Sunday, December 18, 2011

What is Old is New Again

It took several years, but now the "science" of 9/11 has returned to the early days of Sophia and "clunkity clunk".  From a post on 911 Blogger all excited about a Science of 9/11 conference at the University of Tennessee:

Another audience member brought up a good point: How did the bottom three-quarters of the building reduce its strength to a “toothpick” causing the entire 110 floors to fall in roughly 10 seconds? “That is ten floors per second!” she pointed out. “I can’t even clap my hands that fast. Can you guys?” Several audience members attempted, but were unable.

They should at least cite the originator of this "scientific" experiment.  Sophia from 9/11 Mysteries, from December of 2006.


Regardless, I tell people, these buildings fell in 10 seconds, they’re 110 stories. Now let’s just use our mouth to demonstrate this. If a pancake collapse can be described as “clunkity clunk” How many times can you say that in 10 seconds? And if one floor is “clunkity clunk clunkity clunk” you cannot say that 110 times in 10 seconds. So let’s even give it the benefit of the doubt, let’s just take off the “clunk”. Let’s just say “clunkity”. You can’t say that in 10 seconds, 110 times.

But remember, this is science.  I am now going to go prove the Theory of Relativity wrong by turning my flashlight on and off as fast as I can in the bathroom mirror.

186 Comments:

At 18 December, 2011 12:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Wow, James, maybe with your help the 911blogger administrators will be inspired to put the UofT post on the front page. Or maybe not, since it's month-old news.

To attempt to "debunk" a simple demonstration of physical principles by declaring that it's not science or it's dumb science is simply a straw man argument. Do you claim to be able to say "clunk" 10 times a second? Otherwise, what's your point?

If there were a blog called "ScrewScrewLooseChange" it would be a lot funnier than yours. We could point at the comments on your posts here and claim "Debunkers are dumber than dirt because they believe there are no widows from 9/11." "Debunkers
are dumber than dirt because they believe there were no witnesses to molten steel in the rubble."

 
At 18 December, 2011 13:10, Blogger James B. said...

No, it not a month old, it was posted on both 911 Blogger and ae911truth yesterday.

Written by Kyle MacDonald, WeAreChangeTN.org
Saturday, 17 December 2011 12:25

Fail.

And unless you doing a study of muscle reaction times or linguistics, clapping your hands or saying "clunkity clunk" is not a demonstration of physical principles, anymore than saying "zoomity zoom" is a demonstration of the internal combustion engine.

 
At 18 December, 2011 13:41, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 18 December, 2011 13:44, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...To attempt to 'debunk' a simple demonstration of physical principles by declaring that it's not science or it's dumb science is simply a straw man argument."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

That's hilarious coming from a sex predator, college dropout and compulsive liar whose every argument relies on straw men of one form or another.

For example, the goat fucker makes a deliberate misrepresentation of James' argument, which the goat fucker distorts to the point of absurdity, twisting his words by means of false assumptions in the process, and then the goat fucker attacks the caricature of James' position.

You mean that kind of "straw man argument," goat fucker?

No doubt, goat fucker, the inbreeding is certainly obvious in your family.

 
At 18 December, 2011 13:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

The event was a month ago, James. It's old news. A demonstration of impacts-per-second is not physical principles?

You guys get all hung up on stuff like "hey, that's not a building, it's an egg!" and "that's not a building, it's a box". You might as well get all hung up on the NIST report: That's not a building, it's a piece of paper! How can a picture on a flat piece of paper represent a three-dimensional building? It can't! The only way we can find the truth is to build a full-scale model of the towers and crash an airplane into it!

 
At 18 December, 2011 14:46, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

On the Amazon review where James was taken apart, his "scientific" opinion on how the temperatures reached iron-melting levels was something like "all kinds of crap burned in the fire".

Gee, how informative, Mr Science! Tell us more!

 
At 18 December, 2011 15:23, Blogger snug.bug said...

Yeah, well, when some of that crap is thermite, maybe you get melted steel.

 
At 18 December, 2011 15:38, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

Hey, wanna here a funny story? Cool.

This week in Montebello,CA, a tanker-truck caught fire underneath a freeway over-pass.

They've had to demolish the overpass:

http://california.construction.com/yb/ca/article.aspx?story_id=166970506

Take a wild guess why...

...yep, the heat from the GASOLINE FIRE weakend the steel frame, and the concrete.

So while Brian, and Pat Cuntly continue to live in fantasy land, steel structures continue to be damaged beyond recovery by fire.

 
At 18 December, 2011 15:54, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Another audience member brought up a good point: How did the bottom three-quarters of the building reduce its strength to a “toothpick” causing the entire 110 floors to fall in roughly 10 seconds? “That is ten floors per second!” she pointed out. “I can’t even clap my hands that fast. Can you guys?” Several audience members attempted, but were unable."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, that's some serious science right there.

Pure toroofer science at its best: The Clap.

 
At 18 December, 2011 16:04, Blogger Len said...

Interesting that they got a former NTSB chairman to participate. But I suspect they suckered him in under false pretenseses. They didn't quote him saying anything overtly truther. All had was:

'Jim Hall described the difficulty that this situation presents. “The hardest thing to investigate is yourself,” he explained. “If you ever allow your emotions to get involved in the investigation, you’re probably guaranteed not to do as good of a job as you need to do”.'

And a quick Google failed to turn up any evidence of any other association with or statements in support of 'the movement'.

 
At 18 December, 2011 16:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Gee, how informative, Mr Science! Tell us more!

What's your specific criticism? The statement is true.

 
At 18 December, 2011 23:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, your tanker-truck story does not provide sufficient info for analysis.

The Oakland Freeway fire does. We had 6,000 gallons of gasoline concentrated under an unfire-proofed steel girder. In the WTC we had 4,000 to 8,000 gallons spread out over six fireproofed floors that burned off in less than ten minutes.

A demonstration of physical principles is hardly a scientific experiment. Do you claim you can clap faster than ten times a second?

 
At 19 December, 2011 01:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker brays, "...Do you claim you can clap faster than ten times a second?"

No, but I'll bet that you've caught the clap in less than ten seconds at your favorite SF-based gay bath house.

 
At 19 December, 2011 04:20, Blogger Jonn Wood said...

The top post is going to be rolled over in a week or two. Might want to change the date.

 
At 19 December, 2011 04:39, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 19 December, 2011 04:40, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

So if a human cant do something in ten seconds, nothing can? Seriously, were you clowns repeatedly hit over the head as children?

 
At 19 December, 2011 07:58, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"No, it not a month old... "

"And unless you doing a study..."
James B. Illiterate.

Yeah, we expect to learn a LOT of science and 'debunking' from someone as articulate as this. Yikes, James. A little care with your lies next time, 'kay?

"Seriously, were you clowns repeatedly hit over the head as children?" -Disastrous Dreck

You might want to ask Troy Sexton that. He's a noted "debunker", child abuser, and buddy of Pat's. Pat said so himself.

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:10, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, which bath-house would that be? And what were you doing there to see someone who you think looks like me? Working as a janitor, perhaps? Do you scope out all the hung studs in the bath-houses?

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:21, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Yeah, well, when some of that crap is thermite, maybe you get melted steel.

Here's the contradiction everyone:

The Oakland Freeway fire does. We had 6,000 gallons of gasoline concentrated under an unfire-proofed steel girder. In the WTC we had 4,000 to 8,000 gallons spread out over six fireproofed floors that burned off in less than ten minutes.

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:43, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Just a lot of gay jokes and evasion from 'debunkers' as usual.

Great job discussing the facts as always, Pat and James. Wake us up when you 'debunk' something, and try to put more 'cognitive' in Cognitive Infiltration, okay? You and your friends are making idiots of yourselves and the so-called 'debunking movement'. -Cass

 
At 19 December, 2011 09:53, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail was at the bath-house reprogramming the mechanical bull, to which he added some innovative features he developed.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Says the poof who tried to suck Willie's ****.

It's not easy being a homosexual psychopath. Right, goat fucker?

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:20, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

UtterFail was at the bath-house reprogramming the mechanical bull, to which he added some innovative features he developed.

You mean you put a strap-on dildo on your own mechanical bull so you can gets your jollies off?

So that's why you're in such a good mood everyday.

 
At 19 December, 2011 10:36, Blogger Ian said...

Yeah, well, when some of that crap is thermite, maybe you get melted steel.

Nuclear weapons would have melted the steel a lot more efficiently than thermite. Plus, thermite can't account for the evaporated steel, but nuclear weapons can.

Thus, once again, Bill Deagle's theory looks like the correct one, while yours looks incorrect. I guess that isn't surprising, given that Deagle is a doctor and serious researcher while you're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear.

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

Mr. Cowardly whines, "...Great job discussing the facts as always...[blah][blah][blah]."

Which "facts" are you talking about, ArseHooligan?

You mean "facts" like your repeated attempts to pass off iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres as "elemental iron"?

"...Oxygen is a major component of almost all the iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied--often the PRINCIPAL component." -- Steven E. Jones.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Got it, ArseHooligan? Even your hero Steven E. Jones says you're full-of-crap.

Why is that, ArseHooligan?

Could it be that you have no idea what you're talking about?

And I'm sure that you'll happily show us all the spectra that support your elemental iron propaganda.

You can't?

Then perhaps you should STFU.

FAIL.

 
At 19 December, 2011 11:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, nukes are impractical because they would leave detectable radiation. Thermite can certainly vaporize steel, as Jonathan Cole's video shows.

UtterFail, for you to quote a truther website as an authority on the claims of Dr. Jones is hypocritical.

 
At 19 December, 2011 11:34, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Thermite can certainly vaporize steel, as Jonathan Cole's video shows.

Jon Cole used another compound mixed in with regualar thermite to get his results. So in reality he cheated.

Jon Cole never compared his experiment (under the microscope) to those found at Ground Zero.

 
At 19 December, 2011 11:35, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

It would figure that Brian would agree with Jon Cole who is a liar himself.

 
At 19 December, 2011 11:53, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...for you to quote a truther website as an authority on the claims of Dr. Jones is hypocritical."

Where else would you find quotes from Dr. Jones?

The ASCE's website?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Face it, goat fucker, YOU LOSE.

Dr. Jones "research" and the accompanying EDX spectra prove that elemental iron was not present at Ground Zero.

So where's the spectra to support your "argument," liar?

How do you explain the Si peaks in the spectra produced by Dr. Jones and the RJ Lee Report?

Silicon is NOT a byproduct of thermite, thermate or "nanothermite." Furthermore, you have NOT A SCINTILLA OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT YOUR THERMITE MALARKEY.

Face it, goat fucker, the spectra PROVES that the iron-rich and alumino-silicate spheres found at Ground Zero are fly ash.

FAIL.

Now, go lick your wounds--you neo-fascist liar.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 19 December, 2011 12:58, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Jon Cole never compared his experiment (under the microscope) to those found at Ground Zero." -Complete idiot

Unlike GoiterBalls, Oystein, Mackey, Roberts, Puke Hurl-y, and JamesBitch...


Heeeeey...waitasec! Oh yeah, those guys haven't done shit on their own at all! No wonder they say things like "there was not molten steel", "the column failed over 8 floors", and "it could easily be torches...make that fly ash...'cuz of the rust...retard..."

Thanks for clearing that up for us, guys!

 
At 19 December, 2011 13:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Nice to see Cowardly agreeing that Jon Cole didn't do any comparisons under the microscope.

 
At 19 December, 2011 13:12, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's the matter, ArseHooligan? Are you upset because I just proved that your "elemental iron at Ground Zero" theory is a bunch of malarkey?

Poor baby.

So how does Steven E. Jones' "research" square with your theory, cretin?

How do you explain all the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Why does his EDX spectra look precisely like fly ash spectra?

Face it, ArseHooligan, you're finished. Done. Caput. Finis. Fried.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 19 December, 2011 13:15, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

"Complete idiot"

LOL you can't even come up with a nick name for my screen name. I made this because I know it's the only one that won't get flamed.

 
At 19 December, 2011 13:29, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, nukes are impractical because they would leave detectable radiation.

Do you have evidence that radiation wasn't detected at the WTC? What about all the first responders who are coming down with all sorts of strange ailments? Sounds like radiation poisoning to me.

Thermite can certainly vaporize steel, as Jonathan Cole's video shows.

False.

 
At 19 December, 2011 23:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

TAW, adding sulfur to improve the action of thermite is "cheating" only to someone who can't win on factual grounds and must resport to semantical quibbles to have any argument at all.

There was no need to compare the results under the microscope. At the eyeball level, the results were the same.


UtterFail, silicon was present in the dust and thus in some of the spectra. You are mischaracterizing papers you don't understand and, if history is any guide, haven't read. Yes, there was fly ash at Ground Zero. RJ Lee says it was produced in the fires, contrary to your assertions.


Ian, radiation was detected at the WTC--from stuff like smoke detectors. So radiation measurements were taken, and only low-level radiation was found.

You lie and lie and lie.

 
At 20 December, 2011 00:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...silicon was present in the dust and thus in some of the spectra. You are mischaracterizing [SIC] papers you don't understand and, if history is any guide, haven't read."

Good job, spelling bee champ.

No, goat fucker, not some of the spectra. In fact, silicon, both amorphous and crystalline, was present in ALL of the spectra, as Jones'"research" verifies.

So who didn't read Jones' paper?

I think it's obvious who failed to read Jones' paper--and it wasn't yours truly.

