Is Dylan Avery Luke Skywalker?
I'm mostly impressed that anybody bothered to watch Star Wars 2 and 3; after the travesty that was the Phantom Menace I gave up. As usual, Truthers think that because a major event was caused by a gigantic plot in a movie somewhere, that means that all major events are gigantic plots.
posted by Pat @ 12:33 AM
134 comments
134 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
No Dylan Avery is Darth Vader. He went to the "Dark Side", remember?
Dylan AVERy = VADER
Dylan AVERy = VADER
OMG totally. And look at these two photos -- see any similarities?
Well, you didn't miss much with Episode II. It might actually be worse than the first one. III isn't bad, although it doesn't hold a candle to "The Empire Strikes Back" or the original.
What a galactically stupid post, even for Pat.
So, Coward: did the melted iron come from the torches you pointed to before backpedaling, or the cement, which didn't have any iron as an aggregate? Have James help you: he said "we have all the forensic evidence".
The source of the iron microspheres was cutting torches at the cleanup site. That's a fully documented and proven fact.
So the whole plot twist from the Truthers is based on Star Wars episode 2 and 3?
ROTFLMFAO!
I concur with RGT's statement and I'll addthat since the clean up took 9 months, that means rust was also present in the clean-up effort since the firefighters poured tons of water on the burning debris from the Hudson River.
A little known fact that Truthers tend to ignore.
RGT, dust samples containing microspheres were recovered before the cleanup operations began. Pray tell, how did cutting torch microspheres wind up in Janette MacKinlay's apartment across the street?
"That's a fully documented and proven fact." -Testicles for brains.
aaaand FALSE! You're not even trying. Samples with melted iron were collected before the clean-up even started, dipshit.
The question is: why doesn't Pat or James correct the idiots when they say stupid shit? Why don't they correct their own errors, when they're shown to them. Do they WANT false information disseminated on their site?
Why would that possibly be?
Samples with melted iron were collected before the clean-up even started, dipshit.
Source?
dust samples containing microspheres were recovered before the cleanup operations began.
Source?
Pray tell, how did cutting torch microspheres wind up in Janette MacKinlay's apartment across the street?
Stupid question. Bet you can't explain what the dust in your apartment consist of (let me give you a hint: it comes from your body).
I noticed that while the idiots ask snug and me to do their work for them, Pat and James have shut the fuck up again. They've seen the info about samples being collected that very day, as well as just days later by the USGS.
Why don't they want to say anything?
What are they so afraid to discuss about their "research"? Are they really interested in the facts?
Superlogicalthinker over at JREF is actually Brian.
Brian talks about thermodynamics here and "superlogicalthinker" is also talking about the same thing.
Someone should ask superlogicalthinker what does he think about the people over here on SLC. See if anything slips.
Cowardly, Chris Mohr has an independant scientist working on those dust samples right now. As soon as those results come in we'll see if those iron-rich spheres were caused by thermite or not.
If not then you've got a shitload of explaining to do.
I noticed that while the idiots ask snug and me to do their work for them,
It's not their work. It's your work. You made the assertion.
You have a favourite source on this topic, but you're reluctant to specify it.
You're pretending that it still wouldn't be a mystery to find melted iron where there shouldn't be any. It can't be that difficult to understand so you're either feigning ignorance, or you're really that stupid. I can't help you either way, son.
And Pat and James are still afraid to show their chubby faces in a real debate. Why is that?
What are they trying to keep people here from knowing? Shouldn't they be concerned that people like Ian and RGT act so pathetically misinformed?
Shouldn't they be concerned that people like Ian and RGT act so pathetically misinformed?
If I'm misinformed, why do I know so much more about 9/11 than you do?
Here, read this. It may help you understand why you get so many things wrong.
*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*
I think I see Pat and James cowering under their blanket of lies, making spheres in their pants.
I think I see Pat and James cowering under their blanket of lies, making spheres in their pants.
So. No source on the iron microspheres, I see. You may as well concede the cutting-torch theory, since you're unable to refute it.
