at face value, and the historical consensus 100 years from now may be very different from the nonsense you clowns regard as common sense.

These hysterics are hilarious, petgoat. You know you're a failure, so you'll squeal about some mythical day in the future when you'll be vindicated.

Advances in computer power and modeling software mean that it's inevitable that the issue of how the towers came down, an issue that NIST punted on, claiming their computers weren't up to the task, will be studied by engineering schools all over the world--probably within ten years.

And when they don't account for invisible magic spray-on thermite, you'll squeal about how they're "dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable" and will demand new investigations. It will be quite hilarious, petgoat.

There will be new investigations. Murder will out. You can't cover up the truth forever, though you might be able to delay it for a time.

Keep squealing, petgoat. We find your dumbspam endlessly hilarious here.

 
At 08 December, 2011 10:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...He wasn't referring to 707s when he said that buildings could not be designed to resist airplanes. He was talking about 747s and A380s."

So goat fucker, I see that decades of homosexuality and the STDs you picked up in the gay bath houses has scrambled your so-called "brain."

What's this, goat fucker?

"...The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer. A direct quote from Reflections on the World Trade Center , published Spring 2002.

And I suppose you can explain why Robertson never mentions an A-380 in the body of the text of his paper.

And why can't you provide a direct quote to substantiate your assertion, ass?

Answer: You're a pathological liar.

Tell us more about the National Association of Engineers and it newfound status as a "lying propaganda website."

You know, goat fucker, you really should lay off the model airplane glue.

An infected fag and a cretin. What a charming combination.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And what did I tell you that I would do if you spam this thread with lies, goat fucker?

You asked for it, asshole. And you have no one to blame but yourself.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, the goat fucker is holding up Dr. James Glanz' opinion as "proof" of a conspiracy on 11 September 2001?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a passage from Dr. James Glanz' "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...The first part of the calculation would have been quite simple. The towers had been designed to withstand the forces of windstorms with gusts of at least 120 miles an hour. Specifically, they were supposed to hold up against at Least forty-five pounds of lateral force on every square foot without shearing off and toppling. Each tower would be about 1,350 feet tall and 209 feet across on each face: 282,150 square feet. So if a wind sufficient to exert forty-five pounds per square foot of force was blowing directly against one of the faces. That would be about 13 million pounds. all told. And the tower should stand, with a standard safety margin of perhaps 30 to 40 percent to spare.

"To figure out if the plane had a chance of tipping the tower over. Mal Levy’s engineers needed to estimate how much force the collision might produce. A Boeing 707 made a B-25 look like an insect in comparison. With a tip-to-tip wingspan of 131 feet and a fuel capacity of more than twenty thousand gallons. a fully loaded 707 can weigh 300,000 pounds on takeoff, and its cruising speed is about 600 miles per hour. The engineers knew that parts of the little B-25 flew all the way through the limestone-encased Empire State Building and out the other side. So it might have been reasonable to assume that the bigger. faster 707. after plowing into the much more compliant facade of a World Trade Center tower, would not come to a complete stop before it reached the opposite side of the floor, 209 feet away. It is a complicated problem to figure out precisely how hard the plane might push on the tower during a collision, but given the plane’s known weight. initial speed, and stopping distance, any freshman engineering student could come up with a rough estimate. The number turns out to be 17 million pounds, probably within the safety margin.

"Levy’s engineers had discovered that not even a speeding 707 would shear off one of the towers." -- Dr. James Glanz "City in the Sky."

"...perhaps"???????

"...probably within the safety margin"???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see, the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was "probably within the safety margin"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what passes for "accuracy" that the "design for impact" analysis provided in the insane world view of Dr. James Glanz and cretins like the goat fucker.

Obviously, Dr. James Glanz couldn't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass. And you're citing that clown, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then we have the testimony of Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer, who published an article for the NAE back in the spring of 2002--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

So what were you saying, goat fucker?

And how did the illustrious Dr. James Glanz manage to miss Robertson's paper? That's some stellar "research" on the part of Dr. Glanz, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We should not and can not design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

So what changed in the engineering World between 1964 and 2002?

In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community.

So where did "the towers were built to withstand jet impacts" assertion come from, you ask?