But all of that brings up another thorny question:

You wouldn't throw a super troofer like Steven E. Jones under the bus, would you, goat fucker?

Of course you would throw him under the bus in a microsecond if you thought you could gain an advantage from the lie. Right, goat fucker?

Hell, you threw your parents and your country under the bus, so why not do the same to Steven E. Jones. Right, goat fucker?

And I don't see one iota of evidence to substantiate your idiotic "argument."

Why is that, goat fucker?

FAIL.

 
At 20 December, 2011 01:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I didn't read Dr. Jones's papers, and you didn't either. You think FE is an atomic element, and you don't know what you're talking about.

 
At 20 December, 2011 01:39, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I didn't read Dr. Jones's papers, and you didn't either."

Trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in squealspam again, goat fucker?

Of course you are.

I know you didn't read Dr. Jones papers, got fucker. That's obvious.

Ask yourself a question, goat fucker: Why does Bill quote Dr. Jones verbatim?

The answer is simple: I read Dr. Jones papers--all of them.

The goat fucker brays, "...You think FE is an atomic element, and you don't know what you're talking about"

Making shit up now, goat fucker?

It's not "FE"--you idiot. It's Fe. Is it any wonder that you flunked out of college?

Probably not. After all, you're a science and math illiterate.

And when do you plan to answer my questions, Pinocchio?

How do you explain all the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Why does his EDX spectra look precisely like fly ash spectra?

Keep ducking and weaving, goat fucker. The only person you're fooling is yourself.

FAIL.

 
At 20 December, 2011 04:55, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

You might want to ask Troy Sexton that. He's a noted "debunker", child abuser, and buddy of Pat's. Pat said so himself.

That really wasn't directed at you Cosmo. That was for the truthers who pretend to know what science; which I am sure you may belong to. If I was talking to you we would be discussing pseudo family members.

 
At 20 December, 2011 05:55, Blogger Ian said...

TAW, adding sulfur to improve the action of thermite is "cheating" only to someone who can't win on factual grounds and must resport to semantical quibbles to have any argument at all.

Poor Brian, he's babbling incoherently now. The wheels have fallen off.

UtterFail, silicon was present in the dust and thus in some of the spectra. You are mischaracterizing papers you don't understand and, if history is any guide, haven't read. Yes, there was fly ash at Ground Zero. RJ Lee says it was produced in the fires, contrary to your assertions.

Still babbling about fly ash, huh? It's hilarious how you can never, ever concede a point, no matter how trivial. You really do need serious psychiatric treatment.

Ian, radiation was detected at the WTC--from stuff like smoke detectors. So radiation measurements were taken, and only low-level radiation was found.

That's the laughable excuse? "Smoke detectors?". Such a claim just shows how desperate the authorities were to cover up the micro-nukes used in the attack. That's why we need new investigations.

Also, the reports did not touch of some of the more baffling aspects of the collapse, such as burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage, the scorch marks from a high-intensity laser beam, and the unidentified spaceship seen hovering over the towers.

 
At 20 December, 2011 09:54, Blogger James B. said...

You honestly think that Fe is not an element? Really?

 
At 20 December, 2011 09:58, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Ian, you're not coming off as intelligent or informed, and the more you try, the more you fail, just like Pat and James.

You have nothing to refute the evidence except ridicule, showing you to be a provable fool and liar.

So please: KEEP POSTING YOUR STUPID DRIVEL, so lurkers can continue to see that the more 'debunkers' fail to answer real questions, the more obvious it is that they have nothing to offer except the usual impotent ridicule. Carry on.

 
At 20 December, 2011 10:02, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

...And James pops in for a meaningless, stupid question, per usual. Keep plugging that 'science' James! Your 'all kinds of crap burns' "analysis" really had Mackey and Bazant enthralled.

...and where did the FE-melting temperatures come from, and what's your source, James? Think hard, son. Sound it out.

 
At 20 December, 2011 11:03, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, adding sulfur to improve the action of thermite is "cheating" only to someone who can't win on factual grounds and must resport to semantical quibbles to have any argument at all.

You said it I didn't. So, you admit that Jon Cole added sulfur to the thermite mix?

That would indicate that Jon Cole didn't experiment the right way. You see, in order to get the effects that were shown on 9/11, he'd had to smashed a soda can full of jet fuel into a steel column, have sulfur based drywall around the column and detail the aftermath. But since he added sulfur to the thermite mix, he simply CHEATED.

At the eyeball level, the results were the same.

You really are retarde aren't you? Did your father drop you on your head when you were an infant?

Doesn't matter what you think or say, you still need a microscope to prove everything.

 
At 20 December, 2011 11:46, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Spot of Silly Debunking..."
-Fat Credulity

Except you've failed again, and didn't debunk anything at all. Why can't you recognize that?

"So if somebody could clap their hands that fast, it would prove the official story was true?" -Puke Hurly

What kind of stupid question is that, Pat? Is this really the level of your 'debunking' these days? Give Cass your resignation papers already: you're REALLY bad at this.

 
At 20 December, 2011 12:51, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Offtopic -- Anybody know where the Debunking the Debunkers idiots have gone? They used to "refute" every single word Pat and James wrote with 911blogger links, but they've been silent for weeks now. Last post was a lame faked phone call / iron microspheres / cutting torches fantasy video.

 
At 20 December, 2011 16:12, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You have nothing to refute the evidence except ridicule, showing you to be a provable fool and liar."

No evidence to refute.

RJ Lee Report? They found nothing extraordinary. Troofers are reading their fantasies into the report. Nothing more.

 
At 21 December, 2011 00:39, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you have been claiming repeatedly and erroneously that "FE" is an atomic element. Only when I called you on your ignorance did you change your tune.

If you want to talk about Si peaks and spectra, you'll have to cite the specific papers and figures. Oh, but right. In ButtGale's world the figures are not considered part of the paper. I forgot. Silly me.


James B., I never said that Fe is not an element.

TAW, your belief that Mr. Cole did not experiment the right way is absurd.

RGT, if Debunking the Debunkers have gone silent it's probably because SLC has gone so lame there's no point in responding anymore.

MGF, sure there's evidence. For instance, Dr. Astaneh's melted girders.

RJ Lee found iron microspheres and vaporized metals. It was quite extraordinary.

 
At 21 December, 2011 01:57, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you have been claiming repeatedly and erroneously that "FE" is an atomic element. Only when I called you on your ignorance did you change your tune."

How many times do plan to post this lie, goat fucker?

Pat Cowardly used "FE sphere" in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" thread.

That's why I put "FE sphere" in quotation marks--you fucking idiot. I was quoting your idiot troofer buddy, Pat Cowardly.

Proof?

What's this, goat fucker?"

"...What does 'FE sphere' mean?" -- Pat Cowardly, 15 December, 2011 12:53, from Pat's thread titled Mapping the Truther Mind (sic)

I'll tell you what it is--you droolin' retard. It's your non-existent "credibility" sliding down the toilet.

You'll do anything to bury your humiliating defeats in sqealspam, won't you, goat fucker?

FAIL.

The goat fucker brays, "...If you want to talk about Si peaks and spectra, you'll have to cite the specific papers and figures."

Says the hypocrite who never provides "specific papers and figures" to substantiate his bullshit.

FUCK YOU.

What paper do you think I'm talking about--you fuckin' cretin.

I'll bet that I could ask anyone who frequents this forum to tell me what paper I'm talking about, and they could tell me--WITHOUT MAKING AN ERROR--on the first guess.

Well, if nothing else, you're consistent--consistently an idiot, that is.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 02:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker brays, "...Oh, but right. In ButtGale's world the figures are not considered part of the paper. I forgot. Silly me."

No, I never said that, Pinocchio.

Care to provide a direct quote to substantiate your assertion, ass?

You can't?

Then may I suggest that you STFU.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 03:28, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker brays, "...If you want to talk about Si peaks and spectra, you'll have to cite the specific papers and figures."

What's this, goat fucker?

"...The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent, each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O) and a significant carbon peak as well." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Page 12.

And what's this, cretin?"

"...The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in the particles at the scale of tens of thousands of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Page 29.

Doh!

You'll also do well to notice the Ca (calcium) and K (potassium) peaks that are present in Jones' dust samples.

Silicon, as I pointed out up-thread, is NOT a byproduct of thermite, thermate or "nanothermite."

Jones, moreover, has NEVER eliminated the naturally occurring sources of particles (microspheres) that form in office fires. The particles typically are composed of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe), calcium (Ca), potassium (K) and carbon (C). Fly ash, it should be noted, is typically composed of Si, Al, Ca, C, K, and Fe, and is a natural byproduct of material--including office material--that is burned or incinerated at temperatures approaching 1000 degrees C.

Thus, it's idiotic to conclude that the only explanation for the particles (microspheres) is a thermitic reaction.

So, goat fucker, how do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

FAIL.

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

James B., I never said that Fe is not an element.

False.

TAW, your belief that Mr. Cole did not experiment the right way is absurd.

Why should anyone care what a failed janitor like you thinks of experiments?

RGT, if Debunking the Debunkers have gone silent it's probably because SLC has gone so lame there's no point in responding anymore.

More likely, it's because the "truth" movement is dead. Birtherism is the new hot conspiracy, Brian. You should check it out.

MGF, sure there's evidence. For instance, Dr. Astaneh's melted girders.

You realize "evidence" is not a synonym for "delusions", right?

RJ Lee found iron microspheres and vaporized metals. It was quite extraordinary.

Vaporized metal indicated nuclear weapons, Brian. No wonder Bill Deagle is still in good standing with the truth movement while you've been expelled from the group. His theories actually make sense and have evidence backing them up.

 
At 21 December, 2011 09:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Why should anyone care what a failed janitor like you thinks of experiments?" Ianside No-Job

Translation: I have no idea how to refute Cole's experiments, and acknowledge that he's the only one who's tried testing the 'debunkers' claims, proving them wrong every time. I have nothing, I say nothing. I am nothing. But fear my snark, please?

 
At 21 December, 2011 09:32, Blogger Billman said...

Translation: I have no idea how to refute Cole's experiments, and acknowledge that he's the only one who's tried testing the 'debunkers' claims, proving them wrong every time. I have nothing, I say nothing. I am nothing. But fear my snark, please?

Translation: {SHIT SPEWING FROM MY MOUTH MEANS I AM RIGHT AND 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOBBY JOB! AND I WIN THE INTERNET! I SHOULD BE PRESIDENT TROOFER!}

 
At 21 December, 2011 09:47, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

{SHIT SPEWING FROM MY MOUTH MEANS I AM RIGHT AND 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOBBY JOB! AND I WIN THE INTERNET! I SHOULD BE PRESIDENT TROOFER!} -Shillman

Translation: no no! Fear MY snark! Pleeeaaaase? And I don't care that Pat and James just say really stupid things and don't actually debunk anything! I don't care if I'm never right, just notice me!! *sniff*

 
At 21 December, 2011 09:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I have no idea how to refute Cole's experiments, and acknowledge that he's the only one who's tried testing the 'debunkers' claims, proving them wrong every time.

Cole uses dissimilar test conditions and pretends the differences are irrelevant. His "experiments" are self-refuting on those grounds alone.

When 9/11 Truth begins finding support among legitimate scholars, maybe somebody will listen. Until then it's in the same psychotic league as Intelligent Design.

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:30, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you continue to demonstrate your mendacity and your ignorance. You repeatedly cited "FE" findings in the RJ Lee report. This had nothing to do with Pat Cowardly.

I used to cite specific papers and figures, but when I found my conscientious work buried under lie-spam and dumbspam from you and Ian, I stopped. You clowns are degrading the quality of the forum.

I have no idea what paper you're talking about. Dr. Jones has co-authored several.

You certainly did try to claim that figures are not considered part of the paper. Your typical M.O. when caught in a lie is to deny that you said what you said.

Your claim that the presence of Silicon contradicted Dr. Jones's findings was based on the claim that Si peaks occurred in samples Dr. Jones characterized as elemental iron. For you to cite a spectrum from a red-layer sample or a dust sample only shows your incompetence.

You have never demonstrated that microspheres form naturally in office fires. RJ Lee said the microspheres came from the WT=C event. They didn't say they came from office fires.

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

RGT, Mr. Cole has demonstrated that small amounts of thermate can cut substantial steel girders and can make cuts on vertical surfaces. Your attempt to trivialize that achievement shows your desperation.

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:37, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Cole uses dissimilar test conditions and pretends the differences are irrelevant. His "experiments" are self-refuting on those grounds alone."

Meaningless, unsubstantiated garbage. You don't seem to feel the need to tell the truth, like Pat and James. You mention none of the 'dissimilar test conditions', or how Cole 'pretends' anything. In short, you have nothing. You just like to talk. Stupidly.

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:50, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie.

Squeal squeal squeal!

RGT, Mr. Cole has demonstrated that small amounts of thermate can cut substantial steel girders and can make cuts on vertical surfaces. Your attempt to trivialize that achievement shows your desperation.

False.

Also, Brian, what do any of us have to be "desperate" about? You're a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in magic thermite elves. You've failed to get the widows questions answered, failed to get a new investigation, failed to get "meatball on a fork" in a journal, and were expelled from the truth movement.

Are you really delusional enough to think any of us are frightened by you?

 
At 21 December, 2011 10:58, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, Mr. Cole has demonstrated that small amounts of thermate can cut substantial steel girders and can make cuts on vertical surfaces.

