Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Mapping the Truther Mind (sic)

A flow-chart explains it all.

163 Comments:

At 15 December, 2011 01:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now that is truly hilarious.

Thanks, Pat!

 
At 15 December, 2011 03:41, OpenID mightierthanthepen said...

Glad to see this is getting some exposure. Thanks for the boost!

 
At 15 December, 2011 06:46, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Yeah, and Pat also thinks "aftershocks" from the planes are what caused WTC7 to fail, as stated recently by Thomas Kean. GREAT debunking as always, Pat!

Way to discuss those facts! Your dead father would be so proud of you!!

 
At 15 December, 2011 06:47, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Because some of our commenters have chosen to act like children, we are no longer allowing comments.
-Pat Coward, to GoiterShill

Make up your alleged mind, "debunker".

 
At 15 December, 2011 07:23, Blogger Ian said...

Still haven't gotten laid yet, huh Pat Cowardly?

Like I said, the 9/11 truth conspiracies are the first thing that needs to go if you ever want to get a women (or man) to notice you. Then you can shave the ratty beard and get some new clothes.

 
At 15 December, 2011 08:29, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Ianside Jobless waddles in and says nothing on-topic, humorous, or correct, per usual.

Probably a sockpuppet for Pat and James. With the brain activity of Hugh.

Hows that job search going, son?

 
At 15 December, 2011 09:05, Blogger Ian said...

Who says I don't have a job?

See, you truthers don't understand that when normal people with education and experience lose their jobs, they find new ones.

It's different for truthers like Pat Cowardly. When Burger King let him go for burning the fries one too many times, there wasn't any place for him to go, so it's back to spamming the internet from mom's basement.

I'd say that finding a job is a lot like dating, but you wouldn't know anything about dating either.

 
At 15 December, 2011 09:22, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

That's nice. Let us know when you have something on-topic and relevant to say.

In the meantime why doesn't Pat or James address Kean's recent 'explanation' of the 'collapse' of 7? Is it credible? Pat told me it was because a single column failed, but the chair of the commission says it was "aftershocks".

Is Pat a retard, by his own definition? Was he on the Commission? Someone get GB on the case! NOW!!

 
At 15 December, 2011 10:41, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

In the meantime why doesn't Pat or James address Kean's recent 'explanation' of the 'collapse' of 7? Is it credible?

Makes more sense than thermite. And you're unable to refute it in any case.

 
At 15 December, 2011 10:59, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2011 11:01, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2011 11:02, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I say to all those in favor of reporting Cowardly in for hate speech please go here to begin the process of eliminating him from the Blogger website:

http://support.google.com/blogger/bin/request.py?hl=en&contact_type=hate_speech

 
At 15 December, 2011 11:04, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

If and when Blogger does ask Patr and James B. about a possible hate speech going on, all they need to do is provide them with Pat Cowardly's name and go on from there.

The reason:

"Your dead father would be so proud of you!!"

 
At 15 December, 2011 11:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Surprise, surprise! The troll, ArseHooligan, has managed to hijack another thread.

You know what, ArseHooligan? If I had administrative control of this blog, you wouldn't be able to post so much as ONE ASCII CHARACTER to it.

And no--you brain-dead felcher--you don't have "freedom of speech" on a private blog.

Now piss off, troll.

 
At 15 December, 2011 11:32, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"you wouldn't be able to post so much as ONE ASCII CHARACTER to it."
-GoiterShill

Oh my lord! No! ANYTHING BUT THAT!

What would I do without the opportunity to respond to fat liars and gossips like you, James, and Pat?

I'm the only one standing in the way between you and the acceptance of your 'research' by society at large (you know, iron came from fly ash... no wait... cutting torches....no wait...you're retarded). Imagine what Pat could GAIN (and not just more weight), but for my questioning his "findings".

Tell us how much you weigh again, GoiterTubby Bitchtits

 
At 15 December, 2011 11:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

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

Thomas Kean is not an engineer. He has a B.A. in History from Princeton and an M.A. in History from Columbia University.

Only a group of tossers who are as dishonest as the assholes from "We Are Change" would ask a non-engineer questions about the collapse mechanism for a building and expect a substantive answer.

You're an idiot, ArseHooligan.

Maybe if you spent more time reading credible sources, as opposed to Alex "leather lungs" Jones, you wouldn't be so confused about the events of 11 September 2001?

To answer your question, I'm 6'3", 240 lbs. And according to my physician, my muscle-to-body fat ratio is perfect.

Let me know, ArseHooligan, because I'll happily meet you anywhere you'd like and crush your shit-filled head like a grape.

You feeling lucky, ArseHooligan?

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:13, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, Mr. Kean's claims about earthquake shocks are easily refuted.

There's the fact that no evidence of earthquake damage has ever been offered, there's no evidence of earthquake damage to buildings other than WTC7, there's the fact that the bulk of the WTC7 debris fell inside the "bathtub" and WTC7 was outside the bathtub and thus isolated from the impact.

I suspect that earthquake damage to WTC7 would have exposed the twin towers anti-terrorist insurers to liability, but the WTC7 underwriters advanced no such case.

So the earthquake damage theory is easily refuted.

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:15, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Let me know, ArseHooligan, because I'll happily meet you anywhere you'd like and crush your shit-filled head like a grape.
-Chubsy Waddling Bitchtits

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Now you're acting like Pat when he threatened to punch David Ray Griffin. I guess if you fail to debunk anything, let alone substantiate the lies of Pat and James, you turn to Internet Tough Guy threats. Good for you, son!

Way to "justify" Kean's "explanation", too. I guess in your world, the chair of the commission doesn't REALLY need to know about the investigation into the worst crime in US history. Not REALLY, right Chubsy Doughboy?

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:17, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

And don't forget to provide the sources which told you and Pat that iron is rust, Tubby Fatass.

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:31, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to pass off iron-rich microspheres as elemental iron, ArseHooligan?

FAIL.

And, of course, you can't quote the RJ Lee Report and substantiate your elemental iron malarkey. Right, Pinocchio? Unless, of course, you quote mine the RJ Lee Report, that is.

The NIST Report assumes a proven background in structural mechanics. This is why Thomas Kean's opinion is worthless. Likewise, this is why YOUR opinion--not to mention every pseudo-educated troofer who ever drew a breath--is worthless.

Deal with it, Rube.

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:41, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

there's the fact that the bulk of the WTC7 debris fell inside the "bathtub" and WTC7 was outside the bathtub and thus isolated from the impact.

Is it me or did Brian totally contradict himself like he always does? A: It's not me, it's Brian!

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:49, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The idiot goat fucker dissembles, "...RGT, Mr. Kean's claims about earthquake shocks are easily refuted."

Sweet Jeeeeeeeeeeeeezus, what an idiot.

"Earthquake"? Mr. Kean never said one word about "earthquake shocks." You can't even get Alex "leather lungs" Jones propaganda right without fucking it up.

You really need to lay-off the model airplane glue, goat fucker.

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:53, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

What does "FE sphere" mean?

Pat?

James?

Hugh?

 
At 15 December, 2011 12:56, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

All this "debunking" from Pat and James!

Now I see why so many people trust them!

GallonJug Bitchtits, tell us about the volcanoes you claim were at the WTC again.

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan,

You're quote mining page 17 if the RJ Lee Report.

In other words, you've taken the "FE spheres" quote OUT OF CONTEXT. You can't understand the table on page 17 until you understand the content of PAGE 16--you cretin.

Here's what page 16 says--sans your intellectually dishonest quote mining:

"...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.

As predicted, you have NOTHING without quote mining.

Once again, you FAIL, ArseHooligan.

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Mr. Kean's claims about earthquake shocks are easily refuted.

Oh, I know you can refute them. You believe some weird things but you're not shit-gobbling mad like Cowardly. He's a committed No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon, Nanothermite, New-World-Order loony.

I suggested that he'd object to Kean's statements but would be unable to articulate his objection. And I was right.

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:32, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"He's a committed No-Plane-Hit-the-Pentagon, Nanothermite, New-World-Order loony. "

What's your source for this? Pat's ass again?

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:33, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

GB, ask Pat and James if they agree with your butcheri... er... "interpretation" of the RJ Lee. Do they think iron is rust, like you do?

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What's your source for this? Pat's ass again?

Your own words. You've claimed here that the cell phone calls were all faked as well. You're so bloody confused you can't even remember your own postings.

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:53, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Your own words. You've claimed here that the cell phone calls were all faked as well. You're so bloody confused you can't even remember your own postings."

Then why are you too cowardly to quote the exact post? It wouldn't be because you're a lying coward like James and Pat, would it?

Prove me wrong, tough guy. I'll crush your head like a grape, like GallonJug ManBreasts.

 
At 15 December, 2011 13:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan,

That's right--you bat-shit crazy scat muncher--completely avoid the substance of my argument.

FACT: You quote mined TABLE 3 (which is not even a part of the body of the RJ Lee Report's text) and completely ripped the context from the TABLE.

FACT: You can't understand the context of table 3 until you understand the content of page 16.

No ifs, no ands, and no buts--period. You're quote mining--end of debate.

Proof?

Show me where "FE Sphere" is mentioned in the body of the text of the RJ Lee Report.

You can't? Then may I suggest that you STFU.

FACT: "FE sphere" is an abbreviation, used in TABLE 3 and TABLE 3 ONLY, for "iron-rich microsphere." Idiot.

And notice that your reply to my detailed comment is 100% fact-free.

Why is that ArseHooligan?

The answer is simple: There's absolutely no evidence to support your idiotic argument.

FAIL.

 
At 15 December, 2011 14:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Then why are you too cowardly to quote the exact post? It wouldn't be because you're a lying coward like James and Pat, would it?

Am I misrepresenting your views? If so, provide a source. If not, go find something else to do.

 
At 15 December, 2011 14:26, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 15 December, 2011 14:29, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Nice try, testicles. You've just proven that you're a cowardly liar, just like Pat and James. Now THAT's debunking! You should be proud.

Quick: prove you didn't kill Pat's father and rape his corpse, pedophile.

Oh, you can't? Gee, now I "win" the admiration of Pad and James, like Testicles the liar. "debunking" is so easy!

 
At 15 December, 2011 14:34, Blogger GuitarBill said...

ArseHooligan,

It's not incumbent on RGT to prove or disprove your assertions, ass.

You made the wild and unsubstantiated assertion; thus, the burden of proof is your's and your's alone.