Dr. James Glanz gives it always in the following passage from "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...Wien called reporters to his office high above Forty-second Street, where the elegant silhouette of his most prized possession--the Empire State Building--was framed perfectly in his picture window...The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe, especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse...What the real estate people did not know was that Levy already had his script prepared. Nor could they have known how far the Port Authority was willing to go to protect its project. On February 14, the day after Wien made his allegations. Lee Jaffe summoned reporters for a briefing at Port Authority headquarters. She distributed a three-page telegram sent that day from Richard Roth, one of the partners at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center. Under the prestigious imprimatur of his firm, Roth had sent in an urgent rebuttal of Wien’s claims. The telegram "authoritatively refutes the false allegations of ‘real estate figures’ published in THE NEW YORK TIMES today," Jaffe snarled in the memo she gave to one of those reporters. The telegram was impressive and detailed—pointing out, for example, that for the World Trade Center design.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

"Point number three on the list of design features was this:

"3. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE SAFE IN AN ASSUMED COLLISION WITH A LARGE JET AIRLINER TRAVELING AT 600 MILES PER HOUR. ANALYSIS INDICATES

"There was no elaboration on that assurance, but after a lengthy list of endorsements supposedly given by other architects and engineer, the telegram ended on this note:

"11. THE TOWERS MAY BE SAID TO BE THE FIRST BUILDINGS OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE DESIGN CONCEPTS WHICH THEY EMBODY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN SOME MEASURE IN EVERY FUTURE HIGH RISE BUILDING EVER BUILT.

"RICHARD ROTH
"EMERY ROTH & SONS

"Mal Levy, Lee Jaffe. and the Port Authority’s engineers had bested the great Lawrence Wien."
-- Dr. James Glanz, "City in the Sky."

Thus, we can see that Mal Levy and Lee Jaffe DID NOT HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED WTC WOULD WITHSTAND A HIGH SPEED IMPACT WITH A FULLY LOADED 707, LET ALONE A 767.

As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing, that they neither understand or have the intellectual background to justify.

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

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

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

If you can spam the thread with lies and deliberate misrepresentations of my argument, I can spam the thread with the truth.

You don't like it, cocksucker?

Complain to Pat and James.

(Yeah, that'll help).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

Right, Ian, nobody here cares that you don't know how to google and that 5 PhDs testified to molten steel at the WTC.

Asymmetrical fires can not cause symmetrical collapse, Ian. If you're going to claim that they can, you need to cite some authority.

I never denied having worked as a janitor when I was in college. That you seem to consider this something to be ashamed of shows your out-of-touch background.

I have not failed to get the widows' questions answered, because I have not stopped trying.

UtterFail, you continue with your verbose non sequiturs in an attempt to cover over the fact that your ignorance of what was in figures 5, 6, and 7 shows that you never even read the paper you were citing.

Thus your claims came not from the NAE, but from some lying propaganda website that quote-mined the NAE to present the dishonest and misleading information with which you continue to spam this board.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker,what did I tell you that I would do if you spam this thread with lies and deliberate misrepresentations of my argument?

You asked for it, asshole. And you have no one to blame but yourself.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:12, Blogger Ian said...

Right, Ian, nobody here cares that you don't know how to google and that 5 PhDs testified to molten steel at the WTC.

Not quite. It's that nobody cares about you babbling about this stuff, petgoat.

Asymmetrical fires can not cause symmetrical collapse, Ian. If you're going to claim that they can, you need to cite some authority.

What makes you think the collapses were "symmetrical", petgoat? Did Willie Rodriguez tell you that?

I never denied having worked as a janitor when I was in college. That you seem to consider this something to be ashamed of shows your out-of-touch background.

Stop lying, petgoat. Also, your claim that you attended college is amusing, petgoat. Attended? Perhaps. Graduated? Um, not likely.

I have not failed to get the widows' questions answered, because I have not stopped trying.

Thanks for proving my point. You've failed to get the widows questions answered, petgoat.

Also, that's just one of many, many failures in your life.

Keep squealing, petgoat. It's endlessly amusing.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, the goat fucker is holding up Dr. James Glanz' opinion as "proof" of a conspiracy on 11 September 2001?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a passage from Dr. James Glanz' "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...The first part of the calculation would have been quite simple. The towers had been designed to withstand the forces of windstorms with gusts of at least 120 miles an hour. Specifically, they were supposed to hold up against at Least forty-five pounds of lateral force on every square foot without shearing off and toppling. Each tower would be about 1,350 feet tall and 209 feet across on each face: 282,150 square feet. So if a wind sufficient to exert forty-five pounds per square foot of force was blowing directly against one of the faces. That would be about 13 million pounds. all told. And the tower should stand, with a standard safety margin of perhaps 30 to 40 percent to spare.