In other words, he's proven that thermite can cut steel. We already knew that.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

You don't seem to feel the need to tell the truth, like Pat and James. You mention none of the 'dissimilar test conditions', or how Cole 'pretends' anything. In short, you have nothing. You just like to talk.

God, you suck at insults.

Run along and read the Book of Thermite or whatever scripture brings you comfort. You're obviously not suited for this evidence-based science stuff.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:06, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you continue to demonstrate your mendacity and your ignorance. You repeatedly cited "FE" findings in the RJ Lee report. This had nothing to do with Pat Cowardly."

False.

Pat Cowardly was the one who used "FE spheres."

"...What does 'FE sphere' mean?" -- Pat Cowardly, 15 December, 2011 12:53, from Pat's thread titled Mapping the Truther Mind (sic)

And perhaps you can provide a link that proves that I used the term "FE spheres" BEFORE your idiot butt buddy, Pat Cowardly?

You can't? The may I suggest that you STFU. And perhaps you'll provide a link where I didn't put "FE spheres" in quotation marks? You can't? Then may I suggest that you STFU.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:09, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I have no idea what paper you're talking about. Dr. Jones has co-authored several."

False.

I just gave you the title of Jones' paper at time stamp 21 December, 2011 03:28.

"Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe."

Learn to read, goat fucker.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:13, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"You're obviously not suited for this evidence-based science stuff."

Translation: I have no response to what you said regarding my impotent criticism of Cole's work, so I'm just going to say you don't understand it, like Ian likes to do. It's what the debunkers handbook says to do, and I don't think well on my feet at all.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:14, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Can anyone "debunk" ANYTHING around here? How about "pull it"?

No?

Sheesh...

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:19, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

I have no response to what you said regarding my impotent criticism of Cole's work, so I'm just going to say you don't understand it, like Ian likes to do.

Cole artificially manipulates the experiment conditions, which invalidates his results. One is either intelligent enough to grasp that or one isn't. You apparently aren't. Arguing with you won't solve your cognitive defects.

Say -- how come Cole never finds iron microspheres after his thermite experiments?

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:22, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Can anyone "debunk" ANYTHING around here?

Not to your satisfaction. The problem is not the quality of the debunking, but your comprehension of it.

Do your acquaintances ever roll their eyes and get a little weary of your conspiracy theorizing? Just wondering.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:25, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Your claim that the presence of Silicon contradicted Dr. Jones's findings was based on the claim that Si peaks occurred in samples Dr. Jones characterized as elemental iron. For you to cite a spectrum from a red-layer sample or a dust sample only shows your incompetence."

False.

I gave you the direct quote from Jones' paper at time stamp 21 December, 2011 03:28--and I quote:

"...The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent, each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O) and a significant carbon peak as well." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Page 12.

Furthermore, Jones' "elemental iron" assertion is contradicted by his own EDX spectra and his own verbiage. For example,

"...Analysis shows that iron and oxygen are present in a ratio consistent with Fe2O3. The red material in all four WTC dust samples was similar in this way. Iron oxide was found in the pre-ignition material whereas elemental iron was not." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

So, goat fucker, how do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:30, Blogger Ian said...

Can anyone "debunk" ANYTHING around here? How about "pull it"?

He's still babbling about "pull it"?

C'mon, this is all an act, right? This is some sort of meta-performance art and you're pulling our leg, right?

If not, your inability to get laid is the least of your problems.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, goat fucker?

"...In several spheres, elemental iron was verified since the iron content significantly exceeded the oxygen content. We conclude that a high-temperature reduction-oxidation reaction has occurred in the heated chips, namely, the thermite reaction. -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

This is an example of an erroneous conclusion on the part of Jones', et al.

Furthermore, his sample is NOT "elemental iron." How do you explain the Si (silicon), Al (aluminum), Ca (calcium), C (carbon), K (potassium), Fe (iron) and O (oxygen) in the samples--the presence of which is supported by his own EDX spectra?

FACT: As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si (silicon), K (potassium) and Ca (calcium), they are NOT derived from thermite.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:47, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, goat fucker?

"...Many of these spheres were iron rich and elemental iron was found in the post-ignition debris." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe.

There's only ONE PROBLEM with Jones' assertion, goat fucker.

Scientists have tried REPEATEDLY to reproduce Jones' alleged "ignition" of the chips (with Jones' samples), and all attempts to reproduce his experimental results have failed.

This means that Jones experimental results are INVALID.

Real science (something which you don't understand) DEMANDS THAT THE EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS BE CONSISTENTLY REPRODUCIBLE.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 21 December, 2011 11:50, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You certainly did try to claim that figures are not considered part of the paper."

That's not a direct quote. That's you lying through your terracotta, while you deliberately misinterpret my argument.

You're just trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 12:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You have never demonstrated that microspheres form naturally in office fires."

False.

The RJ Lee Reports states--and I quote:

"...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.

And what's this, goat fucker?

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

RJ Lee Report, Page 3.

Perhaps you should read the RJ Lee Report instead of cherry-picking (ie., quote mining) the contents of the report--you self-serving liar.

Better yet, learn to read, goat fucker.

FAIL.

 
At 21 December, 2011 12:10, Blogger GuitarBill said...

What's this, goat fucker?

"...The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash." -- RJ Lee Report, Page 3.

Conflagration n. a large destructive fire

So what were you saying about "[y]ou have never demonstrated that microspheres form naturally in office fires," goat fucker?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 21 December, 2011 12:30, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, your belief that Mr. Cole did not experiment the right way is absurd.

And you believeing him is out right absurd. You based your evidence on a charlaten and a cheat.

 
At 21 December, 2011 13:33, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Offtopic, again -- I had to laugh a bit at the thread starting here. Snowcrash is very worked up about the conspiracy between Microsoft, Apple, and the US Government to destroy Linux. Interesting how it's never just one conspiracy with these guys.

He gets a number of facts wrong, speculates wildly, etc... SOP for Truthers. And while he's railing against intellectual property, he demands royalties for his photographs.

 
At 21 December, 2011 13:35, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

RGT,

That kind of sounds like Brian.

 
At 21 December, 2011 13:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

That kind of sounds like Brian.

Pretty certain Brian is truebeleaguer at Truthaction. He's more open and honest in Truthaction posts, where he confesses to being frustrated at the Truth Movement's ongoing failure. He wouldn't do that here.

 
At 21 December, 2011 15:50, Blogger John said...

How about "pull it"?

*facepalm*

 
At 21 December, 2011 18:01, Blogger Billman said...

Heh, how nice that Arhoolie has decided to provide his services as an insane-bullshit to bat-shit-insane-bullshit translator for us all.

You're alright.

 
At 21 December, 2011 18:03, Blogger Billman said...

Can anyone "debunk" ANYTHING around here? How about "pull it"?

No?


Holy fuck, really? You troof guys are still going on about "pull it?"

 
At 22 December, 2011 00:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, Mr. Cole has demonstrated that small amounts of thermate can cut substantial steel girders and can make cuts on vertical surfaces.

What you clowns have to be desperate about is that we show the official story to be unraveling, and the only arguments you can mount are lies, denial of facts, and ad hominems.

RGT, Mr. Cole has demonstrated that small amounts of thermate can cut substantial steel girders and can make cuts on vertical surfaces. The vertical surface issue has been a pillar of the debunker argument about thermite for years.

UtterFail, you put "FE spheres" in quote marks when you thought you were quoting the RJ Lee report.

For you to cite spectra of red/gray chips as if they were spectra of microspheres is dishonest.

RGT, how does Mr. Cole artificially manipulate the experiment conditions? I've seen no evidence that Mr. Cole ever looked for iron microspheres after his thermite experiments. Why should he? Dr. Jones already demonstrated that.

UtterFail, once again you cite a spectrum from the chip, not the microsphere. You're really not competent to discuss these things. Why do you think Si in the dust is a mystery?

What scientists have attempted to replicate Dr. Jones's results?

TAW, your poor spelling suggests you don't read very much.

 
At 22 December, 2011 01:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 December, 2011 01:18, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prodo Faggins dissembles, "...you put "FE spheres" in quote marks when you thought you were quoting the RJ Lee report."

False.

You've been proven wrong, goat fucker, so give it up.

Proof?

I don't see any direct quotes that show that I used "FE spheres" before Pat Cowardly. That proves that I was quoting your fellow homo, Cowardly.

FAIL.

Prodo Faggins dissembles, "...once again you cite a spectrum from the chip, not the microsphere."

Bullshit.

Prodo Faggins dissembles, "...For you to cite spectra of red/gray chips as if they were spectra of microspheres is dishonest."

Bullshit.

The clips never ignited. All attempts to reproduce Jones' experimental results have failed. No ifs, no ands and no buts.

Prodo Faggins squeals, "...What scientists have attempted to replicate Dr. Jones's results?"

What's this, goat fucker??

Frédéric Henry-Couannier wrote, "...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof." -- Photomicrograph and SEM Image of the Red/Gray Chips from Jones' Sample.

Yeah, Frédéric Henry-Couannier's sample was magically "deactivated" by the New World Order.

FUCK YOU!

So, goat fucker, why are you studiously avoiding my question?

How do you explain the Silicon (Si) in Jones' samples?

Once again, you FAIL, Prodo Faggins.

 
At 22 December, 2011 06:19, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, Mr. Cole has demonstrated that small amounts of thermate can cut substantial steel girders and can make cuts on vertical surfaces.

Nobody cares.

What you clowns have to be desperate about is that we show the official story to be unraveling, and the only arguments you can mount are lies, denial of facts, and ad hominems.

Thanks for proving my point. There's nothing to be desperate about. There's only the delusions of a failed janitor who wears women's underwear.

 
At 22 December, 2011 07:21, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The vertical surface issue has been a pillar of the debunker argument about thermite for years.

Assuming that's true, the results amount to no more than "if thermite was there then it could have been on a vertical surface". That's kind of like squeezing yourself down a chimney and declaring victory over the Santa Claus Debunkers.

RGT, how does Mr. Cole artificially manipulate the experiment conditions?

By choosing conditions that are convenient to him, and declaring differences to be irrelevant. I asked him long ago whether it's valid to draw important conclusions from such dissimilar conditions. He avoided the question.

I've seen no evidence that Mr. Cole ever looked for iron microspheres after his thermite experiments. Why should he?

It would vastly bolster the case for thermite if he could reproduce the appearance of iron microspheres. Maybe he just never thought of that.

 
At 22 December, 2011 08:44, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

John Cole demonstrated a conspicuous apparatus could cut columns nowhere on the order of the WTC while leaving the mechanism behind.

1. not shown to be able to cut the WTC columns.

2. Nothing like that was noted in the debris.

 
At 22 December, 2011 08:45, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

RGT thinks Cole used the special kind of thermite that never produces molten iron. I see...

That's seriously what you're going with, RGT? Can you produce any evidence that such a preparation of thermite has ever existed?

Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound? If you're Pat and James' mouthpiece of the day, the least they could do is write you a better script. You're not even trying anymore.

 
At 22 December, 2011 08:50, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

"What scientists have attempted to replicate Dr. Jones's results? "

Didn't some french guy? Pretty sure his results were in no way consistent with Jones.

Anyway, no one has published a study confirming Jones's results. There are only a few options I can think of:

1. They are scared fo a real peer review, and the Bentham debacle (Not to mention the "Journal" of 9/11 Studies) drew attention to their deceptive practices so they don't bother.

2. The have submitted their work to a real journal and it gets shredded to the point of being unsalvageable.

 
At 22 December, 2011 10:19, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Anyway, no one has published a study confirming Jones's results. There are only a few options I can think of:"
-Plastered with Dreck

Do you think your failure or inability to think of any other options means anything at all? What specific aspects do you think would be "shredded", and why? Is this the way you 'debunk' things? By not actually 'debunking' anything at all?

 
At 22 December, 2011 10:27, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT thinks Cole used the special kind of thermite that never produces molten iron.

Have a grown-up read it to you. You missed something.

Do you realize how incredibly stupid you sound?

No. Enlighten me. Then answer the question: how many experiments have used thermite to replicate the iron microspheres found in the WTC dust?

 
At 22 December, 2011 10:55, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Does anyone remember when this used to be referred to as a 'debunking' site?

Does anyone remember why?

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

You've been thoroughly debunked, shit-for-brains.

That you refuse to acknowledge the obvious is no reflection on us.

Seek psychiatric intervention.

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:28, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Does anyone remember when this used to be referred to as a 'debunking' site? Does anyone remember why?

Are you feeling wistful and a bit alone, Cowardly? You shut your gob pretty fast when I asked about your friends. Is that a sore spot? Do many of them avoid you these days? Did you lose Somebody Special because the iron microspheres were too important?

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:40, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Did you find that thermite recipe that produces no iron yet, RGT? No?
Oh, you were too busy trying to be clever? I see now.

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Did you find that thermite recipe that produces no iron yet, RGT?

That's your invention. You go find it.

The science of 9/11 is settled. The Truthers have lost, but try to enjoy life a bit more.

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:45, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Good luck on your search, though. And if you find Pat's sources for the 'it was torches' "explanation" let us know.

If you find GB's source for fly ash being used as the aggregate in the cement, let us know. Remember when Pat abandoned his 'torches' and went to the non-existent "fly ash from the concrete"?

Hilarious "science" from you idiots.