See? You couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

FAIL.

 
At 15 December, 2011 14:38, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Nice try, testicles.

Not the first time you've spoken those words, I gather.

Looks like you had to practice that last post before you got it right. Even then, it was full of typos. Are you drinking? Is something making you nervous?

 
At 16 December, 2011 00:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

TAW, it's you. Just like WAQo, you see contradiction where there is none.

UtterFail, you clearly don't understand the words you are quoting.
You're just babbling. "F=Ma! ke=1/2mv^2! e=mc^2! See how smart I am!"

And really "your's"? And you claim to have a master's degree? Where'd you go to college--Tierra del Fuego University?

 
At 16 December, 2011 06:41, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Is Cosmo's sole purpose now to stamp his feet and cry?

 
At 16 December, 2011 06:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"You're just babbling."

Or as usual you don't understand. I am not surprised that Brian simultaneously believes debris and WTC were both in and out of the "bath tub". Likewise he believes leaning and hitting other buildings is falling straight down.

I recently had another "free thinker" tell me the damage to Fiterman and Verizon was the result of "squibs".

 
At 16 December, 2011 07:48, Blogger Ian said...

TAW, it's you. Just like WAQo, you see contradiction where there is none.

It's amusing when Brian uses big-boy words like "contradiction" when he doesn't have a clue what it means.

Brian, sometimes you babble about "evidence" for thermite, and sometimes you babble about "evidence" for explosives in bringing the towers down. That's an example of a contradiction.

UtterFail, you clearly don't understand the words you are quoting.
You're just babbling. "F=Ma! ke=1/2mv^2! e=mc^2! See how smart I am!"


This is funny. Brian, there's only one person here who has demonstrated that he doesn't know the first thing about high-school level physics, and that's you. It goes a long way towards explaining why you're a failed janitor and why you actually believe 9/11 truth nonsense.

And really "your's"? And you claim to have a master's degree? Where'd you go to college--Tierra del Fuego University?

I also like it when Brian insults people who weren't fortunate enough to be born into wealth in Palo Alto, CA.

I'm sure there are plenty of happy, successful people in Tierra del Fuego. It's sort of like Chile's version of Alaska.

And you, of course, remain a failed janitor with no friends who lives with his parents and spends all day calling people "girls" on the internet. It's hard to believe how much you pissed away every advantage your parents gave you.

 
At 16 December, 2011 07:49, Blogger Ian said...

Is Cosmo's sole purpose now to stamp his feet and cry?

Did he ever have any other purpose?

I'd probably stamp my feet and cry if I were a dateless, unemployed virgin living in mom's basement with a ratty beard and nothing but black t-shirts in the closet. People like that tend to blame others for their failures in life.

 
At 16 December, 2011 08:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 December, 2011 08:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...you clearly don't understand the words you are quoting.
You're just babbling. "F=Ma! ke=1/2mv^2! e=mc^2! See how smart I am!"


That's right, goat fucker, when your back is against the wall, resort to 100% fact-free nay-saying and babbling.

What's the matter, Pinocchio, are you still working on the difference between a data table and the body of the text?

You really are that stupid, aren't you, goat fucker?

Tell us, asshole, how many times was the phrase "FE spheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? And how many times was the phrase "iron-rich microspheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? Which phrase was a part of the text and which resides in a table?

Answer the questions, Pinocchio.

 
At 16 December, 2011 09:02, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Now GB is saying "FE" is the formula for rust.

And Pat, James, and Grandmastershill believe him.

How sad.

 
At 16 December, 2011 09:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, I never said that "FE" is a formula for rust.

Learn to read, shit-for-brains.

And maybe you'll take a stab at answering the question, cretin:

Tell us, asshole, how many times was the phrase "FE spheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? And how many times was the phrase "iron-rich microspheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? Which phrase was a part of the text and which resides in a table?

Answer the question, liar.

 
At 16 December, 2011 09:49, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Keep asking like it makes a difference, son.

FE is not rust. Just FYI. I know it's hard for you and James to understand, but just try. Sound it out if necessary.

 
At 16 December, 2011 09:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?"

Then perhaps you'll be so kind as to substantiate your assertion, your alleged sir.

Show me, VIA DIRECT QUOTE, where I ever claimed that elemental iron (Fe) is rust (Fe2O3)?

And you won't answer my question--which can be found at time stamp 16 December, 2011 09:10--because to do so will prove that you're lying.

Who's the "Coward," Mr. Cowardly?

Well, at least you chose an appropriate handle.

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:07, Blogger snug.bug said...

GMS, I believes debris and some of the WTC were both in and out of the "bath tub" because it's true. You point and giggle at truth because you're ignorant. Some of the damage to Verizon was clearly the result of heavy structural components hurled across the street from WTC1. The hypothesis that similar damage emanated from WTC7 is reasonable. The lower 25 stories or so were not visible to the cameras, so we don't know what was going on there. If a proper scientific study had been done, we might know where the WTC7 structural components that damaged
Fiterman and Verizon came from, and then we could examine how they got there. That wasn't done. For some reason there was a panic-stricken rush to scrub the crime scene.

TAW, it's amusing that you think "contradiction" is a "big-boy word".

TAW, why do you think evidence for thermite contradicts evidence for explosives? Does the fact that I drove a car to the airport contradict the fact that I flew in a plane to Detroit? Only a feeble minded person would think so.

Your belief that I am a failed janitor is based on what exactly?

TAW, literacy is not a question of wealth. It's a question of reading. Last time I checked, poor towns have libraries too. They may not be as opulent as the fancy towns, but the books are there.

UtterFail, I not only know the difference from a data table and the body of the text, I recognize in your attempts to declare the data tables of a paper to be apocryphal heresy an ideology-bound irrational attempt to deny reality.

I can tell you that the phrase "FE spheres" was NEVER mentioned in the RJ Lee Report--because the RJ Lee group is not scientifically illiterate, as you are.

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:13, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The got fucker brays, "...I can tell you that the phrase "FE spheres" was NEVER mentioned in the RJ Lee Report...[blah][blah][blah]."

False.

Try again, Mr. "scientifically illiterate."

Perhaps you should learn to lay-off the model airplane glue, goat fucker.

And you didn't answer my question, either.

Why is that, goat fucker?

Are you lying again, goat fucker, and trying to bury my comments in dumbspam?

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:14, Blogger Ian said...

TAW, it's amusing that you think "contradiction" is a "big-boy word".

I said that Brian, not TAW. Learn to read.

And for you it is a big-boy word, since you have the mind of a learning-disabled 8-year-old. You use big words to try to convince us that you're smart and educated, but it just makes you look like an idiot.

TAW, why do you think evidence for thermite contradicts evidence for explosives? Does the fact that I drove a car to the airport contradict the fact that I flew in a plane to Detroit? Only a feeble minded person would think so.

See what I mean? You don't understand what "contradiction" means, and then you use some idiotic analogies that give us all a good laugh at your ignorance and idiocy. No wonder you're too incompetent to mop floors.

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:17, Blogger Ian said...

Your belief that I am a failed janitor is based on what exactly?

It's based on the fact that you're a failed janitor. Christ, Brian, this is like asking "your belief that California is the most populous state is based on what exactly?"

That's how grown-ups use analogies, Brian.

TAW, literacy is not a question of wealth. It's a question of reading. Last time I checked, poor towns have libraries too. They may not be as opulent as the fancy towns, but the books are there.

Of course. That's how a man born as a slave like Frederick Douglass could become such a learned intellectual. On the flip side, a son of wealth like you could become an illiterate unemployed janitor who calls people "girls" as an insult.

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:47, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"...substantiate your assertion, your alleged sir."
-GB the illiterate

What the hell is that supposed to mean? Are your usual word-salads not incomprehensible enough?

"Well, at least you chose an appropriate handle." -Gutterbile

Oh, I know. It's VERY appropriate for this blog. You wouldn't understand.

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:50, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

If a proper scientific study had been done, we might know where the WTC7 structural components that damaged
Fiterman and Verizon came from, and then we could examine how they got there.



LMAO!!!!! You need a scientific study to determine that this is part of WTC 7? What part of the towers did it come from?

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3muS-TNbCtIz5cOdd4cduWuA8ZMiMcrRMvSdgMvJATmXx4h9JO2eDWD2q


And that Fiterman was hit by it as well? How was this due to the towers when its on the opposite side of 7?

https://encrypted-tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQq7W-Jgl7WvtnyRzVcqQQBmSGTpUnrJlU_h752XE71Nh6BgZvf

Please your, "well thats why we need a new investigation" mantra was flat from day 1.

I believes debris and some of the WTC were both in and out of the "bath tub" because it's true.

You were talking about WTC 7.

The lower 25 stories or so were not visible to the cameras, so we don't know what was going on there.

Except wer have photos of the debris

For some reason there was a panic-stricken rush to scrub the crime scene.

Yeah I know, they started moving debris almost as if it were a matter of life & death.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-05-miracles-usat_x.htm

I know Brian, screw the survivors. ALl that matter is "the truth".

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:58, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

LMAO!!! Of course what Brina doesn't realize that in attempt to protect his fantasies he just postulated that the building didn't come straight down or symmetrically, but then again this is Brian so doublethink is expected.

 
At 16 December, 2011 10:59, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Cosmo, you don't know what "substantiate your assertion" means? I mean I am not shocked, but really?

 
At 16 December, 2011 11:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, ArseHooligan, it's an evasion.

Answer the question:

Show me, VIA DIRECT QUOTE, where I ever claimed that elemental iron (Fe) is rust (Fe2O3)?

Yep, you chose appropriate handle. After all, you're a coward and a liar.

 
At 16 December, 2011 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Utterfail, the phrase "FE spheres" was NEVER mentioned in the RJ Lee Report.

Ian, it's amusing that you think "contradiction" is a "big-boy word".
"Contradiction" is a six-year-old's word, like "infinity" and "antidisestablishmentarianism". There is no reasonable synonym.

Your belief that I am a failed janitor is based on "the fact" that I'm a failed janitor. I can look up the population of California from authoritative sources, but the only source for the "failed janitor" claim is a bunch of anonymous liars on the internet.

Frederick Douglass had access to books. Everyone has access to books. Even homeless people (especially homeless people) have access to books. No privilege involved.

GMS, we would need a scientific examination of the wreckage in Fiterman and Verizon to know what portion of WTC7 the debris came from before we could hypothesize a mechanism for how it got there. Verizon was hit by debris from WTC1. I never said Fiterman was.