"To figure out if the plane had a chance of tipping the tower over. Mal Levy’s engineers needed to estimate how much force the collision might produce. A Boeing 707 made a B-25 look like an insect in comparison. With a tip-to-tip wingspan of 131 feet and a fuel capacity of more than twenty thousand gallons. a fully loaded 707 can weigh 300,000 pounds on takeoff, and its cruising speed is about 600 miles per hour. The engineers knew that parts of the little B-25 flew all the way through the limestone-encased Empire State Building and out the other side. So it might have been reasonable to assume that the bigger. faster 707. after plowing into the much more compliant facade of a World Trade Center tower, would not come to a complete stop before it reached the opposite side of the floor, 209 feet away. It is a complicated problem to figure out precisely how hard the plane might push on the tower during a collision, but given the plane’s known weight. initial speed, and stopping distance, any freshman engineering student could come up with a rough estimate. The number turns out to be 17 million pounds, probably within the safety margin.

"Levy’s engineers had discovered that not even a speeding 707 would shear off one of the towers." -- Dr. James Glanz "City in the Sky."

"...perhaps"???????

"...probably within the safety margin"???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see, the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was "probably within the safety margin"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what passes for "accuracy" that the "design for impact" analysis provided in the insane world view of Dr. James Glanz and cretins like the goat fucker.

Obviously, Dr. James Glanz couldn't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass. And you're citing that clown, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then we have the testimony of Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer, who published an article for the NAE back in the spring of 2002--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

So what were you saying, goat fucker?

And how did the illustrious Dr. James Glanz manage to miss Robertson's paper? That's some stellar "research" on the part of Dr. Glanz, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We should not and can not design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

So what changed in the engineering World between 1964 and 2002?

In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community.

So where did "the towers were built to withstand jet impacts" assertion come from, you ask?

Dr. James Glanz gives it always in the following passage from "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...Wien called reporters to his office high above Forty-second Street, where the elegant silhouette of his most prized possession--the Empire State Building--was framed perfectly in his picture window...The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe, especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse...What the real estate people did not know was that Levy already had his script prepared. Nor could they have known how far the Port Authority was willing to go to protect its project. On February 14, the day after Wien made his allegations. Lee Jaffe summoned reporters for a briefing at Port Authority headquarters. She distributed a three-page telegram sent that day from Richard Roth, one of the partners at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center. Under the prestigious imprimatur of his firm, Roth had sent in an urgent rebuttal of Wien’s claims. The telegram "authoritatively refutes the false allegations of ‘real estate figures’ published in THE NEW YORK TIMES today," Jaffe snarled in the memo she gave to one of those reporters. The telegram was impressive and detailed—pointing out, for example, that for the World Trade Center design.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

"Point number three on the list of design features was this:

"3. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE SAFE IN AN ASSUMED COLLISION WITH A LARGE JET AIRLINER TRAVELING AT 600 MILES PER HOUR. ANALYSIS INDICATES

"There was no elaboration on that assurance, but after a lengthy list of endorsements supposedly given by other architects and engineer, the telegram ended on this note:

"11. THE TOWERS MAY BE SAID TO BE THE FIRST BUILDINGS OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE DESIGN CONCEPTS WHICH THEY EMBODY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN SOME MEASURE IN EVERY FUTURE HIGH RISE BUILDING EVER BUILT.

"RICHARD ROTH
"EMERY ROTH & SONS

"Mal Levy, Lee Jaffe. and the Port Authority’s engineers had bested the great Lawrence Wien."
-- Dr. James Glanz, "City in the Sky."

Thus, we can see that Mal Levy and Lee Jaffe DID NOT HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED WTC WOULD WITHSTAND A HIGH SPEED IMPACT WITH A FULLY LOADED 707, LET ALONE A 767.

As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing, that they neither understand or have the intellectual background to justify.

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You see, goat fucker, I don't lie, and my word is gold.

You can take my words to the bank.

As you're about to discover.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, if you spam this thread with lies and deliberate misrepresentations of my argument JUST ONE MORE TIME, I'm going to close the thread.