Next we'll hear JamesB's scientific lecture on "all kinds of crap" burning, causing effects he can't even begin to explain. Then he'll call them 'anomalies'.

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:45, Blogger GuitarBill said...

There's no evidence for the presence of molten iron or "iron micropsheres" at Ground Zero.

So answer the question: How do you explain the Silicon (Si), K (potassium) and Ca (calcium) in Jones' samples?

Because as long as Jones' microspheres contain Si (silicon), K (potassium) and Ca (calcium), they are NOT derived from thermite.

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:55, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Remember when Pat abandoned his 'torches' and went to the non-existent "fly ash from the concrete"?

Cutting torches and fly ash are plausible sources. Thermite is a fantasy source.

How about sharing a link to the best, most convincing case for thermite you know of? You must know some.

 
At 22 December, 2011 11:57, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"The science of 9/11 is settled."
-RG Testicles

Translation: I'm embarrassed that I can't answer a single question of yours, so I'll say it's "settled" so I can sound confident and informed. I have no sources, no arguments, no case, and no life, but I sure sound clever on a blog! I'm cool! No really! *sniff*

 
At 22 December, 2011 12:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 22 December, 2011 12:04, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Your "questions" have been answered (you're such an idiot that you believe questions are "evidence").

That you're too delusional and dishonest to accept the answers is no reflection on us.

 
At 22 December, 2011 12:05, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

"The science of 9/11 is settled."
-RG Testicles


That's how science works. The question is settled when the consensus emerges. It's how we know evolution is true and global warming is real.

Now, think before you run your mouth again. You're not my intellectual peer. You're pitifully unqualified to discuss this material. Start sourcing your claims.

 
At 22 December, 2011 13:18, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

The "Molten Steel" theory is a made up fact to make the Offical Account look "wrong" when it wasn't.

If Truthers had read (instead of skimming through) the Offical Report, they will see that not a single word about "molten steel" is ever said in it.

However, molten metal was said in the report but it was determined not to contain steel within the samples when examined by the experts.

So Truthers are lying like they usually do and twisting shit around.

 
At 22 December, 2011 13:21, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, your poor spelling suggests you don't read very much.

Ad hom is what you do best isn't it Brian? You'd rather name call and slander people every chance you get so you can dodge the issue of you supporting your assinine theories without evidence.

Keep playing your childish games you little angry man. You're never going to fully understand that 9/11 wasn't an "Inside Job"

 
At 22 December, 2011 13:42, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"You're pitifully unqualified to discuss this material. Start sourcing your claims."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Says the little boy who couldn't even understand Cole's simple experiments.

"Cutting torches and fly ash are plausible sources.

Oh, so you admit you're a pseudoskeptic, not a true skeptic?

(from wiki's characterizations of pseudoskepticism):

'Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence'

So when some ridiculously stupid idiot says the molten iron 'could easily' have come from torches, he would still be a pseudoskeptic EVEN IF HE HAPPENED TO BE RIGHT (which he wasn't. In fact he was WAY off). And yet, all of this seems to fly right over your testicular head, RGT.

 
At 22 December, 2011 13:43, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Is ANYONE ever going to 'debunk' something on this blog?

 
At 22 December, 2011 13:56, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Is ANYONE ever going to 'debunk' something on this blog?

Why can't you source some verifiable material, anything at all, that calls the official story into question?

 
At 22 December, 2011 13:56, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Idiot babbles, "...'Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence'."

So where's your alleged "empirical evidence," shit-for-brains?

Apparently you define deliberate misinterpretation of the available data, outright lies and your worthless, unscientific, unprofessional 100% fact-free opinion as "empirical evidence."

FAIL.

RGT was right on the money when he wrote--and I quote: "You're pitifully unqualified to discuss this material. Start sourcing your claims."

 
At 22 December, 2011 14:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Is ANYONE ever going to 'debunk' something on this blog?

No, we can't debunk what isn't there to begin with. No evidence that 9/11 was an "Inside Job" = no debunking.

However, if you want to continue acting like a child in a candy store, then by all means do. Give us something ot laugh about tonight.

 
At 22 December, 2011 14:34, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you repeatedly demanded on 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" thread "How many times was the phrase 'FE spheres' mentioned in the RJ Lee Report?" and you wouldn't accept the correct answer ("never").

At 11:28 you went as far as to claim "'FE Sphere' is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker."

This was, of course, not true. Because even RJ Lee's graphic artists know more chemistry than you do. You pretend to knowledge that you don't have, and then when you're shown to be wrong, you lie about what you said.

I asked you a simple factual question about replication of Dr. Jones's results, and there is no need for your belligerent abuse.
You claimed "All attempts to reproduce Jones' experimental results have failed. No ifs, no ands and no buts" BUT, and it's a BIG BUTT, you failed to mention that you only know of one attempt.

Since Mr. Henry-Couannier's results have not been confirmed, and since Mark Basile has confirmed Dr. Jones's results, I guess we should give Jones the benefit of the doubt until more information is available.

Your belief that there's something mysterious about Silicon (Si) in Jones' dust samples is quite puzzling to me.
If a nanothermite fomulation included a Si sol-gel, that would explain Si in iron-rich spheres--assuming that there actually are such Si-containing spheres.

The fact remains, Mr. Cole has showed indisputably that small amounts of thermite can effectively cut structural steel.

GMS, one of the columns Jon Cole cut was a replica of a perimeter column. He was able to cut 3/4 of the way through despite the fact that his cutting device was inadequately secured and so it took off like a rocket. What exactly is conspicuous about a device that can be placed inside a hollow column? Why would you expect the devices to remain behind when they could be engineered to be consumed in the reaction?

Cutting torches are not a plausible source for samples taken from Brooklyn Bridge before the cleanup operations began.

RGT, your belief that there is a consensus on the science of 9/11 is ridiculous. We never even got a report consistent with the laws of physics, and the government is using nonsense excuses to reject FOIA requests. That's not how science works.

TAW, molten steel is not a theory. It was reported by 5 PhDs and an FDNY captain. A 40-pound sample was taken.

TAW, commenting on your lame reading skills is not an ad hominem. It's an objective observation about somebody who lies. Where did you get the idea that I have theories?

PC, I regularly debunk the liars GB, Ian, and TAW on this blog.

 
At 22 December, 2011 16:02, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...At 11:28 you went as far as to claim ""FE Sphere" is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker."

You just proved my point, cretin. "FE sphere" is in quotation marks.

FAIL.

And I still don't see a direct quote that proves that I used "FE Sphere" before your fellow homo Cowardly.

Why are you unable to provide that quote, Prodo Faggins? Lying again, cretin? Of course you're lying. After all, lies are all you've ever had.

Here's a link to the RJ Lee Report, and anyone can see that I'll telling the truth about the content of Page 24, TABLE 3.

FAIL

The goat fucker brays, "...Since Mr. Henry-Couannier's results have not been confirmed, and since Mark Basile has confirmed Dr. Jones's results, I guess we should give Jones the benefit of the doubt until more information is available."

False.

And I don't see any evidence to substantiate your assertion, ass.

Why is that, Prodo Faggins?

The goat fucker brays, "...Your belief that there's something mysterious about Silicon (Si) in Jones' dust samples is quite puzzling to me."

Of course it's a "mystery." After all, you're an idiot.

FAIL.

The goat fucker brays, "...If a nanothermite fomulation [SIC] included a Si sol-gel, that would explain Si in iron-rich spheres--assuming that there actually are such Si-containing spheres."

If?

You have no evidence for the presence of "nanothermite" at Ground Zero, so take your "ifs" and stick 'em where the Sun doesn't shine.

Jones' samples are composed of 8% Si (Silicon)--which just happens to be what you'd expect to find if fly ash is the real source.

FAIL.

Get back to us when you have something more than your 100% fact-free, unscientific and unprofessional opinion. M'kay, goat fucker?

FAIL.

 
At 22 December, 2011 16:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, indeed "FE sphere" is in quotation marks. You are claiming, as I noted earlier, that the phrase appears in the RJ Lee report. You are wrong about that, and naturally you find that error difficult to acknowledge, because it exposes you as someone who never even had high school chemistry.

I gave you the direct quote. On 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" at 11:28 you claimed "'FE Sphere' is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker."

You seem to be suffering from psychotic blindness.

ButtGale, google "Mark Basile" and you'll find that he has independently confirmed many of Dr. Jones's findings.

Please identify the spectra that you believe shows Si peaks in microspheres.

The evidence of the red/gray chips and the micrographs thereof show the presence of nanothermite at Ground Zero. Your psychotic blindness is asserting itself once again.

 
At 22 December, 2011 16:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...ButtGale, you repeatedly demanded on 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" thread "How many times was the phrase 'FE spheres' mentioned in the RJ Lee Report?" and you wouldn't accept the correct answer ("never")."

FALSE.

Here's the definitive proof that you're lying about the "FE Spheres" quote:

What's this, goat fucker?

"...Thus, the USGS confirms the presence of iron (Fe) in the dust." -- GuitarBill, 05 December 2011 18:59, from Pat's thread titled Is It Over?.

And what's this, Prodo Faggins?

"...What does 'FE sphere' mean?" -- Pat Cowardly, 15 December, 2011 12:53, from Pat's thread titled Mapping the Truther Mind (sic).

So, I have always used Fe for iron.

Are you seriously going to try and argue that 05 December 2011 18:59 (the date of my post) comes after 15 December, 2011 12:53 (the date your fellow homo Cowardly's post)?

Once again, you stand exposed as a liar, Prodo Faggins.

FAIL.

Have a nice day, Pinocchio.

 
At 22 December, 2011 16:58, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...google [SIC] "Mark Basile" and you'll find that he has independently confirmed many of Dr. Jones's findings."

I don't have to "google" [SIC] anything, goat fucker.

You won't provide the link because, once again, you're lying.

Do you honestly think I've never heard of Mark Basile?

Try again, goat fucker.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Please identify the spectra that you believe shows Si peaks in microspheres."

Why should I link to something that doesn't exist? After all, the chips didn't ignite, as Frédéric Henry-Couannier made perfectly clear.

Frédéric Henry-Couannier wrote, "...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed. The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof." -- Photomicrograph and SEM Image of the Red/Gray Chips from Jones' Sample.

And you're lying (what's new?). According to Jones, iron-rich microspheres were present in the dust from the beginning (that is, "pre-ignition", which never happened to begin with).

FAIL.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...The evidence of the red/gray chips and the micrographs thereof show the presence of nanothermite at Ground Zero."

Not according to Dr. Frédéric Henry-Couannier.

FAIL.

 
At 22 December, 2011 17:05, Blogger GuitarBill said...

And I'm sure that you'll happily provide a link to Mark Basile's "peer reviewed paper." Right, Pinocchio?

I won't hold my breath waiting for the link.

FAIL.

 
At 22 December, 2011 17:51, Blogger Billman said...

Well, Richard Gage's Testicles did debunk the rumor that you weren't a douche by posting your picture...

 
At 22 December, 2011 18:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you are lying about what you said.

And then you wonder why I won't bother to provide substantiating sources.

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:00, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, your belief that there is a consensus on the science of 9/11 is ridiculous. We never even got a report consistent with the laws of physics, and the government is using nonsense excuses to reject FOIA requests. That's not how science works.

Hey, who better to determine if there's a scientific consensus than an unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves?

Creationists also claim there's no scientific consensus on evolution.

TAW, molten steel is not a theory. It was reported by 5 PhDs and an FDNY captain. A 40-pound sample was taken.

You're right that it's not a theory. It's nonsense believed by ignorant liars like you.

PC, I regularly debunk the liars GB, Ian, and TAW on this blog.

Brian, you've never debunked anything. You post spam about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Assanteh-Asl and your "widows", we laugh at your spam, you get upset, start squealing, and call us "girls".

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:01, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Squealing, making false accusations and trying to blame us for your failure to substantiate your lies and propaganda isn't evidence, goat fucker.

FAIL.

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:03, Blogger Ian said...

And then you wonder why I won't bother to provide substantiating sources.

You don't have any sources. You're a delusional liar and failed janitor who thinks endlessly posting lies here is going to accomplish something. 10 years later and there have been no new investigations, no answers for the "widows" questions, and no truther articles published in journals.

All you've accomplished is making yourself into an object of ridicule at this blog.

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Maybe if the goat fucker would spend more time studying, as opposed to sitting around on his ass all day while watching his extensive collection of gay porn, he might do better?

Then again, maybe not.

%^)

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie.

ButtGale, indeed "FE sphere" is in quotation marks. You are claiming, as I noted earlier, that the phrase appears in the RJ Lee report. You are wrong about that, and naturally you find that error difficult to acknowledge, because it exposes you as someone who never even had high school chemistry.

I gave you the direct quote. On 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" at 11:28 you claimed "'FE Sphere' is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker."

You seem to be suffering from psychotic blindness.

ButtGale, google "Mark Basile" and you'll find that he has independently confirmed many of Dr. Jones's findings.

Please identify the spectra that you believe shows Si peaks in microspheres.

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:52, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie.

Brian, last time you said I "lie and lie and lie", now you're claiming that I "lie and lie". Which is it? You need to keep your story straight.

And the rest of his post is dumbspam that makes it clear that Brian was sniffing glue during his high school chemistry class.

C'mon Brian, do you really expect us to take you seriously when you talk about chemistry or physics? You can't even mop floors correctly!