I never said WTC7 was inside the bathtub. You guys are sowing confusion and wasting everyone's time.

Nobody died at WTC7 and there was no excuse for scrubbing the scene of the most mysterious structural failure in history.

If you look at the videos you see that WTC7 comes down in near-perfect symmetry in the E-W axis. I guess you believe you're not symmetrical unless you have buttholes both front and back?

 
At 16 December, 2011 11:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...the phrase "FE spheres" was NEVER mentioned in the RJ Lee Report."

False.

"FE Sphere" is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. "

Learn to read, goat fucker.

And if you'd learn to pay attention, you'd know that "FE Sphere" was first mentioned by your cowardly butt buddy, ArseHooligan, at time stamp 15 December, 2011 12:53.

Is it any wonder that you flunked out of junior college? After all, you have the attention span of a retarded marmoset.

Furthermore, lies and evasions are not an answer, goat fucker.

Answer the question--all of it.

"...Tell us, asshole, how many times was the phrase "FE spheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? And how many times was the phrase "iron-rich microspheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? Which phrase was a part of the text and which "

You're just like the ArseHooligan. You're a liar and a coward.

 
At 16 December, 2011 11:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

Do you have a point? I'm not interested in rhetorical questions about angels on pins.

 
At 16 December, 2011 11:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Answering a question with a question is not "debate"--you lying son-of-a-bitch--it's deceit.

Answer the goddamned question--all of it:

"...Tell us, asshole, how many times was the phrase "FE spheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? And how many times was the phrase "iron-rich microspheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? Which phrase was a part of the text and which resides in a table?"

I've proven that you lied when you claimed--and I quote: "..."...the phrase "FE spheres" was NEVER mentioned in the RJ Lee Report."

That's a brazen lie, goat fucker. Or did you miss TABLE 3 on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report? And you claim to have read the RJ Lee Report? Bullshit. You didn't read anything. After all, you have the attention span of a retarded marmoset.

What's the matter, coward? Are you lying again? Is your back against the wall?

Come on, pussy, answer the question. I dare you.

 
At 16 December, 2011 11:55, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, it's amusing that you think "contradiction" is a "big-boy word".
"Contradiction" is a six-year-old's word, like "infinity" and "antidisestablishmentarianism". There is no reasonable synonym.


Brian, you think "contradiction" is a big-boy word. That's why you use it to try to look smart. Unfortunately, you don't know what it means, so you just make yourself look like the ignorant lunatic and failed janitor that you are.

Your belief that I am a failed janitor is based on "the fact" that I'm a failed janitor. I can look up the population of California from authoritative sources, but the only source for the "failed janitor" claim is a bunch of anonymous liars on the internet.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, you're a failed janitor. This is a fact.

Frederick Douglass had access to books. Everyone has access to books. Even homeless people (especially homeless people) have access to books. No privilege involved.

Yes. The point is that Frederick Douglass used his access to books to educate himself. You ignore that access to books in order to spend all your time posting spam about magic thermite elves on the internet and call people girls.

Nobody died at WTC7 and there was no excuse for scrubbing the scene of the most mysterious structural failure in history.

Brian, there is nothing "mysterious" about WTC 7 any more than there is anything "mysterious" about Halley's Comet. Now, the Anglo-Saxons of 1066 were baffled by Halley's Comet, but that's due to their ignorance of the world around them. You're baffled by WTC 7 because of your ignorance, but also because you're an illiterate liar and lunatic who wears women's underwear and believes in magic thermite elves.

If you look at the videos you see that WTC7 comes down in near-perfect symmetry in the E-W axis.

See what I mean? You expect us to take you seriously when your "research" is looking at youtube videos. It's what we'd expect from a failed janitor, but it's not how serious investigators work.

 
At 16 December, 2011 13:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"when your "research" is looking at youtube videos"

Kind of like Pat focusing on some close-ups of windows in 7 burning, and then saying they 'dispel' any alternate theories.

too bad "assertions aren't evidence", hey Fatty Patty?

 
At 16 December, 2011 14:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 16 December, 2011 15:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, asshole, it's an evasion.

So answer the questions, cretin:

Question [1] "...Tell us, asshole, how many times was the phrase "FE spheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? And how many times was the phrase "iron-rich microspheres" mentioned in the RJ Lee Report? Which phrase was a part of the text and which resides in a table?"

Question [2] "...Show me, VIA DIRECT QUOTE, where I ever claimed that elemental iron (Fe) is rust (Fe2O3)?"

Yep, you chose an appropriate handle. After all, you're a coward and a liar.

 
At 16 December, 2011 19:30, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"The lower 25 stories or so were not visible to the cameras, so we don't know what was going on there."

We know what was going on. Everyone down there knew the building was heavily damaged, and none were suprised when WTC7 came down.

"why do you think evidence for thermite contradicts evidence for explosives?"

Because thermite isn't an explosive, and thermite in the amounts suggested by Gage and other nimrods is not enough to cut steel. So you'd need actual expolsives.

"Your belief that I am a failed janitor is based on what exactly? "

So you're saying you're a successful janitor. This would explain why you don't post at night after a certain hour - you're at work.

 
At 17 December, 2011 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, the phrase "FE spheres" does not appear in Table 3 on page 24 of the 2003 RJ Lee Report. To what version of the report are you referring?

Ian, I don't have to try to look smart. Especially not in an inflatable diaper-pool like this one.

I never failed as a janitor. I was quite successful as a janitor. So was one of my friends who later went on to become General Counsel to a Fortune 500 company.

The point is not that Frederick Douglass used his access to books to educate himself. The point is that poor people have access to books just as privileged people do.

The collapse of WTC7 was so fucking mysterious that NIST wasn't able to cobble together a report until 7 years after the fact--and even then they couldn't explain it in a plausible manner.

The fact that I cite a Youtube video for video evidence does not mean that I limit my research to Youtube videos. Your logical skills are sorely lacking.

M Gregory Ferris, if WTC7 was heavily damaged, how come NIST says the damage played no part in collapse initiation?

How do you know that thermite in the smounts suggested by Gage and others is not enough to cut steel. Jonathan Cole is able to cut a substantial I-beam with 2 pounds of thermite.

I was a successful janitor when I was in college. I'm no longer a janitor.

 
At 17 December, 2011 10:43, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I don't have to try to look smart. Especially not in an inflatable diaper-pool like this one.

And yet you continue to post spam here endlessly. It's almost like you have nothing else to do, such as a job, family commitments, friends...

I never failed as a janitor. I was quite successful as a janitor. So was one of my friends who later went on to become General Counsel to a Fortune 500 company.

Brian, stop pretending you have friends.

The point is not that Frederick Douglass used his access to books to educate himself. The point is that poor people have access to books just as privileged people do.

No, the point is that even someone born in such terrible circumstances as Frederick Douglass can make himself into a towering intellectual, and conversely, that someone born into such privilege as you can become an illiterate liar and failed janitor.

 
At 17 December, 2011 10:46, Blogger Ian said...

The collapse of WTC7 was so fucking mysterious that NIST wasn't able to cobble together a report until 7 years after the fact--and even then they couldn't explain it in a plausible manner.

See what I mean? You're too ignorant to understand what happened at WTC 7 so you ascribe magical powers to it, just as the subjects of King Harold did to Halley's Comet when it appeared in 1066.

The fact that I cite a Youtube video for video evidence does not mean that I limit my research to Youtube videos. Your logical skills are sorely lacking.

And yet you cite nothing but youtube videos, likely because you're an illiterate ignoramus.

How do you know that thermite in the smounts suggested by Gage and others is not enough to cut steel. Jonathan Cole is able to cut a substantial I-beam with 2 pounds of thermite.

See what I mean? You're ignorant and illiterate, and thus you ascribe magical powers to thermite.

I was a successful janitor when I was in college. I'm no longer a janitor.

Right. You're an unemployed janitor, hence one who failed. Also, stop pretending you went to college.

 
At 17 December, 2011 11:19, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...the phrase "FE spheres" does not appear in Table 3 on page 24 of the 2003 RJ Lee Report. To what version of the report are you referring?"

False.

RJ Lee's WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, December 2003, clearly states "FE Sphere" on page 24, TABLE 3.

Perhaps you should do your homework before you babble like an idiot, goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 17 December, 2011 11:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I am not spamming. I am countering your lie-spam and ButtGail's lie-spam. Why you two should want to spend your time lying about something that happened 10 years ago is quite mysterious.

I understand the official claims about WTC7 just fine. You don't. You probably still believe the lies that Popular Mechanics spread about WTC7--lies NIST repudiated.

I ascribe no magical powers to anything. Your claim that thermite must be magical to perform the mundane act of cutting steel is irrational.

ButtGale, you are mistaken. Any fool can see that RJ Lee's WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, December 2003, does not say "FE Sphere" on page 24, TABLE 3.

 
At 17 December, 2011 11:31, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I am not spamming. I am countering your lie-spam and ButtGail's lie-spam. Why you two should want to spend your time lying about something that happened 10 years ago is quite mysterious.

Uh, Brian? You're the liar, remember? That's why you can't get a new investigation.

I understand the official claims about WTC7 just fine. You don't. You probably still believe the lies that Popular Mechanics spread about WTC7--lies NIST repudiated.

See what I mean? All you do is lie.

I ascribe no magical powers to anything. Your claim that thermite must be magical to perform the mundane act of cutting steel is irrational.

More lies, and our insane failed janitor uses another big-boy word, "irrational", in a way that makes him look like an illiterate ignoramus.

 
At 17 December, 2011 11:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie. Why you think this is worth your time I wouldn't know.

 
At 17 December, 2011 11:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

Your claim that you find it amusing is wearing very thin.

 
At 17 December, 2011 12:17, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie. Why you think this is worth your time I wouldn't know.

Brian, all the dumbspam in the world doesn't change the fact that I'm telling the truth and you're lying. Everyone here can see it, so I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish here. Certainly, you've gotten nowhere in the 3 years you've been spamming this blog.

Your claim that you find it amusing is wearing very thin.

I do find you amusing. You're obsessed with this blog, and you can't stop squealing and calling people "girls". My amusement is the modern day equivalent of the people of London who used to poke the inmates in Bedlam.

 
At 17 December, 2011 12:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who checks the links can that you lie about Dr. Sunder and about Dr. Astaneh. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

Poking truth with lies is hardly something to brag about.