Try me, cocksucker.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:32, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you continue with your verbose non sequiturs in an attempt to cover over the fact that your ignorance of what was in figures 5, 6, and 7 shows that you never even read the paper you were citing."

Then perhaps you can explain why you can't substantiate your argument?

I've asked you repeatedly to explain why Robertson never mentions an A-380 in the body of the text of his paper.

So where's your direct quote?

Oh, that's right! you're a pathological liar.

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:42, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, why can't you substantiate your A-380 lies?

After all, if Robertson was talking about A-380's, it should be child's play for you to cut-and-paste the verbiage from the direct links Ive provided to Robertson's paper and prove me wrong.

Or is cut-and-paste beyond your meager computing "skill set"?

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I'm waiting patiently for your alleged A-380 quotes from the body of Robertson's paper, goat fucker.

So where are the direct quotes?

So far, all I hear are

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 December, 2011 11:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yep, the proof's in the pudding. And you can't substantiate your argument.

If Robertson was taking about A-380's, why are you unable to provide direct quotes from the body of Robertson's paper?

I'll tell you why you can't provide the direct quotes: You're a pathological liar, who deliberately misrepresents my argument.

So where are the direct quotes?

So far, all I hear are

*crickets*

*crickets*

*crickets*

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 December, 2011 12:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Goat fucker, I've asked you repeatedly to substantiate your A-380 assertion and provide direct quotes from body of Robertson's paper.

So where are your direct quotes?

Is simple cut-and-paste beyond you meager computing "skill set"?

Here's a direct link to a YouTube video that will tell you all you need to know about cut-and-paste:

Cut-and-paste HOWTO

See what a nice guys I am, goat fucker?

If I'm an alleged "liar," why am I going out of my way to give you all the tools you need to substantiate your argument?

And yet, you still can't substantiate your A-380 lies.

Why is that, goat fucker?

Oh that's right, you're a pathological liar. My bad.

 
At 08 December, 2011 12:14, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Notice none of them are steel workers from a steel mill?"

Don't break your back moving those goalposts, son.

And GB: give it up. The topic of this post is Pat's failure to understand why a 9/11 truth site posted certain articles on its front page. Why don't you help him grasp it, instead of lying?

 
At 08 December, 2011 12:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 December, 2011 12:20, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, that's not the "topic" of Pat's post.

The topic is the near death of the 9/11 "truth movement," which has gone virtually silent over the last few months.

Tell us, ArseHooligan, why are 9/11 "truthers" a pack of pathological liars?

You'd lie to your mother if you thought you could gain an advantage from the lie, wouldn't you, ArseHooligan?

And why can't you substantiate your lies about the RJ Lee Report?

The answer is simple: You're a pathological liar, just like the goat fucker.

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 12:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, why can't you substantiate your A-380 lies?

After all, if Robertson was talking about A-380's, it should be child's play for you to cut-and-paste the verbiage from the direct links Ive provided to Robertson's paper and prove me wrong.

Or is cut-and-paste beyond your meager computing "skill set"?

So why are you a pathological liar, goat fucker? And why do you refuse to seek psychiatric intervention and help for this condition?

Oh, that's right! Psychopathy is incurable. My bad.

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 14:02, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Keep posting, GB. People are interested in what you have to say, and I don't think you've written nearly enough on this thread yet. Pat told me the same thing. Why don't you put more effort into your lies?

 
At 08 December, 2011 14:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Too bad you can substantiate your assertion, ass.

You know, making accusations without providing evidence isn't "debate," it's deceit.

So tell us, ArseHooligan, why can't you substantiate your lies about the RJ Lee Report?

And why are you completely unable to prove that I've said one word that isn't true?

RGT is right. You're a brain damaged salad tosser.

So tell us, ArseHooligan, do you shave the goat fucker's back on Tuesday or Thursday evenings?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 08 December, 2011 14:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan, I have another question for you.

How many Republican cocks do you and the goat fucker manage to suck per night?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 08 December, 2011 15:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Mr. Robertson's paper contains figures 5, 6, and 7, and his text makes reference to figures 5, 6, and 7, and those figures refer to 747s and A380s. And your attempt to deny that thus Robertson is referring to 747s and A380s when he says you can't design buildings to resist their impact is absurd.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, the figures you reference are not part of the text; they're only included in order to make comparisons. In fact, he never mentioned A-380s in the body of the text. Thus, you're a liar.