 
At 22 December, 2011 19:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Stop spamming the website with lies, Prodo Faggins.

Your "FE Spheres" crap was proven to be a lie by my post at time stamp 22 December, 2011 16:36.

Now tell us that my post on 05 December 2011 18:59 comes after Cowardly's 15 December, 2011 12:53 post. Go for it, Pinocchio.

How do you explain that thorny FACT, goat fucker?

The goat fucker dissembles, "...ButtGale, google "Mark Basile" and you'll find that he has independently confirmed many of Dr. Jones's findings."

I'm still waiting for your link to Mark Basil's "peer reviewed paper," goat fucker.

Where is it, asshole?

The goat fucker squeals, "...Please identify the spectra that you believe shows Si peaks in microspheres."

I've already given you the answer up-thread, goat fucker, and my argument isn't going to change.

FACT: You lied about the "FE Spheres" quote. I was quoting your fellow homo Cowardly. END OF STORY.

You're playing the same squealspam game you played with WAQ when you deliberately lied about the Wikipedia acceleration quote. And you're not going anywhere with the same pack of lies, Prodo Faggins.

FAIL.

NOTE TO THE LEADERS OF THE 9/11 "TRUTH MOVEMENT" (And don't deny it, scumbags, because you watch this blog like a hawk): You guys really need to send someone who's up to the task of debating us, because as things stand thus far, you're only killing your own "movement" by allowing a cretin like the goat fucker to defend your idiotic conspiracy theory.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 22 December, 2011 20:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGail, you continue to post liespam.

On 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" at 11:28 you claimed "'FE Sphere' is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker."

Earlier posts are of no consequence.

 
At 22 December, 2011 20:36, Blogger Ian said...

Earlier posts are of no consequence.

Hey, Brian finally hit on a truth. None of the posts on this blog are of any consequence. The facts of 9/11 are settled. There are not going to be any more hearings or investigations or indictments or anything else. It's over, Brian. Time to move on with life. The only thing you've accomplished is becoming the butt of jokes.

 
At 22 December, 2011 20:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're right. None of the posts here are of any consequence. That's why I long ago stopped substantiating my points. You only lie and lie and lie and lie.

As FEA computer modeling becomes ever more sophisticated, engineering schools all over the world will model the WTC collapse. And when they do, we will be shown to wrong or we will be shown to be right. My guess, based on the extremely poor quality of the official evidence, is that we'll be shown to be right.

 
At 22 December, 2011 21:27, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're right. None of the posts here are of any consequence. That's why I long ago stopped substantiating my points. You only lie and lie and lie and lie.

Well, aside from the fact that I don't lie and the fact that your "points" were the unintentionally hilarious gibberings of a delusional liar and failed janitor like "meatball on a fork", you're right.

As FEA computer modeling becomes ever more sophisticated, engineering schools all over the world will model the WTC collapse.

Perhaps. Regardless, I think the collapse research team at MIT won't be interested in what a failed janitor like you has to say about their models. And of course you will squeal and squeal about how the models are dishonest when they don't come to the conclusions that magic spray-on thermite took the towers down.

And when they do, we will be shown to wrong or we will be shown to be right.

This sentence is exactly 8 words too long.

My guess, based on the extremely poor quality of the official evidence, is that we'll be shown to be right.

Nobody cares what you "guess", Brian. You're a failed janitor, liar, and lunatic who calls people "girls" on the internet.

 
At 22 December, 2011 22:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker lies, "...Earlier posts are of no consequence."

Bullshit.

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Answer the question, Prodo Faggins.

How do you explain the following quote from 5 December 2011?

"...Thus, the USGS confirms the presence of iron (Fe) in the dust." -- GuitarBill, 05 December 2011 18:59, from Pat's thread titled Is It Over?.

If I used Fe for Iron on 5 December 2011 (and in every thread prior), how can you claim that I don't know that "FE" is not the chemical symbol for iron (Fe)?

The answer is simple: You're playing semantic games, just like you did with WAQ, and deliberately ignoring the facts: I quoted your fellow homo Cowardly when I used "FE Sphere."

And your fellow homo used "FE" for iron (Fe) in THIS THREAD.

What's this, goat fucker?

".....and where did the FE-melting temperatures come from" -- Pat Cowardly, 20 December, 2011 10:02 from "What is Old is New Again" (That's this thread--you fucking idiot).

The fact is that your fellow homo, Cowardly, is the one who used "FE" for iron (Fe), not me.

So why is Cowardly not subject to your bullshit semantic games?

The answer is simple: You're trying to bury your latest humiliating defeat in SQUEALSPAM and DUMBSPAM.

FAIL.

All I did was quote him verbatim. The quotation marks I used are a SIGN OF CONTEMPT FOR HIS INACCURACY--you goddamned liar.

FAIL.

And when do you plan to answer my question, Prodo Faggins?

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' samples?

And your incredulity is not an argument, goat fucker.

And I'm still waiting for a link to Mark Basile's "peer reviewed paper."

Why no link, goat fucker.

The answer is simple: You're a liar. And so is Mark Basile. Otherwise, he would have written a paper and submitted it for peer review. So why did Basile fail to produce a paper for peer review?

Why is that, Prodo Faggins?

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 22 December, 2011 22:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 23 December, 2011 05:48, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Oh, so you admit you're a pseudoskeptic, not a true skeptic?

No True Skeptic would say such a thing, eh? You're funny.

I can tell you get most of your information from Talboo the Wise. He's also fixated with the notion that debunkers are pseudoskeptics. He's also obsessed with iron microspheres. And cutting torches. And Pat Curley. And being called a No-Planer. And being called a Fake-Phone-Caller.

Got any sources to debunk the official story yet?

 
At 23 December, 2011 06:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

RGT, your belief that there is a consensus on the science of 9/11 is ridiculous.

There is negligible scientific opposition to the official story. That constitutes a consensus.

We never even got a report consistent with the laws of physics, and the government is using nonsense excuses to reject FOIA requests.

I'm aware of nothing in any official report that is inconsistent with the laws of physics. Though I am curious if somebody is keeping track of rejected FOIA requests in this area and on what grounds the rejections have been made.

 
At 23 December, 2011 09:09, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"He's also fixated with the notion that debunkers are pseudoskeptics..." -RGT

And you just gossip like fat Patrick and his gaggle of pseudoskeptics, instead of actually answering any questions or 'debunking' anything. You're a marvel of stupidity yet again, taking lessons from professionals in the field like Pat, GB, James, Roberts, Mackey, etc. Keep up that "research", guys. Your true colors are showing.

 
At 23 December, 2011 09:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. The mods here allow you to post lies and then close the thread so they can't be corrected. A fine lot of debunkers, eh?

Thanks for bringing up the subject of MIT computer models. I would bet they have had the necessary computer capacity for years, but we don't hear anything about that, do we? Perhaps they don't want to talk about computer models because (according to Scientific American) Professor Kausel "performed some computer simulations that indicate the building material fell almost unrestricted at nearly the speed of free-falling objects. 'The towers' resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended,' he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top."

Did you get that? No resistance. Nine seconds. That's MIT talking in Scientific American.

ButtGale, since you repeatedly claimed that RJ Lee used "FE" as the checmial symbol for iron, clearly you did not know it was not the chemical symbol for iron. You weren't quoting Pat Cowardly, you were misquoting RJ Lee--and lying repeatedly about it.

We've been over the Si in Jones' samples ad nauseam. How do you explain it? Why do you think it's significant?

I never said Mark Basile had a peer reviewed paper. I said he replicated some of Jones's findings. When was Frederic Henry-Couannier's study published, BTW?


RGT, your belief that negligible scientific opposition constitutes a consensus on the science of 9/11 is ridiculous. Has it been insufficiently demonstrated to you that scientific opposition to the official story of 9/11 is a career-killer?

The WTC7 report is inconsistent with the laws of physics when it admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for over 2 seconds. That is impossible unless all structural resistance has been removed. The report in effect admits that it is inconsistent with the laws of physics--the draft report several times claimed that the NIST analysis was "consistent with physical principles". The final report has removed that claim in every case.

One famous FOIA rejection was made on grounds that releasing NIST's calculations on the thermal expansion of beams near column 79 would jeopardize public safety.

 
At 23 December, 2011 09:38, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

And you just gossip like fat Patrick and his gaggle of pseudoskeptics, instead of actually answering any questions or 'debunking' anything.

Oh no. Now I'm a gossip too? Please don't call me a poopy-head next.

Keep up that "research", guys. Your true colors are showing.

So, no source of material to debunk the official story yet? I'm beginning to think you don't actually have any. See if Talboo the Wise has anything. Or maybe his friend Scootle (AKA "The Wiltshire Sheep Shagger").

 
At 23 December, 2011 10:12, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

The WTC7 report is inconsistent with the laws of physics when it admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for over 2 seconds. That is impossible unless all structural resistance has been removed.

It's either impossible or it isn't. You don't sound too sure.

 
At 23 December, 2011 11:09, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

TAW, molten steel is not a theory. It was reported by 5 PhDs and an FDNY captain. A 40-pound sample was taken.

Show me a photograph and video that wasn't tampered in any way to prove that "molten steel" was found.

TAW, commenting on your lame reading skills is not an ad hominem. It's an objective observation about somebody who lies. Where did you get the idea that I have theories?

Actually it is an Ad Hominem. All you do all day is call people "liars" and "girls" on here. You still haven't proven that all of us are "liars" because you haven't shown anyone any convincing evidence.

Kind of like our observation about your lies, right? Perhaps Brian you should lay off Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl and maybe I won't get the idea that you have theories.

 
At 23 December, 2011 11:12, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

That's why I long ago stopped substantiating my points.

I forget, WTF were Brian's points that he made?

Oh that's right, he had no points to be made. Thanks fellas!

 
At 23 December, 2011 11:13, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

My guess, based on the extremely poor quality of the official evidence

The unoffical evidence of the Truth Movement you mean Brian?

 
At 23 December, 2011 11:16, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

RGT,

Trust me, he's "Not Sure" from the movie Idiocracy.

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:18, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Inferno at the World Trade Center, NY

Eduardo Kausel

Professor of Civil & Environmental Engineering, MIT

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20II%20Inferno%20@%20WTC.pdf

I determined that the fall of the upper building portion down the height
of a single floor must have caused dynamic forces exceeding the design loads by at least an
order of magnitude (i.e. more than 10 times the weight of the upper floors). Thus, there was no
way in the world that the columns below could have taken this large overload, and as these
gave way, an avalanche down the building ensued causing the 110 story towers to collapse in about 12 seconds...


I left out he part where he said: "in what was practically a free fall." Because Brian will try to confirm that it fell in free fall, when in fact it fell in 12 seconds and not the 9 seconds Brian thinks.

Brian swung on and missed.

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:20, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Damn I'm good!

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...since you repeatedly claimed that RJ Lee used "FE" as the checmial symbol for iron, clearly you did not know it was not the chemical symbol for iron. You weren't quoting Pat Cowardly, you were misquoting RJ Lee--and lying repeatedly about it."

Goat fucker, telling the same debunked lie over-and-over again, doesn't make it true. Furthermore, I wrote the comments, NOT YOU. So don't try to pretend that you understand my thought process or the reasons why I put Cowardly "FE Spheres" in quote marks (I've already explained up thread). I have already proven that I've always used Fe for iron, as my comment at time stamp 22 December 2001, 16:36 proves beyond a doubt.

"...Thus, the USGS confirms the presence of iron (Fe) in the dust." -- GuitarBill, 05 December 2011 18:59, from Pat's thread titled Is It Over?.

And that's proof positive that you're a liar, goat fucker.

So stop wasting SLC's bandwidth and give up the chickenshit semantic games, gay boi.

FAIL.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...We've been over the Si in Jones' samples ad nauseam. How do you explain it? Why do you think it's significant?"

I've already explained it, goat fucker.

You, on the other hand, have never answered the question. So don't pretend that you've answered the question, Prodo Faggins.

So, Prodo Faggins, for the thousandth time, how do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Answer the question for once in your life--you infected neo-fascist homosexual.

FAIL

The goat fucker squeals, "...I never said Mark Basile had a peer reviewed paper. I said he replicated some of Jones's findings. When was Frederic Henry-Couannier's study published, BTW?>"

Of course Mark Basile doesn't have a peer reviewed paper. After all, like you he's an insane troofer and a compulsive liar.

And why would Mark Basile write a paper for peer review? After all, he only claims to have confirmed Jones' experimental results and to have evidence for the presence of "nanothermite" at Ground Zero--which would be the most Earth-shaking news of the Century. So yeah, why would Basile write a paper and submit it for peer review?

You're a fucking idiot, goat fucker. Do you need instructions to breath, too?

And, finally, why would Frédéric Henry-Couannier put a paper up for peer review for a FAILED EXPERIMENT?

This is more proof that you never graduated from junior college, goat fucker.

Perhaps if you spent more time studying, as opposed to sitting around on your ass watching gay porn, you wouldn't be such a failure at defending the 9/11 "truth movements" conspiracy theories?

Once again, you FAIL, Prodo Faggins.

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:26, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

And I found out that Brian is quote-mining Professor Eduardo Kausel's statement about that "9 seconds" ordeal:

"There is also indirect evidence that the vertical resistance to telescoping or pancaking of either tower was minimal: the duration of the collapses of some 12 seconds was nearly the same as that of an object in free fall, while any serious resistance would have slowed down the collapse. Indeed, it takes an object falling freely from a height of 411 m (1350 ft) - the height of the towers - some 9 seconds to reach the ground."