 
At 17 December, 2011 12:40, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker bald-faced lies, "...you are mistaken. Any fool can see that RJ Lee's WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, December 2003, does not say "FE Sphere" on page 24, TABLE 3."

False.

I just gave you a direct link to the RJ Lee Report, and ANYONE CAN SEE THAT YOU'RE LYING. PAGE 24, TABLE 3, CLEARLY STATES--and I quote: "FE Spheres."

Source: RJ Lee's WTC Dust Signature Report, Composition and Morphology, December 2003, clearly states "FE Sphere" on page 24, TABLE 3.

Will you ever stop lying, goat fucker?

 
At 17 December, 2011 12:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

The RJ Lee report says nothing about "FE", idiot. "FE" is the NYSE ticker symbol for FirstEnergy Corp. Your attempts to pass yourself off as an expert in chemistry when you think "FE" has something to do with iron show you're a joke.

It's okay to be ignorant if you know it. You seem to believe you're some kind of expert about stuff you know nothing about.

 
At 17 December, 2011 13:08, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The term "FE Sphere" was first used by your butt buddy, ArseHooligan at time stamp 15 December, 2011 12:53.

That's why I put "FE Sphere" in quotes.

The RJ Lee Report states Fe Sphere, on page 24, TABLE 3.

Any more lies for us goat fucker?

As I said, the direct link I provided to the RJ Lee Report PROVES THAT YOU'RE A LIAR.

And why can't you provide a link to substantiate your lies, goat fucker?

The answer is simple: You're a compulsive liar.

Perhaps if you'd payed more attention in school, you wouldn't be such an idiot?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 17 December, 2011 13:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Zero means no iron oxide. 6% means 6% iron oxide. You're a quote miner who obviously has no idea what the quotes you're mining mean.

 
At 17 December, 2011 13:13, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, anybody who checks the links can that you lie about Dr. Sunder and about Dr. Astaneh. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

Poking truth with lies is hardly something to brag about.


Brian, does someone pay you to post these lies over and over and over again on this blog? I don't understand why anyone would continue to do so.

 
At 17 December, 2011 13:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker babbles, "...Zero means no iron oxide. 6% means 6% iron oxide. You're a quote miner who obviously has no idea what the quotes you're mining mean."

What are you talking about, asshole?

The subject is the RJ Lee Report, not the alleged presence of Fe2O3 in Portland cement.

Having trouble keeping your lies straight, goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL.

 
At 17 December, 2011 13:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And why are you using Dr. Asteneh-Asl as a source?

Didn't he tell the 9/11 "truth movement" to stop taking his statements and research out of context? Didn't he tell you clowns to stop lying about his conclusions?

What's this, goat fucker?

"...please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Dr. Asteneh-Asl

So what part of that statement do you fail to understand--you despicable lying cretin?

"Humanity"? You haven't got a micro-gram of humanity in your entire body, goat fucker.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 17 December, 2011 15:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, anybody who checks the links can that you lie about Dr. Sunder and about Dr. Astaneh. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

ButtGail, I use Dr. Asteneh-Asl as a source because he told PBS that he saw melting of girders at World TRade Center. He never asked me to stop quoting him.

 
At 17 December, 2011 15:51, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

snug.bug said...
"Ian, anybody who checks the links can that you lie about Dr. Sunder and about Dr. Astaneh. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/tech/debunking-9-11-bomb-theories.html

Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders".

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june07/overpass_05-10.html

ButtGail, I use Dr. Asteneh-Asl as a source because he told PBS that he saw melting of girders at World TRade Center. He never asked me to stop quoting him."

The beauty of this particular post is it highlights Brian's psychosis.

First he quotes, then links to a source which explains the collapse of the towers, and emphasizes it was the unique contruction which made the towers fall as fast as they did. Brian, a well known idiot, keys in on the speed of collapse, but not the explaination. This occurs for two reasons:

1. Brian is an idiot.
2. His psychosis won't allow him to even see the facts when presented by a qualified expert.

He then goes on to quote Dr. Asteneh-Asl even though he chose not to cite the link where the good doctor explains the collapse of the approach to the Bay Bridge after a gasoline tanker truck exploded and burned causing the steel to weaken. Asteneh-Asl says he saw the same thing at the WTC after the attacks.

So Brian cites a second expert (by his own definition) who doesn't agree with anything he says, and saw nothing unusual in the wreckage at Ground Zero. Then he denies Dr. Asteneh - Asl was addressing him when he released a written statement telling 9/11 nutjobs to quit misquoting him.

Brian isn't lying, he's delusional. His psychosis won't allow him to grasp basic facts.

 
At 17 December, 2011 15:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...He never asked me to stop quoting him."

Really? No kidding?

"...please stop using a phrase "molten steel" from eight years of my work and statements to further your absolutely misguided and baseless conspiracy theories and find another subject for your discussion. You are hurting the victims' families immensely and if you have any humanity you would stop doing so and will not use my name nor the out of context words from my work." -- Dr. Asteneh-Asl

On the contrary, he's speaking DIRECTLY to you and your ilk.

Too bad that you're a cretin who has the reading comprehension skills of a retarded marmoset.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 17 December, 2011 17:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your belief that if I quote a witness from a site, therefore I must subscribe to everything the site says is indicative of a very primitive mind. You really really really need to get out of Castroville.

Note that NIST does not claim that the towers fell from their unique construction (which is not unique). If you think the towers fell from unique construction, you should join us in calling for new investigations beyond the dishonest NIST reports, and you should be calling for retrofit improvement to similar structures, such as Sears Tower.

The Bay Bridge has nothing to do with it. Dr. Asteneh-Asl says "I saw melting of girders at World Trade center."

Dr. Astaneh-Asl has never asked me not to quote him. Some obscure website claims he made a statement. So what? Why should I believe them? If Dr. Astaneh-Asl wants to make a statement to the truth movement, he needs to address it to the truth movement.

ButtGale, you can quote that silly website 'til you're blue in the face. If Dr. Astaneh wanted to reach me, he would go through channels where I might be reached.

Look at the level upon which you're operating here. You can't refute the expert, can't deny that he said what he said, and you must rely on Rules of Procedure of some kind of bizarre court-inside-your-head to declare his statement a heretical text.

 
At 17 December, 2011 18:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, goat fucker?

"...When the fires started, they heated up the steel. In my opinion, the truss joists collapsed first, leaving the exterior columns of probably two floors in the impact area with no bracing but still under gravity load from the floors above. As the columns heated up and reached temperatures of nearly 1,000F, their strength was reduced to less than half the design strength and they started to buckle. When the columns buckled, the top portion of the building, losing its supports, was pulled down by gravity and dropping on the floors below, pancaking the floors one after another and leading to progressive collapse in an almost perfect vertical direction of the pull of gravity force." -- Dr. Astaneh-Asl, Design News, 17 August 2006, Did The Building Do It?.

How does that statement square with your lying bullshit?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 17 December, 2011 20:36, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, your belief that if I quote a witness from a site, therefore I must subscribe to everything the site says is indicative of a very primitive mind. "

Not just any witness, fuckface, witnesses YOU cite, and constantly throw their credentials in our face. You can't cite a source as credible on one issue, but not credible on another.

This is how we all know you failed college and dropped out. This is second year critical thinking and you're failing.

"Note that NIST does not claim that the towers fell from their unique construction (which is not unique)."

...and here you go again. This time you cite a source you claim is not credible to make your point.

You can't have it both ways. NIST can't be right about some things and not others. Not in a rational world anyway.

"you should be calling for retrofit improvement to similar structures, such as Sears Tower."

The Sears Tower is undergoing retrofit right now, and changes have been made in building codes around the world. I wonder why?

I'd suggest you read this, but I know you won't because it's actual engineers discussing changes in tall building contruction. Plus you won't like it as it is fact-based.

http://www.syska.com/cms/docs/articles/csemag_0503_friedel.pdf

"Dr. Astaneh-Asl has never asked me not to quote him. Some obscure website claims he made a statement. So what? Why should I believe them? "

Translation: Oink oink oink oink - it's all about me - oink oink.

"If Dr. Astaneh-Asl wants to make a statement to the truth movement, he needs to address it to the truth movement."

Which branch? The I-Wanted-To-Fuck-My-Mother branch? The I-Fucked/Still Fuck-My Mother branch? My-Mother-Never-Loved-Me Branch? The I-Live-in-Mom's Basement branch? The Mid-Life-Crisis branch?

Why should he anyway, you'd just ignore it as you are now.

 
At 18 December, 2011 07:48, Blogger Ian said...

Note that NIST does not claim that the towers fell from their unique construction (which is not unique). If you think the towers fell from unique construction, you should join us in calling for new investigations beyond the dishonest NIST reports, and you should be calling for retrofit improvement to similar structures, such as Sears Tower.

Nobody cares.

The Bay Bridge has nothing to do with it. Dr. Asteneh-Asl says "I saw melting of girders at World Trade center."

Right, because this quote is completely irrelevant.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl has never asked me not to quote him. Some obscure website claims he made a statement. So what? Why should I believe them?

Right, this is all a waste of time. You can babble about the good doctor all you want. It's not going to change anything.

If Dr. Astaneh-Asl wants to make a statement to the truth movement, he needs to address it to the truth movement.

Why would he waste his time addressing a tiny crackpot group of charlatans and lunatics?

Look at the level upon which you're operating here. You can't refute the expert, can't deny that he said what he said, and you must rely on Rules of Procedure of some kind of bizarre court-inside-your-head to declare his statement a heretical text.

Squeal squeal squeal!!!!

Poor Brian, he's insane enough to think that Dr. Asanteh-Asl cares what he thinks.

Brian, nobody cares what you think. We find your squealing and babbling to be amusing, which is why we keep egging you on.

Speaking of which, I've noticed you no longer babble about "widows" with "questions". Have you finally realized that they have no questions?

 
At 18 December, 2011 11:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, Dr. Astaneh's statement is a simple technical point. Your attempts to deny reality simply because it doesn't square with your faith-based reality are amusing. I didn't lie about anything. He said he saw melting of girders.

MGF I never said Dr. Astaneh was not credible. Apparently you think his claims that he saw melting of girders are not credible.

I never said NIST is not credible. You guys are constantly confusing yourself with stuff you make up.