As a result, I'll take your inability to cut-and-paste the relevant verbiage from the body of Robertson's paper as a tacit admission of guilt when you deliberately lied and falsely claimed that Robertson is talking about A-380s.

So tell us, goat fucker, why do you constantly lie and deliberately misrepresent your opponent's argument?

Answer: You're pathological liar. And like most pathological liars, you're a psychopath.

See how you are, goat fucker? You're a liar and an incompetent who can't read.

Or, you're an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments.

So which is it, goat fucker? Are you an illiterate, or an insane neo-fascist liar who deliberately misrepresents my arguments?

Take your pick, Pinocchio.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, why can't you Cut-and-paste the relevant verbiage from Robertson's paper in order to prove that he's talking about A-380s? After all, if he was talking about A-380s, wouldn't he include a reference to A-380s in the body of the paper's text?

Of course he would include several references to A-380s if they were the subject of the paper.

Conclusion: You're a pathological liar.

So did your parents teach you the "value" of pathological lying? Or are you a Hitler-worshiping homosexual psychopath who never met a lie that he didn't love?

Take your pick, Herr Scheiße für Gehirne.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yo goat fucker, I'm waiting for an answer.

So goat fucker, why can't you cut-and-paste the relevant verbiage from Robertson's paper in order to prove that he's talking about A-380s?

You wouldn't deliberately lie and mislead the reader, would you?

Of course you would lie and deliberately mislead the reader.

After all, you're a Hitler-worshiping homosexual psychopath who never met a lie that he didn't love.

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, goat fucker, does the ridicule and verbal abuse you're subjected to bother you? Does it eat you up inside?

There's a solution to your problem: Leave SLC, and never darken our virtual door again.

Because if you think you're subject to excessive verbal abuse now, just wait until tomorrow.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So goat fucker, if ignorance is bliss, why do you need Prozac?

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your efforts to claim that the figures in the paper to which the text of the paper refers are not part of the paper only show the depths of degrading self-deception and dishonesty to which you are williung to stoop.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker equals lying failure monkey.

 
At 08 December, 2011 16:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

So, the goat fucker is holding up Dr. James Glanz' opinion as "proof" of a conspiracy on 11 September 2001?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Here's a passage from Dr. James Glanz' "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...The first part of the calculation would have been quite simple. The towers had been designed to withstand the forces of windstorms with gusts of at least 120 miles an hour. Specifically, they were supposed to hold up against at Least forty-five pounds of lateral force on every square foot without shearing off and toppling. Each tower would be about 1,350 feet tall and 209 feet across on each face: 282,150 square feet. So if a wind sufficient to exert forty-five pounds per square foot of force was blowing directly against one of the faces. That would be about 13 million pounds. all told. And the tower should stand, with a standard safety margin of perhaps 30 to 40 percent to spare.

"To figure out if the plane had a chance of tipping the tower over. Mal Levy’s engineers needed to estimate how much force the collision might produce. A Boeing 707 made a B-25 look like an insect in comparison. With a tip-to-tip wingspan of 131 feet and a fuel capacity of more than twenty thousand gallons. a fully loaded 707 can weigh 300,000 pounds on takeoff, and its cruising speed is about 600 miles per hour. The engineers knew that parts of the little B-25 flew all the way through the limestone-encased Empire State Building and out the other side. So it might have been reasonable to assume that the bigger. faster 707. after plowing into the much more compliant facade of a World Trade Center tower, would not come to a complete stop before it reached the opposite side of the floor, 209 feet away. It is a complicated problem to figure out precisely how hard the plane might push on the tower during a collision, but given the plane’s known weight. initial speed, and stopping distance, any freshman engineering student could come up with a rough estimate. The number turns out to be 17 million pounds, probably within the safety margin.

"Levy’s engineers had discovered that not even a speeding 707 would shear off one of the towers." -- Dr. James Glanz "City in the Sky."

"...perhaps"???????

"...probably within the safety margin"???????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Let's see, the wind shear load was 13 million pounds; yet, the calculated plane impact shear load was 17 million pounds. Dr. Glanz, however, concludes that this was "probably within the safety margin"?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

This is what passes for "accuracy" that the "design for impact" analysis provided in the insane world view of Dr. James Glanz and cretins like the goat fucker.