Notice how he said "NEARLY"? Which disproves Brian's theory that they fell in virtual free fall.

He aso explains that an object would fall 9 seconds with nothing under it to help slow it down. He clearly want's talking about the buildings.

Brian sung on and missed. Strike 2.

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:27, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

"he clearly wasn't talking about the buildings, I meant.

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:29, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Come on Brian, you got anything else that you quote-mined you chimpanzee that likes to throw shit at people?

 
At 23 December, 2011 12:57, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

'You're a fucking idiot, goat fucker. Do you need instructions to breath, too?' -GarterBelt, trying to sound clever, and failing (again).

do you need instructions on how to spell 'breathe', genius? here's a hint: just because the spell-check doesn't point something out, doesn't mean you're still not a complete imbecile.

 
At 23 December, 2011 13:07, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Really? No kidding?

Ever heard of a typo? I guess not. After all, that's why you make them constantly. Right, spelling bee champ?

Tell us more about "FE spheres," Mr. Science Illiterate.

"...What does 'FE sphere' mean?" -- Pat Cowardly, 15 December, 2011 12:53, from Pat's thread titled Mapping the Truther Mind (sic).

Ever heard of the Periodic Table of the Elements, Cowardly?

Probably not. After all, only an idiot would use "FE" for Fe (iron).

So tell us, Cowardly, do you still shave Jon Gold's back?

And weren't you kicked out of Barber College for soliciting the male students in an effort to shave their balls?

And remember, Cowardly the salad tosser, I'm just askin' questions...

 
At 23 December, 2011 13:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

do you need instructions on how to spell 'breathe', genius?

Do you need instructions on how to use a Shift key?

Give me a source that refutes the official story of 9/11. Then call it a night.

 
At 23 December, 2011 13:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

RGT, Cowardly is Arhoolie, the infamous space-bar boy.

For example, have a look at this example of literary genius:

"...Yet another clumsy and oafishly transparent attempt to lob a "Jew-hater" grenade into the debate.I guess when it's all you've got you might as well play it for all it's worth.The game is over fellows,you've dynamited yourselves into oblivion.Good riddance.It's all over but the insane bloviating from "GitShrill" and PornBoy." -- Pat Cowardly (aka, Arhoolie), 15 April, 2010 15:00, from Pat's thread titled, Two Hilarious Poems.

So I guess Cowardly is still learning how to use the shift key and the space-bar.

 
At 23 December, 2011 13:56, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. The mods here allow you to post lies and then close the thread so they can't be corrected. A fine lot of debunkers, eh?

My, such squealing!

Thanks for bringing up the subject of MIT computer models. I would bet they have had the necessary computer capacity for years, but we don't hear anything about that, do we?

Why would we have heard it? Do you expect the New York Times to report it every time a computer simulation tells us exactly what we already know about 9/11?

Did you get that? No resistance. Nine seconds. That's MIT talking in Scientific American.

Nobody cares.

RGT, your belief that negligible scientific opposition constitutes a consensus on the science of 9/11 is ridiculous. Has it been insufficiently demonstrated to you that scientific opposition to the official story of 9/11 is a career-killer?

Brian, what do you know about science? You're an unemployed janitor who lives on disability with your parents and believes in magic thermite elves.

The WTC7 report is inconsistent with the laws of physics when it admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for over 2 seconds.

Brian, we've already demonstrated that your understanding of physics is about what we'd expect from a failed janitor who believes in modified attack baboons.

 
At 23 December, 2011 13:57, Blogger Ian said...

I forget, WTF were Brian's points that he made?

That the collapse of the WTC should have resembled a meatball on a fork.

I know, I wish his parents would get him the psychiatric care he needs too.

 
At 23 December, 2011 14:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

RGT, as I showed, the official story debunks itself. The WTC7 report admits that WTC7 fell at freefall for over 2 seconds. That is impossible unless all structural resistance has been removed. The report in effect admits that it is inconsistent with the laws of physics--the draft report several times claimed that the NIST analysis was "consistent with physical principles". The final report has removed that claim in every case.

What about "[Freefall] is impossible unless all structural resistance has been removed" sounds unsure?


TAW, your demands for photos and videos are ignorant. Photography was prohibited at Ground Zero except under restricted conditions.

See slide 146 here:
http://www.american-buddha.com/911.blueprintfortruthae.htm

That's the 40-pound ingot of formerly molten iron.

I only call people liars when they lie. It is a technical observation. I don't call anybody girls. I complain sometimes that Ian acts like an 8-year-old girl who's seeking male attention. Certainly I've shown convincing evidence. Earlier today I showed that MIT's Dr. Kausel corroborated Dr. Sunder's 9-second collapse estimate.

Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl and maybe I won't get the idea said what they said. There's nothing theoretical about it. Their statements were recorded.

Did it never occur to you that perhaps Dr. Kausel's 9 seconds and 12 seconds estimates were for different buildings? Dr. Sunder said 9 seconds and 11 seconds for the two buildings. In any case, a free-fall collapse contradicts
the first law of thermodynamics and Newton's 3rd Law.

GutterBall, you claimed that RJ Lee said "FE spheres" and now you're lying about your easily-verifiable statement. A fine debunker you are!
Silicon is the 8th most common element in the universe. There's silicon everywhere! That's why it's in dust. Do you have a point?

When was Frederic Henry-Couannier's study published? Why would you call it a failed experiment? He tested the dust and it did not react. How is that a failure? And why didn't he get someone to replicate his experiment so he could publish his findings and once and for all put Jones's claims to rest? What's wrong with him?

Dr. Kausel told Scientific American that his computer analysis showed a 9 second collapse time. That's what he said. For you to deny that he said what he said because he elsewhere said something different is highly dishonest. And for you to attribute to me the theory that the buildings fell at free fall is also dishonest. I have no such theory. Dr. Kausel said what he said, Dr. Sunder said what he said, the reports said what they said ("essentially in free fall"). Free-fall, essential free-fall, or even near free fall are in violation of the laws of physics. Isn't it interesting that NIST never made any effort to pin down the actual collapse times. It's because they were afraid to address anything that happened after collapse initiation, because that's where all the scary mysteries were.

ButtGale, the official story of 9/11 refutes itself.

 
At 23 December, 2011 15:16, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prodo Faggins whines, "...you claimed that RJ Lee said "FE spheres" and now you're lying about your easily-verifiable statement."

Really? No kidding?

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 5 December, 2011 12:53?

Read it and weep, Pinocchio.,

"...What does 'FE sphere' mean?" -- Pat Cowardly, 15 December, 2011 12:53, from Pat's thread titled Mapping the Truther Mind (sic).

Once again, you FAIL, felcher.

Prodo Faggins whines "...Silicon is the 8th most common element in the universe. There's silicon everywhere! That's why it's in dust. Do you have a point?

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Answer the question, Aunt Fancy:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

My point is simple, but you deliberately miss the point because you're an illiterate and a compulsive liar:

Silicon is NOT a byproduct of thermite, thermate or "nanothermite." As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si and/or K and Ca, they are NOT derived from thermite.

Got it, idiot?

FAIL.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...When was Frederic Henry-Couannier's study published? Why would you call it a failed experiment? He tested the dust and it did not react. How is that a failure? And why didn't he get someone to replicate his experiment so he could publish his findings and once and for all put Jones's claims to rest? What's wrong with him?"

I never said his study was published--you fucking, idiot.

Learn to read, goat fucker.

Why would I call Frédéric Henry-Couannier's experiment a failure? That's simple, goat fucker. He's a troofer, and his goal was to confirm Jones' experimental results, not to "put Jones's claims to rest," as you falsely assert, ass. Pay attention, cretin. Thus, he failed to confirm Jones' results; as a result, his experiment was a COMPLETE FAILURE.

"...Eventually the presence of nanothermite could not be confirmed." -- Frédéric Henry-Couannier

FAIL.

And it's obvious that Frédéric Henry-Couannier is a troofer. Why else would he make the following statement?

"...The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof." -- Frédéric Henry-Couannier

Clearly, Frédéric Henry-Couannier wasn't out to "put Jones's claims to rest," he was trying to confirm Jones' experimental results. And when he failed, he tried to blame his failure on "already reacted" chips and "deactivated" chips, which were somehow altered in order to "to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof."

Frédéric Henry-Couannier is almost a much of nut-bag and a liar as you are, Prodo Faggins.

Perhaps if you spent more time studying, as opposed to sitting around on your ass watching gay porn, you wouldn't be such a failure at defending the 9/11 "truth movements" conspiracy theories?

Once again, you FAIL, Prodo Faggins.

 
At 23 December, 2011 16:08, Blogger Ian said...

RGT, as I showed, the official story debunks itself.

It's funny that hundreds of scientists and engineers can't see this, but an unemployed janitor living on disability with his parents can.

That's the 40-pound ingot of formerly molten iron.

Well, it's settled. Brian says that thing is formerly molten iron. Who are we to argue?

Certainly I've shown convincing evidence.

That you're a delusional liar, yes, but you've presented convincing evidence of nothing else.

Earlier today I showed that MIT's Dr. Kausel corroborated Dr. Sunder's 9-second collapse estimate.

See what I mean?

Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl and maybe I won't get the idea said what they said. There's nothing theoretical about it. Their statements were recorded.

See what I mean? You're a delusional liar. This is why nobody pays you any attention except for those of us here who are entertained by your insanity.

 
At 23 December, 2011 16:14, Blogger Ian said...

Dr. Kausel told Scientific American that his computer analysis showed a 9 second collapse time. That's what he said. For you to deny that he said what he said because he elsewhere said something different is highly dishonest.

So now you're going to lie about a 3rd scientist? I hate to break it to you, Brian, but lying about Dr. Kausel isn't going to convince anyone anymore than lying about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Assanteh-Asl did.

Dr. Kausel said what he said, Dr. Sunder said what he said, the reports said what they said ("essentially in free fall"). Free-fall, essential free-fall, or even near free fall are in violation of the laws of physics.

It's amazing that it took a failed janitor who lives with his parents on disability to figure this out when hundreds of scientists and engineers could not.

Isn't it interesting that NIST never made any effort to pin down the actual collapse times. It's because they were afraid to address anything that happened after collapse initiation, because that's where all the scary mysteries were.

It's amazing that an unemployed janitor living on disability with his parents knows better than NIST what NIST's goals are!

 
At 23 December, 2011 17:16, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

What about "[Freefall] is impossible unless all structural resistance has been removed" sounds unsure?

You seem stuck somewhere between "what NIST describes is impossible" and "what NIST describes is only possible under limited conditions". You need to work it out quickly. I sense this thread closing soon.

 
At 23 December, 2011 17:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, you repeatedly demanded on 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" thread "How many times was the phrase 'FE spheres' mentioned in the RJ Lee Report?" and you wouldn't accept the correct answer ("never").

At 11:28 you went as far as to claim "'FE Sphere' is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker."

Silicon is the 8th most common element in the universe. Your belief that there's something odd about finding it in the dist is absurd. You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon.

If Frédéric Henry-Couannier is a truther, then he should want the truth--and should want to put Jones's claims to rest if they're not true.


Ian, hundreds of scientists and engineers can see that the official story debunks itself. That's why they signed on with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

MIT's Dr. Kausel corroborated Dr. Sunder's 9-second collapse estimate. Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said what they said. Their statements were recorded. You are a liar.

Dr. Kausel told Scientific American that his computer analysis showed a 9 second collapse time. That's what he said.
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/.

RGT, the only way all structural resistance can be removed with near-perfect symmetry is with explosives or powerful incendiaries.

 
At 23 December, 2011 18:09, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, hundreds of scientists and engineers can see that the official story debunks itself. That's why they signed on with Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

Exactly. Proof that a scientific consensus on 9/11 has been reached is the fact that only a tiny crackpot fringe exists in opposition to it, and that many on the fringe have other motives besides the disinterested pursuit of truth for joining.

MIT's Dr. Kausel corroborated Dr. Sunder's 9-second collapse estimate. Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said what they said. Their statements were recorded. You are a liar.

False.

Dr. Kausel told Scientific American that his computer analysis showed a 9 second collapse time. That's what he said.
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/.


False.

So once again, Brian just posts pointless, easily refuted dumbspam in an attempt to....accomplish something, I don't know what.

 
At 23 December, 2011 18:38, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you repeatedly demanded on 12/16 in the "Mapping the Truther Mind" thread "How many times was the phrase 'FE spheres' mentioned in the RJ Lee Report?" and you wouldn't accept the correct answer ("never")...At 11:28 you went as far as to claim "'FE Sphere' is found in TABLE 3, (and TABLE 3 ONLY) on page 24 of the RJ Lee Report. Learn to read, goat fucker.""

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

Answer the question--you lying neo-fascist homosexual:

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 5 December, 2011 12:53?

FAIL.

The goat fucker babbles, "...Silicon is the 8th most common element in the universe. Your belief that there's something odd about finding it in the dist is absurd. You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon."

That's right, fucker, continue to tell the same lie as though you were never debunked.

What's this, goat fucker?

"...Oxygen is a major component of almost all the iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied--often the PRINCIPAL component." -- Steven E. Jones.

The goat fucker squeals, "...If Frédéric Henry-Couannier is a truther, then he should want the truth--and should want to put Jones's claims to rest if they're not true."