NIST can certainly be right about some things and not others. When they make claims that are contrary to fact they are not right. You want to live in an all-or-nothing world. Limited minds like you should stick to sports where there's always a winner and a loser. Reality is, of course, far more complicated than a baseball game.

Thanks for the dataspam about building codes. Given that it is dated 2003, well before any changes were actually adopted, we can consider it a bunch of speculative blather than bears little, if any, resemblance to the building code changes you claim.


Ian, Dr. Asteneh-Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade center." Your claim that the quote is irrelevant is irrational, because it's devastating to your claims that no one saw melted steel.

Your claim that the widows have no question is a vile and contemptible lie. Your karma will get you some day.

 
At 18 December, 2011 11:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I never said NIST is not credible."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, you're a paragon of "truth", aren't you?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 18 December, 2011 11:59, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I never said NIST is not credible."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, goat fucker?

"...I am not the only one who thinks the NIST report is unbelievable." -- The goat fucker, 24 July 2011 10:41, from Pat's Kibbles and Bits post.

Yeah, you would never claim that the NIST Report is "unbelievable," would you, Pinocchio?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Will you ever stop lying, goat fucker?

Probably not.

 
At 18 December, 2011 12:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I never said NIST is not credible."

Really? No kidding?

What's this, goat fucker?

"...I can prove that the NIST reports are dishonest, unscientific, incomplete, and unbelievable." -- The goat fucker, 27 June, 2011 18:41, from James B's Hell No I Ain't Reading No White Paper! post.

Ever the paragon of consistency and "truth," aren't you, goat fucker?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

As I stated up-thread, you haven't got a micro-gram of humanity or integrity in your entire body.

Will you ever stop lying, goat fucker?

Probably not.

 
At 18 December, 2011 12:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sorry that you are unable to distinguish between a report and an institution, ButtGale, but your intellectual failings are not my fault.

I never said NIST is not credible.

 
At 18 December, 2011 12:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I never said NIST is not credible."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

That's right, goat fucker, talk out of both sides of your mouth--you duplicitous knob-gobbler.

Try again, 9/11 failure monkey.

 
At 18 December, 2011 12:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

I'm sorry that you can not distinguish between a report and an institution, ButtGale, but your intellectual otherly-enabledness is not my problem.

 
At 18 December, 2011 12:51, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, dig your shit-covered heels in and continue to talk out of both sides of your filthy, lying mouth. That'll convince us, for sure.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

There's is no difference--you duplicitous snot-gobbler.

To impugn the NIST report is to cast aspersions upon the institution.

Try again, Pinocchio.

 
At 18 December, 2011 13:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

You'd do a lot better to eschew your
vocabulary-challenged attempts at analysis and just stick to the facts: I never said that NIST was not credible.

 
At 18 December, 2011 13:46, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's right, goat fucker, dig your heels in and talk out of both sides of your mealy-mouth.

FAIL.

 
At 18 December, 2011 15:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, when your stink dissipates, the facts remain. Did you ever consider taking up the trumpet? Your pudgy fingers would be far more suited to it than to the guitar.

 
At 18 December, 2011 15:48, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF I never said Dr. Astaneh was not credible. Apparently you think his claims that he saw melting of girders are not credible."

His claims are not credible because he said they're not. He says his statement has been twisted by the truther-tards.

 
At 18 December, 2011 15:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker squeals, "...when your stink dissipates, the facts remain."

"Facts"? You wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and bit you, goat fucker.

And speaking of stink, the duplicity reeks from every pore of your drug-addled body--you double-talking liar.

Did your mother or your father teach you to talk out of both sides of your mealy mouth? Or were you raised by wolves?

Inquiring minds want to know.

 
At 18 December, 2011 23:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, pray te;ll, how can "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center" be "twisted"? He saw melted girders. That's steel. Jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.

UtterFail, you have no argument.

 
At 19 December, 2011 01:24, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Yeah, that's why I proved that you're cherry-picking Dr. Astaneh-Asl's testimony and lying about his conclusions as concerns the collapse of the WTC.

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

I guess Dr. Astaneh-Asl just doesn't have the intellectual capacity to see the implications of the alleged "melted girders." That's why he rejects the 9/11 "truth movement." After all, he's only a professor of structural engineering. What does he know? Right, goat fucker?

Apparently, Dr. Astaneh-Asl doesn't have the insight and intellectual prowess of a failed janitor, sex predator, college dropout and World-class liar who wears women's underwear.

What was I thinking? My bad.

 
At 19 December, 2011 08:59, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, it's you. Just like WAQo, you see contradiction where there is none.

Yeah, keep telling yourself that Brian. You just made another contradiction.

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:05, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, why do you think evidence for thermite contradicts evidence for explosives? Does the fact that I drove a car to the airport contradict the fact that I flew in a plane to Detroit? Only a feeble minded person would think so.

You can't have both. You feel that it was thermite that did he job, then you totally pull a 180 and say that it was explosives.

You always managed to contradict yourself using those 2 theories. I've sat here months beforehand watching you dig your own hole. Basically whatever you say or claimed was contradictory throughout your arguements with everyone.

TAW, literacy is not a question of wealth. It's a question of reading. Last time I checked, poor towns have libraries too. They may not be as opulent as the fancy towns, but the books are there.

I get it, since you said that poor towns have poor libraries means that you live in a ghetto with low income and you read books that haven't been up-graded from the 19th century.

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:09, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Astaneh was probably looking at sulfidation corrosion, not "melting" in the strict sense. The sulfidized girders were collected and documented.

If there were any truly "melted" girders (i.e., exposed to temperatures above the melting point of steel), then where are they? Did the magic elves whisk them away after letting Dr. Astaneh look at them first?

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:09, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I never said WTC7 was inside the bathtub. You guys are sowing confusion and wasting everyone's time.

Brian's own words make him out to be the perfect lying machine that he truely is:

there's the fact that the bulk of the WTC7 debris fell inside the "bathtub" and WTC7 was outside the bathtub and thus isolated from the impact.


Brian owes me another irony meter and a lie detector, he broke them with his stupidity.

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

NOVA is a media outlet. Truely Brian doesn't trust any media outlets cause he thinks they are controlled by the government.

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:15, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Brian,

If the widows have questions, then why is it that they haven't asked those questions in several years?

Do you think that they have had theier questions answered in a private matter so lunatics like you won't go nuts over the answers?

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:38, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, Dr. Sunder told PBS that he saw melting of girders at the WTC, and none of your faith-based lawyering can change that fact. I didn't lie about anything. That's what he said, and that's what I said he said. You are in denial of basic facts.

TAW, thanks for making clear that you think I can't both drive a car to the airport and fly to Detroit. So you think the airplane swoops down to the street in front of my house to pick me up?

I don't "feel that it was thermite". You have no right to tell me what I feel. When did I say it was explosives? And how is it a "180" to say that it was explosives. If a coroner says the wounds are consistent with use of a knife, is it a "180" to say that some of them are also consistent with an axe?

Maybe when you have read enough so you learn how to spell "argument" people will take you more seriously.


MR, Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center." If you would bother to watch the video you will see that the context was a discussion of the Oakland Freeway Fire. He was saying that the freeway girder did not melt, there was no melting at Oakland, but at WTC he saw melted girders.

The sulfidized girders were collected and documented--and ignored by NIST, though the FEMA report called for further study and the NYT said they were perhaps the deepest mystery of the entire investigation.

Dr. Astaneh has a nice picture of a "melted" girder. Since that girder does not appear in either NIST's report or FEMA's, yes it appears that someone whisked it away.

TAW, I never said you said WTC7 was inside the bathtub. You are sowing confusion and wasting everyone's time.

I mis-spoke about WTC7 debris falling inside the "bathtub". Obviously I meant WTC tower debris fell inside the bathtub.

TAW, the fact that NOVA is a media outlet does not change the fact that Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds. Does the President have to come to you and speak to you personally before you'll accept what he says? A TV broadcast isn't good enough for you? Your desperate attempts to discard facts (just like a BushBot) are duly noted.

The widows have repeated their demands for answers in a letter to Patrick Leahy not so very long ago. They also demanded further investigation of Behrooz Sarshar's "Kamikaze Pilots" memo from the spring of 2001.

What ever happened to WAQo? And how come you sound so much like him?

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:58, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

but at WTC he saw melted girders.

Again, this was most likely sulfidation corrosion.


The sulfidized girders were collected and documented--and ignored by NIST

Wrong again, idiot. See NCSTAR 1-3C, pp. 229-233. It's an analysis of a sulfidized column.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I pointed out the same thing months ago, Mike.

He'll simply ignore you and turn around a week later and tell the same lies as though he was never debunked. And Pat and James encourage this never-ending malarkey.

Welcome to SLC.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:21, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Dr. Asteneh-Asl said "I saw melting of girders at World Trade center." Your claim that the quote is irrelevant is irrational, because it's devastating to your claims that no one saw melted steel.

Nobody saw melted steel, Brian. Dr. Assanteh-Asl sure didn't.

Your claim that the widows have no question is a vile and contemptible lie. Your karma will get you some day.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Poor Brian, he can only squeal and squeal over the fact that nobody cares about his lying "widows".

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:26, Blogger Ian said...

ButtGale, Dr. Sunder told PBS that he saw melting of girders at the WTC, and none of your faith-based lawyering can change that fact. I didn't lie about anything. That's what he said, and that's what I said he said. You are in denial of basic facts.

How many lies can you cram into one paragraph of spam, Brian?

I don't "feel that it was thermite". You have no right to tell me what I feel. When did I say it was explosives? And how is it a "180" to say that it was explosives. If a coroner says the wounds are consistent with use of a knife, is it a "180" to say that some of them are also consistent with an axe?

Brian, your desperation is hilarious. Don't worry about thermite or explosives. Neither were used to destroy the WTC.

TAW, the fact that NOVA is a media outlet does not change the fact that Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

Stop lying about Dr. Sunder, Brian.

The widows have repeated their demands for answers in a letter to Patrick Leahy not so very long ago. They also demanded further investigation of Behrooz Sarshar's "Kamikaze Pilots" memo from the spring of 2001.

Nobody cares about your "widows".

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yes, MR, thanks for proving my point. NIST's analysis of the sulfidated columns was relegated to the back pages of an obscure supplemental report, and was not discussed in the main report or in the conclusions at all.

Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders". He did so in the context of discussing girders in the Oakland Freeway fire that were not melted. he did not say "corroded" or "eroded". he said melted.