Obviously, Dr. James Glanz couldn't find his ass with a hunting dog and a compass. And you're citing that clown, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

FAIL.

 
At 08 December, 2011 17:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And then we have the testimony of Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer, who published an article for the NAE back in the spring of 2002--and I quote:

"...Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

Source: Reflections on the World Trade Center.

So what were you saying, goat fucker?

And how did the illustrious Dr. James Glanz manage to miss Robertson's paper? That's some stellar "research" on the part of Dr. Glanz, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 08 December, 2011 17:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...We should not and can not design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft." -- Leslie Robertson, World Trade Center Structural Engineer.

So what changed in the engineering World between 1964 and 2002?

In 1964 a structural engineer was limited to using a slide rule in order to perform his or her calculations. Hand-held electronic calculators, for example, were not available in 1964. Computers, on the other hand, were not used by engineers, either. Unfortunately, slide rules are ill-suited to Finite Element Analysis (FEA)--in fact, they're useless for FEA. By 2002, however, Finite Element Analysis Software (FEAS), and the computing power necessary to support FEAS, was in widespread use in the engineering community.

So where did "the towers were built to withstand jet impacts" assertion come from, you ask?

Dr. James Glanz gives it always in the following passage from "City in the Sky"--and I quote:

"...Wien called reporters to his office high above Forty-second Street, where the elegant silhouette of his most prized possession--the Empire State Building--was framed perfectly in his picture window...The twin towers, he claimed, would be dangerously unstable and prone to catastrophe, especially in a large fire or an explosion, when they could collapse...What the real estate people did not know was that Levy already had his script prepared. Nor could they have known how far the Port Authority was willing to go to protect its project. On February 14, the day after Wien made his allegations. Lee Jaffe summoned reporters for a briefing at Port Authority headquarters. She distributed a three-page telegram sent that day from Richard Roth, one of the partners at Emery Roth & Sons, the New York architectural firm that had been assigned to work with Yamasaki on the trade center. Under the prestigious imprimatur of his firm, Roth had sent in an urgent rebuttal of Wien’s claims. The telegram "authoritatively refutes the false allegations of ‘real estate figures’ published in THE NEW YORK TIMES today," Jaffe snarled in the memo she gave to one of those reporters. The telegram was impressive and detailed—pointing out, for example, that for the World Trade Center design.

"THE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS CARRIED OUT BY THE FIRM OF WORTHINGTON SKILLING, HELLE & JACKSON IS THE MOST COMPLETE AND DETAILED OF ANY EVER MADE FOR ANY BUILDING STRUCTURE. THE PRELIMINARY CALCULATIONS ALONE COVER 1,200 PAGES AND INVOLVE OVER 100 DETAILED DRAWINGS.

"Point number three on the list of design features was this:

"3. THE BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED AND FOUND TO BE SAFE IN AN ASSUMED COLLISION WITH A LARGE JET AIRLINER TRAVELING AT 600 MILES PER HOUR. ANALYSIS INDICATES

"There was no elaboration on that assurance, but after a lengthy list of endorsements supposedly given by other architects and engineer, the telegram ended on this note:

"11. THE TOWERS MAY BE SAID TO BE THE FIRST BUILDINGS OF THE 21ST CENTURY AND THE DESIGN CONCEPTS WHICH THEY EMBODY WILL BE INCORPORATED IN SOME MEASURE IN EVERY FUTURE HIGH RISE BUILDING EVER BUILT.

"RICHARD ROTH
"EMERY ROTH & SONS

"Mal Levy, Lee Jaffe. and the Port Authority’s engineers had bested the great Lawrence Wien."
-- Dr. James Glanz, "City in the Sky."

Thus, we can see that Mal Levy and Lee Jaffe DID NOT HAVE THE TOOLS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE PROPOSED WTC WOULD WITHSTAND A HIGH SPEED IMPACT WITH A FULLY LOADED 707, LET ALONE A 767.

As should be clear by now, anyone--the goat fucker or any other brain-dead troofer--who claims that "[t]he towers were designed to withstand fully-loaded, high speed jet impacts," is repeating false information based on faulty calculations made in 1964, before the advent of FEAS and high-speed computing, that they neither understand or have the intellectual background to justify.

Thus, once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home