If?

I've already prove that Frédéric Henry-Couannier is a fuckin' troofer.

It's obvious that Frédéric Henry-Couannier is a troofer. Why else would he make the following statement?

"...The chips of my sample either already reacted on 9/11 (other searchers have found similar chips) or my sample was deactivated to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof." -- Frédéric Henry-Couannier

Clearly, Frédéric Henry-Couannier wasn't out to "put Jones's claims to rest," he was trying to confirm Jones' experimental results. And when he failed, he tried to blame his failure on "already reacted" chips and "deactivated" chips, which were somehow altered in order to "to prevent my independent corroboration of a crucial proof."

Pay attention, goat fucker, and learn to read.

Is it any wonder that you're such an abysmal failure at defending the troofers deranged conspiracy theory?

Perhaps if you'd spend more time studying, as opposed to hanging around in gay bars and sniffing model airplane glue, you wouldn't be so confused by the events of 11 September 2001.

Once again, you FAIL, Prodo Faggins.

 
At 23 December, 2011 19:00, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Continued...

The goat fucker brays, "...You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon."

That's right, goat fucker, continue to tell the same lies as though they were never debunked.

What's this, goat fucker?

"...The chemical signatures found in the red layers are also quite consistent, each showing the presence of aluminum (Al), silicon (Si), iron (Fe) and oxygen (O) and a significant carbon peak as well." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Page 12.

And what's this, cretin?

"...The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in the particles at the scale of tens of thousands of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Page 29.

What's this, goat fucker?

"...Oxygen is a major component of almost all the iron-aluminum spheres in the WTC dust I have studied--often the PRINCIPAL component." -- Steven E. Jones.

FAIL.

So goat fucker, when do you plan to stop dancing around like a neo-fascist queer on hot tin roof and answer the following question?

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

What would Laurie Van Auken say if she knew that you steadfastly refuse to answer questions?

And remember, queer-bait, I'm only askin' questions...

 
At 23 December, 2011 19:27, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Now goat fucker, I know that you have the attention span of a retarded marmoset, so I'll put both of the questions that you steadfastly refuse to answer in the same convenient place.

Question [1]. Concerning Pat Cowardly use of the erroneous term "FE Sphere":

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 5 December, 2011 12:53?

Question [2]. Concerning the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

And remember, Prodo Faggins, your continued refusal to answer legitimate questions is an embarrassment to 9/11 "truth movement," Laurie Van Auken and the alleged "widows."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 23 December, 2011 22:30, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"RGT, the only way all structural resistance can be removed with near-perfect symmetry is with explosives or powerful incendiaries."

Neither of which were present in WTC7's debris.

Why is that?

Phantom explosives? Invisible incindiaries?

Fairy dust perhaps?

Might as well be. No residue was found, no beams found with obvious damage, only damage consistant with impact and fire. Thousands of professional iron workers, welders, firefighters, ATF,FBI, and NYC police working for a year to clear Ground Zero, and not one of them saw anything pointing to explosives. No rumors circulated, no hushed conversations, and not one photo leaked?

This is what offends me the most, 9/11 troof-tards don't even have a believable conspiracy, but they don't give up. It's not like the Illuminati - they used to actually exist. It's not like the Bilderberg guys because they exist and hold meetings which feature obvious security. It's not like Bigfoot where you have at last one 8mm film, plastic casts, and many eye witnesses.

In the end you have three buildings which fell in ways that look kinda/sorta like controlled demolition. That's it. Plus it's only weird when you leave out the whole 767s flying into the twin towers thing. Otherwise you have an event where hijacked jetliners are flown into the two tallest buildings in NYC, and after a short time they collapse which causes additional damage to the rest of the WTC complex including WTC7 which falls after burning out of control for 8 hours.

Why is this hard to believe?

Why isn't the actual Al Qaeda conspiracy enough?

A pre-text for war? Nobody in Washington DC wanted to go into Afghanistan. Iraq? If so why not include Iriqi hijackers? Technically we were still at war with Iraq (we signed a cease-fire, not an armistice). We were dropping bombs on radar and missile sites that shot at our planes for 10 years, techically each of those times would have justified reniewed military action.

Then there's the basic fact of the Bush Administration being loaded with morons from the top down. Those guys could fuck up a wet dream. So why isn't blantant stupidity a good enough reason to invade Iraq?

Is this a case where because the President is an idiot then the troofers need to be bigger idiots?

I think so.

 
At 23 December, 2011 23:01, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, since you bring up the Bush administration and Iraq, I'd like to bring up one more thing:

In order to be a truther, one has to believe that the Bush administration pulled off the most intricate and devastating conspiracy in history without a single leak or a single thing going wrong, all so they could invade Iraq and steal the oil....and then they fucked it all up by forgetting to place a few canisters of sarin gas in the empty desert in Iraq, thus wrecking the justification for the Iraq War.

Yes, you have to believe that the 9/11 conspiracy was easy, but planting WMDs in Iraq was hard.

 
At 24 December, 2011 05:21, Blogger John said...

Yes, you have to believe that the 9/11 conspiracy was easy, but planting WMDs in Iraq was hard.

Also, you have to believe that an administration that couldn't keep lack of WMDs in Iraq secret, couldn't keep water boarding of prisoners secret, and couldn't keep Abu Ghraib secret somehow kept their involvement of 4 hijacked planes and the planting of explosives in 3 buildings secret.

 
At 24 December, 2011 10:56, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your belief that the Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth represent a counter-consensus fringe is unjustified. Let's take a look at the debunker community, for instance. There are fewer than ten of you here on this board, for instance. How many active debunkers are there? Maybe 200? By your logic we can then safely conclude that the other 300 million Americans are truthers. And what about all of those scientists and engineers at NIST whose interest in 9/11 seems to have evaporated the minute they were no longer paid to study it. They seem to be afraid to debate people who question their findings and their methods.

Suppose Pat and James started a "Truthers are Morons" barnstorming tour like Richard Gage does. Would they ever fill a 600-seat hall? I doubt it.

MIT's Dr. Kausel corroborated Dr. Sunder's 9-second collapse estimate. Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said what they said. Their statements were recorded. You are a liar.

Dr. Kausel told Scientific American that his computer analysis showed a 9 second collapse time. That's what he said.
You are a liar.
http://www.public-action.com/911/jmcm/sciam/.

The mods' tolerance of your repetitive lies destroys any pretense to integrity at this blog.

ButtGale, You repeatedly misquoted the RJ Lee report to the effect that "FE Sphere" appeared in TABLE 3. It does not. You use a meaningless question to distract from your lies, knowing that most readers will be too lazy to discover the question's illegitimacy.

I have not provided a direct quote from before 5 December because I haven't looked. It doesn't matter.

Silicon being the 8th most common element in the universe, your questioning of its presence in the dust is meaningless.

You seem to miss the point that the purpose of science is to determine the truth, not to prove one thing or another. Since Frédéric Henry-Couannier's result have not been replicated, and Dr. Jones's have, it would seem Jones's findings are more credible.

If your arguments had any substance, you would not need to spend so much energy on invective. You seem to be a very angry person. You should have known, when you decided to pursue a narrow technical education, that your limited skills would be in vogue only a very short time. Didn't you plan on having to reinvent yourself every few years?

You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon. You continue to babble about spectra from the red chips. Red chips are not microspheres, and Oxygen is not Silicon. You are a complete waste of time.

Lorie van Auken being a very bright woman, I'm sure she would understand that jumping through your meaningless hoops is a waste of time and only gives your straw man questions a dignity they don't deserve.

 
At 24 December, 2011 10:57, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you how do you know that no explosives or powerful incendiaries were present in the WTC7 dust? Were tests done that came up negative? NIST says they never tested for explosives.

Dr. Astaneh-Asl's "melting of girders" was consistant with impact and fire? A 40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material was consistent with fire? James Glanz's 3-foot stalagmite of formerly molten steel is consistent with fire? The sulfidation attack on the FEMA samples was consistent with fire? Your ludicrous claims only show your hysterical blindness to the evidence.

You do you know all those iron workers, welders, firefighters, ATF,FBI, and NYC police working for a year to clear Ground Zero didn't see anything pointing to explosives. How do you know, all the way from Watsonville, what rumors circulated. You are writing fiction, man!

The buildings don't look kinda/sorta like controlled demolition. They look exactly like controlled demolition. And the 767s only make it wierder because asymmetrical damage from impact and fires can not cause symmetrical collapse.

The official story is hard to believe because the conflicts with the laws of physics have not been explained. They've been with extreme dishonesty dodged. NIST said that they stopped the computer model at the moment of collapse initiation because after the collapse began, successive runs of the model did not converge
on a single solution. So what they're telling us is that try as they might, they could not get the model to produce a symmetrical, total, and near-freefall speed collapse. The assumption is justified that every run produced the partial and asymmetrical collapse most reasonable people would expect.

The actual Al Qaeda conspiracy is not enough because it doesn't explain the intel failures, the air defense failures, the dishonesty of the 9/11 Commission report, or the dishonesty of the NIST report.

How do you know nobody in Washington DC wanted to go into Afghanistan? You make this up! They wanted the pipeline because at the time it was thought that Uzbekistan had vast oil fields. Some people close to the banking community wanted to restore the opium trade because hundreds of billions of drug dollars provide necessary liquidity for the international banks.

What makes you think the plotters would be able to round up trustworthy Iraqi suicide hijackers?

If Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of blatant stupidity without 9/11, he could not have won the 2004 election even with the help of the
Supreme Court and Diebold working together.

Ian, there was much in the 9/11 op that went very very wrong. It was botched. And it's only extreme pressure on the mainstream media and a lot of very clever social manipulation that have managed to disguise that.

The fact that the anthrax came from the Ames strain from Fort Detrick was known by October 5, 2001. Any weapons planted in Iraq would have been subjected to international scientific scrutiny and very likely the source would have been exposed. In the USA, by contrast, the international community has no jurisdiction to investigate 9/11.

John, your political argument can not dispose of scientific evidence.
First let's deal with the science, then let's deal with who-dunnit.
The extreme dishonesty of the official US reports suggests there is much that powerful people in the USA do not want known.

What makes you think the administration wanted to keep lack of WMDs in Iraq secret, wanted to keep water boarding of prisoners secret, and wanted to keep Abu Ghraib secret?

 
At 24 December, 2011 11:11, Blogger Ian said...

Wow Brian, you really took a lot of time to post illogical gibberish and lies! Too bad it doesn't make an iota of difference. The widows will still never get their questions answered. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

 
At 24 December, 2011 11:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prodo Faggins dissembles, "...I have not provided a direct quote from before 5 December because I haven't looked. It doesn't matter."

Bullshit. A quote prior to 15 December 2011 PROVES THAT YOU'RE FULL-OF-SHIT.

And I've already proven that you're wrong, because I posted the quote that proves you're lying.

What's this, Prodo Faggins?

Cowardly's FR Sphere post was dated 15 December 2011, 12:35.

"...What does 'FE sphere' mean?" -- Pat Cowardly, 15 December, 2011 12:53, from Pat's thread titled Mapping the Truther Mind (sic).

Here's the post that proves you playing semantic games, just like you did with WAQ and the Wikipedia acceleration quote.

"...Thus, the USGS confirms the presence of iron (Fe) in the dust." -- GuitarBill, 05 December 2011 18:59, from Pat's thread titled Is It Over?

How do you explain that discrepancy in your "argument," Prodo Faggins?

You "haven't looked" because to do so will PROVE that you're playing semantic games and deliberately misrepresenting the truth. In other words, you're lying.

FAIL.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon."

Yes, I have proven that "Jones's microspheres contain Silicon."

"...The primary elements (Al, Fe, O, Si, C) are typically all present in the particles at the scale of tens of thousands of nanometers, and detailed XEDS mapping shows intimate mixing." -- Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe, Page 29.

The RJ Lee Report, moreover, tells us that iron-rich microspheres are one of three "combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust." (RJ Lee Report, Page 16.)

And until you can show me that iron-rich microspheres COULD NOT be present in the WTC dust without "added" thermite, your argument is just so much bullshit, Prodo Faggins.

So once again, we see that you HAVE IT 100% BACKWARD.

This proves, once again, that you're contradicting yourself.

When it suits your purpose iron-rich microspheres are in the dust, and when it suits your purpose the iron-rich microspheres suddenly and mysteriously DISAPPEAR FROM THE DUST, as is the case now.

So which is it, Prodo Faggins, were iron-rich microspheres in the dust or not?

You can't have it both ways--you lying homosexual degenerate.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

 
At 24 December, 2011 12:14, Blogger GuitarBill said...

NOTE:

The RJ Lee Report also tell us that "[h]igh temperature aluminosilicate from building materials" was found in the dust. (RJ Lee Report, Page 16)

So Prodo Faggins, I'll ask you again for the thousandth time.

Question [1]:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Question [2]:

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 15 December, 2011 12:53?

And remember, Prodo Faggins, your continued refusal to answer legitimate questions is an embarrassment to 9/11 "truth movement," Laurie Van Auken and the alleged "widows."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 24 December, 2011 12:37, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Do you see what the goat fucker is up to, folks?

He cites the RJ Lee Report for the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres when it suits his propaganda. When the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres becomes inconvenient, the iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres suddenly disappear from the dust.

This is IN YOUR FACE DUPLICITY.

On the other hand, when it suits his propaganda, slander and lies my words exist. When my words become inconvenient, my direct quotes suddenly "don't matter," and disappear altogether.