Ian, your colleagues' continued tolerance for your blatant lies indicts both of their integrity and their intelligence.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:39, Blogger Ian said...

Yes, MR, thanks for proving my point. NIST's analysis of the sulfidated columns was relegated to the back pages of an obscure supplemental report, and was not discussed in the main report or in the conclusions at all.

Nobody cares.

Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders". He did so in the context of discussing girders in the Oakland Freeway fire that were not melted. he did not say "corroded" or "eroded". he said melted.

Stop lying, Brian.

Ian, your colleagues' continued tolerance for your blatant lies indicts both of their integrity and their intelligence.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Brian, they're not my "colleagues". They're just random people who enjoy taunting you for being a liar and lunatic and failed janitor who stalks Carol Brouillet and believes in magic thermite elves.

Your "widows" will never have their questions answered, and I will continue to laugh about it forever while you continue to squeal about it forever.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:44, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, thanks for making clear that you think I can't both drive a car to the airport and fly to Detroit. So you think the airplane swoops down to the street in front of my house to pick me up?

If you had a clone of yourself, you could probably "pull it" off. If there are no power lines and the road is straight, yup it's possible.

I don't "feel that it was thermite". You have no right to tell me what I feel. When did I say it was explosives? And how is it a "180" to say that it was explosives. If a coroner says the wounds are consistent with use of a knife, is it a "180" to say that some of them are also consistent with an axe?

Actually I have every right to tell you how you feel. Your emotions give off signals that I pick up. You keep jumping from thermite to explosives all the time, duh. Knife/axe = edged weapons that leave an identifiable mark and could be confused with one another in an investigation.

TAW, I never said you said WTC7 was inside the bathtub. You are sowing confusion and wasting everyone's time.

And you're repeating the same lame sentence all the time. I win again.

TAW, the fact that NOVA is a media outlet does not change the fact that Dr. Sunder told NOVA that the buildings came down in 9 seconds and 11 seconds.

And you'd believe that Bigfoot brought down those Towers since NOVA does talk about Bigfoot sometimes?

What ever happened to WAQo? And how come you sound so much like him?

He has a life, unlike your sad pathetic life. You never thought that WAQ has a family of his own to go to this Christmas weekend.

You really are paranoid to think that I "sound" like WAQ.

How can anyone "sound" like other people when all we're doing on here is typing out our messages?

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:54, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders". He did so in the context of discussing girders in the Oakland Freeway fire that were not melted.

Holy shit, the contradictory comments keep coming. Brian, WTF is up with that?

Dr. Astaneh says to Chris Bollyn in an email exchange:

Dear Mr. Bollyn: As I clearly stated in our phone conversation a few minutes ago, I am very disturbed by the people such as yourself , who are part of this "Conspiracy theorist" regarding World Trade Center collapse. These people have used my name and research results in totally incorrect way , and in completely opposite way of what the research results had indicated. By doing so, you and all others have implied that our research somehow support your totally incorrect theories. 

I hereby officially notify you in writing that if you use my name or the results of our research in any publication implying that the data that we have collected on the WTC somehow supports or provides you with evidence in support of your totally base less conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research. Let me state again that after 6 years of studying the collapse of World Trade Center, I have not found any evidence to support any of the claims of "conspiracy theorists".
In my opinion, and based on scientific facts, the only cause of collapse was the structural and fire damage to the towers that had many unusual features and were not designed according to the buildings codes, standards and the practice.

A. Astaneh, Professor

Brian swung on and missed.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:57, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Maybe Brian should read what Dr. Astaneh says:

I hereby officially notify you in writing that if you use my name or the results of our research in any publication implying that the data that we have collected on the WTC somehow supports or provides you with evidence in support of your totally base less conspiracy theories, I reserve the right to take any legal action necessary to protect my reputation as well as integrity of my research.

Brian could land up in court with Dr. Astaneh if he continues to pursue the case that he's misrepresenting what Dr. Astaneh says.

 
At 19 December, 2011 11:34, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"Yes, MR, thanks for proving my point. NIST's analysis of the sulfidated columns was relegated to the back pages of an obscure supplemental report"

Pathetic dodge. You've been saying forever that NIST ignored the sulfidized steel, when all this time it's been right where one would expect to find it, in the report titled "Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel." This document is not "obscure" to anyone familiar with the NIST report. It's pretty clear at this point you've read no more than a smidgen of the reports. You are not to be taken seriously.

"he did not say "corroded" or "eroded". he said melted."

To a non-metallurgist, sulfidized steel appears to be melted.

The news archives are full of reports of "melted steel" in otherwise normal fires.

 
At 19 December, 2011 14:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders". He did so in the context of discussing girders in the Oakland Freeway fire that were not melted. He did not say "corroded" or "eroded". He said melted, and none of your lies or attempts to trivialize the issue can change that. I'm not misrepresenting anything.

MR, NIST did ignore the sulfidated steel. They did not perform the further tests requested by the FEMA report, they did not explain it, and they did not discuss it in the main report.

Dr. Astaneh, a structural engineer, said it was melted. James Glanz and Captain Philip Ruvolo saw melted steel too--molten steel. Not corroded or eroded. Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem said the photo evidence of molten steel was strong.

 
At 19 December, 2011 15:04, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 December, 2011 15:42, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Brian, your "it is because he said it is" arguments mean nothing without scientific confirmation. Sulfidation corrosion looks like melting. Molten steel looks no different from any other type of molten metal especially to a non-specialist.

I see that you've been lying about the FEMA Appendix C steel for more than 5 years now:

At 27 June, 2011 11:16, snug.bug said...
"NIST's report is a joke--they refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C steel"

petgoat at Wed Aug-02-06 11:29 AM:
"the NIST report pretends that the FEMA Appendix C report doesn't even exist."

It was examined in NIST NCSTAR 1-3C p. 229-233, published way back in September 2005.

How would you know what's missing from a report you didn't read?

 
At 19 December, 2011 16:25, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Dr. Astaneh, a structural engineer, said it was melted. James Glanz and Captain Philip Ruvolo saw melted steel too--molten steel. Not corroded or eroded. Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem said the photo evidence of molten steel was strong.

Those facts, taken together, are insufficient to establish the presence molten steel.

 
At 19 December, 2011 16:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Still trying to pass off a blob of molten metal as "molten steel," goat fucker?

Only an assay performed by a competent chemist can determine the chemical composition of the blob of molten metal. It's not possible to eyeball a blob of molten metal and determine its true chemical composition.

Will you ever stop lying, goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 19 December, 2011 20:48, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Astaneh said "I saw melting of girders". He did so in the context of discussing girders in the Oakland Freeway fire that were not melted. He did not say "corroded" or "eroded". He said melted, and none of your lies or attempts to trivialize the issue can change that. I'm not misrepresenting anything.

Poor Brian, he knows he's been pwn3d, and all he can do is squeal about it after re-posting the same lies again and again.

It won't get the widows questions answered, but it will entertain us, so please keep it up, Brian!

MR, NIST did ignore the sulfidated steel. They did not perform the further tests requested by the FEMA report, they did not explain it, and they did not discuss it in the main report.

False.

Dr. Astaneh, a structural engineer, said it was melted. James Glanz and Captain Philip Ruvolo saw melted steel too--molten steel. Not corroded or eroded. Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem said the photo evidence of molten steel was strong.

False.

 
At 19 December, 2011 23:36, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, sulfidation corrosion does not look like melting. Captain Ruvolo saw molten steel flowing. Leslie Robertson saw molten steel
flowing. James Glanz saw melted steel "like a drip candle".

I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum and I can tell you they look different.

The FEMA Appendix C report calls for further study of samples the NYT called "vaporized" and "the deepest mystery of the investigation." I didn't lie about anything. NIST did not do further studies. They did not explain the sulfidation attack.


RGT, the testimony of 5 PhDs, a FDNY Captain and Leslie Robertson is sufficient to establish that there is evidence for molten steel and all those of you on this board who claim there is no such evidence are lying. There is also the issue of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel taken from the Ground Zero site.

ButtGale, Dr. Astaneh said he saw "melting of girders". If you think girders are made of lead, just dream on. A melted girder is by definition melted steel.

 
At 19 December, 2011 23:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker brays, "...Dr. Astaneh said he saw 'melting of girders'. If you think girders are made of lead, just dream on. A melted girder is by definition melted steel."

That's right, goat fucker, try to pass off a eutectic reaction as "melting of girders."

Keep working on that Chem 1A thing, and maybe in another generation you'll have the brains to pass the course.

Until then, you're just another neo-fascist liar.

 
At 20 December, 2011 01:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, take it up with Dr. Astaneh. He's the one who saw melting of girders.

 
At 20 December, 2011 01:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

I don't need to take anything up with Dr. Astaneh-Asl.

After all, I read the NIST Report. You, on the other hand...

Let us know when you pass Chem 1A. M'kay, goat fucker?

 
At 20 December, 2011 02:56, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug.bug writes: "MR, sulfidation corrosion does not look like melting."

Sulfidized steel may look like melted steel to a non-metallurgist. You need hard evidence, not assertions, especially since unconfirmed reports of melted steel in fires are commonplace.


Captain Ruvolo saw molten steel flowing. Leslie Robertson saw molten steel
flowing. James Glanz saw melted steel "like a drip candle".


As has been pointed out by Bill and others, these people wouldn't have known they were seeing steel as opposed to some other kind of metal. Besides, thermite does not keep steel in a molten state. Thermite has a very low energy density compared to hydrocarbons like gasoline, and a fast reaction rate. To preserve steel in a molten state you would need the opposite, something with an extremely high energy density and low reaction rate.

"I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum and I can tell you they look different."

Sure you did, liar.


"I didn't lie about anything. NIST did not do further studies."

Yes you did lie, and you're now moving the goalposts. You originally said NIST "refused to examine" the steel and that they pretended FEMA Appendix C didn't exist. That's not true and you couldn't have known it was true because you didn't read the NIST report. But your cult leaders told you that NIST refused to examine the steel and you wanted to believe it, so you believed it.

 
At 20 December, 2011 05:59, Blogger Ian said...

MR, sulfidation corrosion does not look like melting. Captain Ruvolo saw molten steel flowing. Leslie Robertson saw molten steel
flowing. James Glanz saw melted steel "like a drip candle".


Stop lying, Brian.

I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum and I can tell you they look different.

Nobody cares what you've seen. You're a failed janitor and liar who believes in magic thermite elves.

The FEMA Appendix C report calls for further study of samples the NYT called "vaporized" and "the deepest mystery of the investigation." I didn't lie about anything. NIST did not do further studies. They did not explain the sulfidation attack.

Nobody cares.

RGT, the testimony of 5 PhDs, a FDNY Captain and Leslie Robertson is sufficient to establish that there is evidence for molten steel and all those of you on this board who claim there is no such evidence are lying. There is also the issue of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel taken from the Ground Zero site.

False.

ButtGale, Dr. Astaneh said he saw "melting of girders". If you think girders are made of lead, just dream on. A melted girder is by definition melted steel.

False.

Brian, do you have any real evidence for an inside job on 9/11? Constantly spamming us with the same delusions isn't going to get you anywhere.

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

ButtGale, take it up with Dr. Astaneh. He's the one who saw melting of girders.

No he didn't. You lie about him because you're an obsessed lunatic who is desperate for 9/11 truth to be vindicated in order for your empty, failed life to have some meaning.

I'm sorry, Brian, but it's time to move on. Face facts. Learn to live with reality.

 
At 20 December, 2011 11:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I've e-mailed Dr. Astaneh-Asl about Brian. Let's just say that Dr. Astaneh-Asl isn't very happy that Brian is using his research in a way that Chris Bollyn did.

I asked him what was he planning on doing to Brian. He said that he'd have to contact his attorney first before moving to the next step.

 
At 21 December, 2011 00:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, the fact that you think we should all be impressed by trivial and irrelevant chemical formulae suggests that you never got past Chem 1A.

MR, melted girders are by definition melted steel. Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT said the photo evidence of molten steel was very good.

I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum and you have no basis for calling me a liar, liar.

NIST did refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C samples. They did not explain the sulfidation attack, and they buried the 3 pages on the analysis in Part C of a 4-Part chapter of the 10,000-page report. Nothing about those samples was reported in the main report. They claimed (presenting no evidence whatsoever) that the sample had been sulfidated in a horizontal posture rather than a vertical one. They ignored the evidence.

I haven't read all of the NIST report. I doubt that anyone has read all of its 10,000 pages. Have you?

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. Dr. Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

TAW, your reports about who you've emailed and what response you claim you've gotten are worthless.

 
At 21 December, 2011 01:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker brays, "...the fact that you think we should all be impressed by trivial and irrelevant chemical formulae suggests that you never got past Chem 1A."

Sniffing model airplane glue again, goat fucker?

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 04:13, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

snug.bug wrote: "MR, melted girders are by definition melted steel."

Qualified experts who have examined the WTC steel have found no evidence of true melting, only sulfidation/eutectic corrosion and severe warping. Unconfirmed reports of melted/molten steel in fires are commonplace. Wake me up when you think you have real evidence of melted steel and not just unconfirmed reports.


"I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum and you have no basis for calling me a liar, liar."

So if I show you several photos of molten metals, you can tell me which ones are steel, right? Do you accept the challenge?


"NIST did refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C samples."

Why do you keep repeating this lie? To others just tuning in, see NIST NCSTAR 1-3C starting at the bottom of page 229.


"they buried the 3 pages on the analysis in Part C of a 4-Part chapter of the 10,000-page report. Nothing about those samples was reported in the main report."

There's no reason to put the corroded samples in the "main" section just because some insane fanatics think the corrosion was due to space beams or mass homicidal elevator repairmen.


"They claimed (presenting no evidence whatsoever) that the sample had been sulfidated in a horizontal posture rather than a vertical one. They ignored the evidence."

Brian, you lie and lie and lie. NIST explained the evidence clearly. To sum it up, the outer web of the column sustained more attrition than the inner web, with minimal attack on the flange sections. This suggests a horizontal orientation: the corroding material sat on the outer web material, ate it away and fell through to the interior web where attack of this plate began. It's all in the report. Apparently you are incapable of reading even a small section of it.



"I haven't read all of the NIST report. I doubt that anyone has read all of its 10,000 pages. Have you?"

Come on, you haven't even read the main sections. Remember, you thought that NIST's WTC7 S-curve was based on only one data point.

 
At 21 December, 2011 04:15, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

GuitarBill wrote:
"He'll simply ignore you and turn around a week later and tell the same lies as though he was never debunked."

Bill, you were wrong about that. Brian didn't even wait a day before repeating his lies.

 
At 21 December, 2011 06:14, Blogger Ian said...

MR, melted girders are by definition melted steel. Dr. Ahmed Ghoniem of MIT said the photo evidence of molten steel was very good.

Nobody cares.

I've seen molten steel and I've seen molten aluminum and you have no basis for calling me a liar, liar.

Nobody cares.

NIST did refuse to examine the FEMA Appendix C samples. They did not explain the sulfidation attack, and they buried the 3 pages on the analysis in Part C of a 4-Part chapter of the 10,000-page report. Nothing about those samples was reported in the main report. They claimed (presenting no evidence whatsoever) that the sample had been sulfidated in a horizontal posture rather than a vertical one. They ignored the evidence.

Brian, just because you're too stupid/ignorant to understand what you're reading doesn't mean they didn't explain it.

I haven't read all of the NIST report.

It doesn't matter how much you've read given that you don't understand a word of it. That's understandable, given that you're a failed janitor.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. Dr. Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

False.

 
At 21 December, 2011 06:16, Blogger Ian said...

So if I show you several photos of molten metals, you can tell me which ones are steel, right? Do you accept the challenge?

I wouldn't hold my breath. Brian always runs away squealing and crying when directly challenged. Just ask Willie Rodriguez or Craig Ranke.

He'll probably do his usual cop-out: "I don't know enough. That's why we need new investigations."

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:02, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, are you saying that Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a PhD structural engineer, is not qualified to see a melted girder when he sees one?

The official experts lack the scientific integrity to express regret that the steel was largely destroyed before they could examine it--as do you. Dr. Astaneh Asl has complained to cbs, to the House Science Committee, and to PBS about the destruction of the steel evidence.
The official experts not only found no evidence of steel melting, the official report claims that they found no evidence that any of their samples had seen temperatures above 600 C for as long as 15 minutes, and they found only three samples that saw temperatures above 250 C. Of course you and I know this is a lie, because we know they looked at the FEMA Appendix C sample, which saw temps of almost 1000 C. This is what I mean when I say NIST pretended the Appendix C samples did not exist. Yes they examined them, but they hid their three-page analysis in the third subsection of a 600-page four-part subsection of a 10,000-page report and left their findings out of the main report.

I've already told you there's real evidence--the 40-pound ingot of previously-molten ferrous material taken from Ground Zero.
Not to mention the testimony of 5 PhDs, including engineering professors from MIT and Berkeley.

Sure, you can present photoshopped photos that would fool anybody. Molten steel is orange. Molten aluminum is usually silvery.

NIST NCSTAR 1-3C starting at the bottom of page 229 is an extremely superficial 3-page analysis buried in the third subsection of a 640-page subsection of a 10,000-page report and left out of the main report. Though the analysis presents temperature findings contradictory to those of the main report, and acknowledges FEMA's findings that no source of the sulfur could be identified, and suggests that the sample was subject to very mysterious rapid heating, it self-trivializes by stating that this sample "had no bearing" on the collapse of the building.

The reason the corroded samples are not included in the "main" section is because the report makes anything that happened after collapse initiation "out of bounds".

The corrosion has not been explained. The findings of fast heating contradict the theory that the column was corroded in the debris pile.

NIST did not explain the evidence clearly. The data show rapid and very localized heating in the corroded region. The investigators were bound and determined to explain this away in terms of heating in the debris pile and never considered the possibilities of incendiary devices such as were demonstrated by Jonathan Cole.


NIST's WTC7 S-curve is based on a single pixel. To present a curve of a 300-foot curtain wall falling on the basis of color changes in one pixel is typical NIST flim-flammery.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. Dr. Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:13, Blogger Ian said...

MR, are you saying that Dr. Astaneh-Asl, a PhD structural engineer, is not qualified to see a melted girder when he sees one?

He didn't see a melted girder, Brian.

I've already told you there's real evidence--the 40-pound ingot of previously-molten ferrous material taken from Ground Zero.
Not to mention the testimony of 5 PhDs, including engineering professors from MIT and Berkeley.


Brian, we've told you many times that your delusions are not evidence of anything other than that you need serious psychiatric treatment.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. Dr. Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

False.

It's amazing how much dumbspam you post again and again and again as if anyone will take you seriously, Brian.

Well, 10 years later and the widows still don't have their questions answered, there have been no new investigations, and your "meatball on a fork" model still hasn't been published in a journal.

Maybe it's time to take a hint and stop wasting your time on this stuff?

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Mike wrote, "...Bill, you were wrong about that. Brian didn't even wait a day before repeating his lies."

LOL!

Yep, you're right, Mike. I stand corrected.

%^)

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, the testimony of 5 PhDs, a FDNY Captain and Leslie Robertson is sufficient to establish that there is evidence for molten steel and all those of you on this board who claim there is no such evidence are lying.

The eyewitness accounts (not testimony) of molten steel do indeed constitute evidence of molten steel. Taken together, they are insufficient evidence to justify further investigation.

There is also the issue of a 40-pound ingot of formerly molten steel taken from the Ground Zero site.

Steel or iron? It used to be iron, and I don't believe it was confirmed to be molten.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:25, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Astaneh did not perform metallographic analysis to determine what was and what was not melted. It's not his specialty. That's why he picked out steel to be shipped to NIST for further study. NIST did not confirm the presence of molten steel. If Astaneh makes some statement to the effect of "I know it was melting and not eutectic corrosion because ______" or "NIST covered up the melted steel I picked out" then wake me up. Instead, he says:

"Let me state again that after 6 years of studying the collapse of World Trade Center, I have not found any evidence to support any of the claims of "conspiracy theorists"."
- A. Astaneh-Asl


NIST did not "hide" their analysis of the sulfidized column. It's easily accessible on the main Final Reports page. I found it in a matter of seconds. You didn't know it was there for 5 years because you didn't want to know it was there. You wanted to believe your cult leaders.

NIST examined the corroded steel to the extent it needed to. The effect was rare and did not contribute significantly to the collapses. The reason you complain about the whole thing is your desire to prove the WTC was taken down by mass homicidal NWO operatives dressed up as elevator mechanics or some such nonsense.