This is IN YOUR FACE DUPLICITY.

Once again, you FAIL, Prodo Faggins.

 
At 24 December, 2011 14:40, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, your pre-12/5 quote proves nothing. Probably the explanation is that before 12/5 you were cutting and pasting from some lying propaganda website and on 12/16 you were relying on your own personal knowledge.

It's obvious that you're confusing particles of unignited thermite with microspheres. Your reference to "alleged 'widows'" only exhibits your boorishness for all.

How could the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres possibly be inconvenient? You're just yammering nonsense to try to fool the feeble-minded into believing you have a point.

 
At 24 December, 2011 15:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prodo Faggins contradicts himself again and brays, "...your pre-12/5 quote proves nothing. Probably the explanation is that before 12/5 you were cutting and pasting from some lying propaganda website and on 12/16 you were relying on your own personal knowledge."

Now you're changing your tune, Prodo Faggins.

Why is that--you double-talking liar and degenerate?

No, the quote from 5 December 2011 is a direct quote--my own words, as the hyperlink proves beyond a doubt.

"...Thus, the USGS confirms the presence of iron (Fe) in the dust." -- GuitarBill, 05 December 2011 18:59, from Pat's thread titled Is It Over?

FAIL.

Prodo Faggins brays, "...It's obvious that you're confusing particles of unignited [SIC] thermite with microspheres."

Really? No kidding?

Why can't you back up that assertion with anything more than the opinion of a proven liar?

FAIL.

Prodo Faggins dissembles, "...How could the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres possibly be inconvenient?"

You're the one who claims there was no Silicon in the samples. That assertion, however, is contradicted by the RJ Lee Report (page 16), which you constantly cite out of context, and YOUR OWN Words.

Clearly, YOU cite the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres when it suits his propaganda. When the presence of iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres becomes inconvenient, the iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres suddenly disappear from the dust.

Likewise, YOU cite my words when it suits your lies and slander. When my words become inconvenient, my direct quotes suddenly "don't matter," and disappear altogether.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

So Prodo Faggins, I'll ask you again for the thousandth time.

Question [1]:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Question [2]:

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 15 December, 2011 12:53?

And remember, Prodo Faggins, your continued refusal to answer legitimate questions is an embarrassment to 9/11 "truth movement," Laurie Van Auken and the alleged "widows."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 24 December, 2011 15:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

UtterFail, I never claimed there was no Silicon in the samples. I claimed that finding Silicon is concrete dust is not surprising.

Your wife must not like like you very much if she lets you spend all your time lying on the internet.

Your repeated stupid-question spam is highly degrading to the quality of this blog. You're doing the equivalent of throwing the chessboard against the wall.

 
At 24 December, 2011 16:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.

No, your never-ending contradictions and 100% fact-free assertions are "degrading to the quality of this blog."

Prodo Faggins contradicts himself again and squeals, "...I never claimed there was no Silicon in the samples."

What's this, Prodo Faggins?

"...You haven't shown that Dr. Jones's microspheres contain Silicon." -- Prodo Faggins, lying and contradicting himself with abandon on 24 December, 2011 10:56, from James B's thread titled, What is Old is New Again.

FAIL.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

So Prodo Faggins, I'll ask you again for the thousandth time.

Question [1]:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Question [2]:

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 15 December, 2011 12:53?

And remember, Prodo Faggins, your continued refusal to answer legitimate questions is an embarrassment to 9/11 "truth movement," Laurie Van Auken and the alleged "widows."

Now hop around like a homo on a hot tin roof and lie through your terracotta teeth again, Prodo Faggins.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 24 December, 2011 16:44, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"You do you know all those iron workers, welders, firefighters, ATF,FBI, and NYC police working for a year to clear Ground Zero didn't see anything pointing to explosives"

Because not one of them reported anything. Half of those guys had prior military experience,they'd all recognize post-blast evidence. I know because NYPD and FDNY would never sell out their dead brothers and sisters for anybody.

Not everyone is stupid like you are.

"MGF, you how do you know that no explosives or powerful incendiaries were present in the WTC7 dust? Were tests done that came up negative? NIST says they never tested for explosives. "

No tests were done because no evidence pointed to the use of explosives. Nothing suspicious was found.


"Dr. Astaneh-Asl's "melting of girders" was consistant with impact and fire?"

We've discussed the good doctor. He never saw that.

" A 40-pound ingot of formerly molten ferrous material was consistent with fire? James Glanz's 3-foot stalagmite of formerly molten steel is consistent with fire?"

Guess what, retard? Not all steel has the same melting point. A lot of steel-types melt at lower temps. Guess what, retard? There were a lot of different steel-types in the WTC. So who fucking cares?


"The sulfidation attack on the FEMA samples was consistent with fire?"

It's consistant with a bunch of things.

"They look exactly like controlled demolition. And the 767s only make it wierder because asymmetrical damage from impact and fires can not cause symmetrical collapse."

The fact is there was nothing symmetrical about any of the collapses that day. Nothing consistent with any controlled demo in the history of controlled demo.

"The actual Al Qaeda conspiracy is not enough because it doesn't explain the intel failures, the air defense failures, the dishonesty of the 9/11 Commission report, or the dishonesty of the NIST report."

It doesn't have to. Al Qaeda did their homework, trained, and got lucky. All of those other things are seperate.

Only a confused and damaged mind tries to connect them.

"How do you know nobody in Washington DC wanted to go into Afghanistan? You make this up! They wanted the pipeline because at the time it was thought that Uzbekistan had vast oil fields. "

HAHAHAHAH! Hey maybe you should read an atlas while you're hanging out in the libarary instead of sexually harassing the librarians.

An oil pipeline would have been connected to the one in Kazakhstan at the Black Sea. Easier terrain, stable political situation. Cheaper.

"If Bush invaded Iraq on the basis of blatant stupidity without 9/11, he could not have won the 2004 election even with the help of the
Supreme Court and Diebold working together."

Bush's 2004 had everything to do with John Kerry, and not 9/11.

Nobody could say if he would have invaded Iraq had 9/11 not happened. I suspect he might have anyway, but not until his second term. Rumsfeld was hell-bent on cutting the military prior to 9/11 so their public actions contradict your conspiracy theory.

 
At 24 December, 2011 17:09, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 24 December, 2011 17:18, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, I've explained the Silicon in the dust 'til I'm blue in the face. You won't learn.

MGF, How do you know none of those iron workers, welders, firefighters, ATF,FBI, and NYC police working for a year to clear Ground Zero didn't report anything pointing to explosives? Who made you the keeper of the reports?

What makes you think NYPD and FDNY had site access when the serious scooping and dumping was begun?

Your claim that no explosives or incendiaries were found because no tests were done because there was no reason to test is just circular reasoning. You need to get out of your social-logic world and try to join the fact-based community.

So melted girders, evaporated steel, a stalagmite of melted steel and a 40-pound ingot of melted ferrous material are not suspicious to you? You are blind.

Are you calling Dr. Astaneh-Asl
a liar? He told PBS he was "melting of girders".

Oh, so now you acknowledge the melted steel and all you can say is "who cares"? You've got the Ian disease. I warned you it was catching.

Pray tell, with what is the sulfidation attack on the FEMA samples consistent? It was consistent with thermate, and Jonathan Cole has showed how thermate can reproduce the thinning and holes.

Your claim that there was nothing symmetrical about any of the collapses is absurd. Many witnesses described the tower collapses as floor by floor by floor. Howe much more symmetrical can you get? You are lying to yourself. Look at the videos of WTC7. The east and west walls come down at the same time. It could hardly be more symmetrical.

The speed, the squibs, reported sounds of explosions and flashes of light--all consistent with controlled demo. How was Danny Jowenko fooled and you were not?

How do you know intel failures and air defense failures are separate? Do you think there is no confluence of interest between the intel and defense communities?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that you have to put the oil pipeline where the oil is.

You seem to be unable to distinguish ideological posturing and window-dressing from substantive actions. You're the kind of naif who's likely to be fooled by Senator Feinstein, who tends to make public statements saying one thing, and then vote the other way.

 
At 24 December, 2011 17:43, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Prodo Faggins squeals, "...I've explained the Silicon in the dust 'til I'm blue in the face. You won't learn."

You haven't explained anything--you lying homosexual degenerate.

Silicon is NOT a byproduct of thermite, thermate or "nanothermite." Jones' samples, moreover, are 8% silicon.

FACT: As long as Jones' microspheres contain Si (silicon), K (potassium) and Ca (calcium), they are NOT derived from thermite.

Alumino-silicate spheres are a byproduct of common office fires. Alumino-silicate spheres are a natural component of fly ash.

You are deliberately missing the point which is that the mineral matter in natural carbon-based fuels forms an ash residue after the fuel is combusted that always contains Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe. Furthermore, Al, Si, K, Ca, and Fe are the most abundant elements in Jones' WTC samples as was revealed by their EDX spectra.

FAIL.

So Prodo Faggins, I'll ask you again for the thousandth time.

Question [1]:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Question [2]:

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 15 December, 2011 12:53?

And remember, Prodo Faggins, your continued refusal to answer legitimate questions is an embarrassment to 9/11 "truth movement," Laurie Van Auken and the alleged "widows."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 24 December, 2011 18:05, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, it's clear that you have no idea of what you're talking about. Thus answering your silly questions is a total waste of time.

 
At 24 December, 2011 18:21, Blogger GuitarBill said...

That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion. Not to mention a pile of 100% fact-free bullshit.

All you've managed to do is squeal, lie, contradict yourself, and move the goat post every time you are confronted with the glaring inconsistencies that characterize your idiotic "argument."

FAIL.

So Prodo Faggins, I'll ask you again for the thousandth time.

Question [1]:

How do you explain the Si (silicon) in Jones' dust samples?

Question [2]:

Then why have you completely FAILED to provide a direct quote from a date PRIOR to 15 December, 2011 12:53?

And remember, Prodo Faggins, your continued refusal to answer legitimate questions is an embarrassment to 9/11 "truth movement," Laurie Van Auken and the alleged "widows."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 
At 24 December, 2011 18:34, Blogger Ian said...

It's amazing how much dumbspam Brian can post at once. He's hysterical. He really can't deal with the fact that he has failed to get the widows questions answered, failed to get a new investigation, and failed to get his models published in academic journals, so he just squeals and squeals.

It will be 2012 soon Brian. Do you think you might actually get something accomplished next year?

 
At 25 December, 2011 10:47, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

So Brina's argument yet again is appeal to ignorance and strawmanning I guess. As always Brian your own arguments prove you're a clown. Astenah Asl, the guy you repeatedly misrepresent, inspected the steel and made no note of signs of explosives, along with SEANoY, the ASCE, & NIST. No one noted signs of explosives. So no reason to waste time or materials on testing. They also didn't test for space beams.

So either privde someone noting signs of anything or go back and play free thinker by yourself.

 
At 25 December, 2011 11:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

ButtGale, for the fifth time at least, there is no mystery about silicon in concrete dust. You're just trying to spam away from your undemonstrated and probably erroneous claims that Dr. Jones's microspheres had silicon in them. That's what you get for relying on lying propaganda websites for your information.

GMS, I never misrepresented Dr. Astaneh-Asl. He told PBS he saw melting of girders. That's what he said.

You don't know what you're talking about. Actually there's a video of Dr. Astaneh Asl examining steel columns and pointing out that their plates are bulged toward the center of the column. He said they were bulged by explosions.

See 0:50 to 1:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyRw7gEKpBQ

Gordon Ross has pictures of box columns with their plates splayed out, as if by explosives inside. Jonathan Cole has pictures of a perimeter column with a plate bulged out, as if by explosives inside. Do your homework.

Can't you see that the cleanup workers are in effect blackmailed, because they know they were exposed to deadly health risks, and they know that if they lose their jobs they will lose their medical insurance and their pensions?

 
At 25 December, 2011 12:23, Blogger GuitarBill said...

Putómatic brays, brays, "for the fifth time at least, there is no mystery about silicon in concrete dust. You're just trying to spam away from your undemonstrated [SIC] and probably erroneous claims that Dr. Jones's microspheres had silicon in them."

That's right, Putómatic, throw Dr. Jones' and his data under the bus. After all, you threw your parents and your country under the bus, so why not throw your fellow lying nut-bag Steven E. Jones under the bus, too. Right, Putómatic?

The only thing you've managed to prove is that you never read Jones' alleged "peer reviewed" paper.

But you're right, I did get my information from "lying propaganda websites." You know, like Jones "nanothermite" paper (I don't dispute his data, I dispute his conclusions).

And who are you to excoriate anyone as a lying propagandist? After all, you're a self-admitted lying propagandist.

So you think the silicon in Jones' samples came from the Portland cement? Well, that's bullshit.

Portland cement's clinker consists of SiO2 (silicon dioxide or Quartz), which has a melting point of 2230 °C (4046 °F).

So how did the SiO2 (silicon dioxide) get into Jones' dust samples (it didn't)? And why doesn't Jones' spectra show significant amounts SiO2?

Are you seriously trying to propose that the "nanothermite" melted the SiO2 in the concrete? (and never mind that concrete is one of the best heat sinks known to man).

You keep sniffing that model airplane glue.

And keep doing your best to avoid acknowledging the most obvious source of alumino-silicate and iron-rich microspheres (ie., the office material and the fly ash). M'kay Putómatic?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home