The pattern of the corrosion shows that the sulfidation attack likely happened while the column was horizontal on the debris pile, not vertical prior to collapse. Furthermore, temperatures associated with thermite would have wiped out any trace of eutectic reactions on steel, and left evidence of spalling, liquation, grain boundary attack, etc. The corrosion process is too slow to be accounted for by a "controlled demolition." The corroded column has nothing to do with your CD fantasies.

NIST has no agenda. Your side has the agenda. That's painfully obvious to everyone except, well, your side.

You don't know what the 40-pound chunk is. If Jones could prove what it is, he would have sent his findings to a real journal. Your side can't publish any of your pseudoscience in a real journal.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:34, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Ian wrote: your "meatball on a fork" model still hasn't been published in a journal.


Don't forget Brian's "cracker model" which was a recurring topic of great hilarity on Democratic Underground.

Fri Oct-12-07 02:22 AM by petgoat:
"Let a soda cracker in your palm represent the concrete floor. Slap your other hand, representing the falling upper floor, down on the soda cracker. Does cracker dust fly all over the room? No."


Brian spent many a post hilariously trying to fend off ridicule of his "cracker model":

Mon Oct-27-08 12:25 AM by petgoat:
"It's actually quite an elegant explanation of the processes of ejection of air from the towers and the pulverization of the concrete, and it shows quite clearly that the claim that the dust was explosively ejected from the towers by the expulsion of air to be impossible.

"The dust can thus only have been expelled by explosives. There is no other mechanism for expelling it."

Some proof. And he criticizes NIST.

 
At 21 December, 2011 12:02, Blogger Ian said...

Oh man, Mike. I missed that one. Do you have a link to it so I can see some of the responses from others?

I've thoroughly enjoyed Brian's other deranged ramblings at DU, including his "birdsnest on a post" model, and his hypothesis that the WTC was built with explosives already in place just in case the building had to be knocked down if a hurricane approached (seriously).

 
At 21 December, 2011 12:07, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Cracker model

 
At 21 December, 2011 12:20, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, your reports about who you've emailed and what response you claim you've gotten are worthless.

Oh yeah? Well just wait until Dr. Astaneh-Asl's attorney gets a hold of you. I hope he sues you for slander.

 
At 21 December, 2011 13:40, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

"and left evidence of" -- I meant wiped out traces of.

Still wondering how thermite would preserve steel in a molten state. Did Cole's devices do that?

 
At 21 December, 2011 13:52, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I did my own experiment with thermite and the results were:

A: It fissed out like a sparkler
B: It never damaged a steel rebar that was placed under it
C: It cooled within minutes of burning

Everything examined by the experiment shows that it can't do what Brian claims it to do.

 
At 21 December, 2011 14:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you make up your facts and lie and lie and lie and lie. Dr. Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

Ian there have been new investigations by the likes of David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Kevin Fenton, and Anthony Summers.

RGT, finally acknowledging the existence of evidence for molten steel you are down to the "meh" argument.

MR, Dr. Astaneh needs no metallographic analysis. A melted girder is by definition melted steel.

NIST buried their analysis of the sulfidized column in the 3rd subsection of a 640 page subsection of a 10,000-page report, and did not mention it in the report summaries. That's hiding it. You can only find it when you know it's there. Certainly I wanted to know it was there, and for five years nobody told me it was there--because they didn't know it was there either, because it was hidden.

NIST did not examine the corroded steel sufficiently to explain the source of the sulfur. They did no further testing of the phenomenon of sulfidation attacks on steel, which would seem to be a part of their duty in promoting fire safety. They pretended that the WTC7 sulfidated sample did not exist.

You are not justified in concluding that the sulfidation attack was rare. If one sample out of 273 pieces had a sulfidation attack, that represents potentially hundreds of tons of sulfidated steel.
And even if it were rare, your argument is like a coroner arguing that since 99% of the decedent's brain tissue was lead-free, the bullet in the brain was rare and thus of little interest.

Your conclusion that it did not contribute to the collapse is not justified. NIST has never explained the rapid nature of the collapse, and sulfidation attacks in the lower floors suggest a possible mechanism.

I don't desire to prove anything. I want a thorough, honest, report that comports with the laws of physics. We haven't had one and I'd like to know why.

Unless NIST considers the possibility that the corrosion emanated from an incendiary device, any conclusions about what the pattern of the corrosion shows are premature. You are simply making excuses for not having a proper investigation.

Jonathan Cole's thermate devices produced corrosion effects that looked just like the corrosion ("evaporation" the NYT calls it) on the FEMA sample.

NIST has no agenda? NIST's agenda ostensibly was to explain why and how the towers collapsed. That they abandoned this objective and didn't even try to explain how suggests that they altered their agenda somewhere along the course of the investigation.

My agenda is to get an honest, believable investigation that does not contradict the laws of physics.

Dr. Jones has analyzed the 40-pound chunk of iron. How do you know where he has and has not sent his findings?

PetGoat's cracker model very effectively shows that the official explanation for the squibs does not work.

TAW, I didn't slander anybody. Dr. Astaneh said what he said on TV, and anybody is free to point out what he said on TV.

MR, Kevin Ryan believes that thermite continued to react in the debris pile and that this heat input, together with the insulating presence of dust and dirt, kept the steel hot.

TAW, you don't seem to recognize that the unverifiable claims of an anonymous internet blogger are worthless.

 
At 21 December, 2011 14:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

MR, come to think of it, what I said (or what I meant to say anyway) is that NIST pretended the FEMA Appendix C sulfidated samples from WTC7 did not exist.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:34, Blogger Ian said...

Sigh. Such an exceedingly long post of dumbspam by Brian. I'm just going to cover the important points.

Ian, you make up your facts and lie and lie and lie and lie. Dr. Astaneh told PBS "I saw melting of girders at World Trade Center."

False.

Ian there have been new investigations by the likes of David Chandler, Jonathan Cole, Kevin Fenton, and Anthony Summers.

Nobody cares.

I don't desire to prove anything. I want a thorough, honest, report that comports with the laws of physics. We haven't had one and I'd like to know why.

Nobody cares what you want.

Jonathan Cole's thermate devices produced corrosion effects that looked just like the corrosion ("evaporation" the NYT calls it) on the FEMA sample.

Nobody cares.

My agenda is to get an honest, believable investigation that does not contradict the laws of physics.

False.

PetGoat's cracker model very effectively shows that the official explanation for the squibs does not work.

False. Also, you are Petgoat.

MR, Kevin Ryan believes that thermite continued to react in the debris pile and that this heat input, together with the insulating presence of dust and dirt, kept the steel hot.

Nobody cares.

TAW, you don't seem to recognize that the unverifiable claims of an anonymous internet blogger are worthless.

Right, which is why nobody cares about anything you have to say.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:41, Blogger Ian said...

Actually, I take that last part back. While Brian's posts are indeed worthless, he's not anonymous.

Everyone knows Brian Good is an unemployed janitor living on disability with his parents in Palo Alto, CA. He used to be an important member of AE911 Truth, but was expelled from the group for stalking Carol Brouillet. He spends his days posting tons of spam all over the internet as "petgoat", "punxsutawneybarney", "contrivance", "truebeleaguer", "truetruther", "watson", and a hundred other names. Wikipedia banned him for vandalizing the pages of the 2008 Chinese Olympic women's gymnastics team.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:53, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

We don't know whether Astaneh considered the possibility that the girders were merely sulfidized. We know that he chose pieces of steel to turn over to NIST, and that NIST didn't find evidence of melting, only eutectic effects.

It's interesting that you dismiss opinions of experts every day of your life but when one of them says something you like, you take their pronouncement at face value, no substantiation needed. When you assumed NIST had no evidence for horizontal orientation of the sulfidized column (even though they really did), you whined like a baby and dismissed their expert conclusion outright. But when a non-metallurgist declares without substantiation that something is "melted steel", you pretend it's a pronouncement from the heavens which we all must accept. Hypocrite.

Your laughable refrain that NIST tried to "hide" their analysis of the sulfidized column is obvious Goodian paranoid nonsense and I'm not going to waste any more time with it.

No, NIST did not pinpoint the source of the sulfur. But the sulfur is relevant to the collapses only if you're a paranoid wacko who thinks it was planted by evil homicidal Bushbots who rigged up the biggest demoliton project in history in three occupied buildings without being detected. (No, I don't want to hear more of your agenda-driven insanity about how such a project is plausible. It's not.)

Your claim that "I don't desire to prove anything" is laughable. The only conclusion you would ever accept is one that exonerated the terrorists and pinned the blame on your fellow citizens. Maybe you were bullied in your youth and want strike back at American society? Who knows.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:54, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

And yes, Brian, you are petgoat. Everytime I google a Goodism, the same names come up.

punxsutawneybarney (Youtube)
"The 9/11 widows had 300 questions. They only got 27 answers. Help them get the truth about why their husbands died."

truebeleaguer (truthaction.org)
"The widows gave the 9/11 Commission 300 questions. They only got 27 answers."

petgoat (democraticunderground)
"Can the widows please get answers to their 273 pending questions? They were told that their 300 questions would serve as a road map for the Commission's investigation, but they only got 27 answers"

poordumbbastard (Yahoo message boards)
"The Jersey widows gave the 9/11 Commision 300 questions. They got 27 answers. Shouldn't intelligent society at least ask that their questions be answered?"

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:54, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

Another example:

snug.bug (Screw Loose Change):
Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, said that a few charges in key places could bring the towers down.

punxsutawneybarney (freedomdevelopers.com)
Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, said a few charges in key places could have brought the towers down.

Blix Bleiderbecke (examiner.com)
Dr. Van Romero, an explosives expert, said a few charges in key places could have brought the buildings down.

petgoat (Democratic Underground)
Woody, Dr. Van Romero says that a few charges in key places could have brought down the buildings.

poordumbbastard (Yahoo message boards)
Dr. Van Romero, an expert, said a few charges in key places could do it.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:55, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

What a coincidence that Brian and Petgoat were both converted to trutherism while looking for the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11.

At 25 October, 2011 09:32, snug.bug said...
When I started my 9/11 research I was a reluctant Bush supporter looking for the lies in Fahrenheit 9/11.

petgoat, Mon Aug-21-06 12:05 PM
While trying to find the lies in "Fahrenheit 911" I stumbled into a website showing photos of the WTC squibs. I assumed they were somebody's sick photoshopped joke, and if not for the efforts of local activists and scholars I would probably still think so.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:55, Blogger Mike Rosefierce said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home