"The source of the iron microspheres was cutting torches at the cleanup site. That's a fully documented and proven fact"
...except you'll never show anyone where it's 'fully documented and proven', and now you're backpedaling in shame, calling it a 'theory'. 10 minutes ago it was a 'proven fact'. How much more obvious can you make your stupid childish games, little boy?
and now you're backpedaling in shame, calling it a 'theory'. 10 minutes ago it was a 'proven fact'.
Why can't it be both? Oh, that's right. You have a thought disorder.
Wow. It must really hurt to be so stupid. I guess providing the source where it's 'proven' is far beyond your pathetic abilities too.
James, Pat: help this guy out, will you? Are you just going to sit there and let this fool dangle around like this?
Oh yeah. That's what testicles do.
Wow. It must really hurt to be so stupid.
I wouldn't know.
You're an interesting creature, Cowardly. You're a very articulate writer, constrained by simplistic thinking. You have the intellectual arrogance of a 23-year-old who grew up being the smartest kid in the room. Keep learning and reading and maybe someday you'll understand 9/11 enough to contribute something.
Blah Blah Blah Blah...
First it was "proven fact", but you can't provide a source. Then it was a theory, and then it was both.
You're a fool. Plain and simple. You have no grasp of the facts of 9/11, and Pat and James are content to watch you make an idiot of yourself. Congratulations on contributing nothing.
First it was "proven fact", but you can't provide a source. Then it was a theory, and then it was both.
That's exactly what I'm talking about. You need your facts in unambiguous categories before you can process them, like a child needs his food not touching. It's an intellectual weakness.
If you're so committed to 9/11 Truth, why not go and help the 911debunkers come up with some non-laughable arguments? You might do some good there, rather than hanging around here getting your ass kicked all night.
Pat,
I see the "truthers" have managed to hijack another thread. To be specific, the posts at time stamps 27 January, 2012 09:44 and 27 January, 2012 10:42.
So Pat, when do you plan to put a stop to this nonsense?
"Pray tell, how did cutting torch microspheres wind up in Janette MacKinlay's apartment across the street?"
They didn't collecty dust from the street? Some appartment is hardly a neutral location.
Sloppy.
No Dylan Avery is Darth Vader. He went to the "Dark Side", remember?
Dylan AVERy = VADER
If anything, he's Jar Jar Binks.
I noticed that while the idiots ask snug and me to do their work for them, Pat and James have shut the fuck up again. They've seen the info about samples being collected that very day, as well as just days later by the USGS.
Probably because noone gives a rat's ass what any troofer has to say anymore, and coming here at all is just useful as an exercise in trolling the internet trolls, and idiots like snug and yourself fall into our traps on a daily basis.
9/11 Truth is dead.
It's not their work. It's your work. You made the assertion.
Precisely. Trooftards come in here all hot and bothered about some new magic demolition tool that fits whatever is in the environment at any given moment, and then demand that WE prove it exists for them (because they can't do it themselves. because it doesn't exist. Because they are morons who are gullible to believe in anything, no matter how retarded, as long as it fits with thier preconceptions about how "evil" the government is")
You're pretending that it still wouldn't be a mystery to find melted iron where there shouldn't be any.
Iron? Who uses that anymore for constructing a STEEL high rise building? Iron is brittle, like the Titanic, it's prone to cracking.
Think harder next time you twit.
Dylan Avery is that little pet that Jabba the Hut has. You know that little guy who has a beak like mouth and is constantly laughing?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7974031#post7974031
Looks like Brian, aka SuperLogicalThinker, is talking about Jon Cole, thermite and all that other shit that Brian poted on here long ago.
Same old same old.
Looks like Brian, aka SuperLogicalThinker, is talking about Jon Cole, thermite and all that other shit that Brian poted on here long ago.
Yup. Just wait until SuperLogicalThinker starts babbling about Willie Rodriguez for no reason.
I'm endlessly amused by Brian's assertion that both thermite and explosives were used. Apparently, the conspirators wanted to make the operation as unnecessarily complicated as possible. Hence the use of aircraft as well.
Ian, perhaps the function of using both thermite and explosives would be to cause confusion that would fatigue lazy and simple-minded analysts such as yourself.
Kind of like a murderer might use poison AND a knife, or a knife and a gun, or try to cover up a 9mm bullet hole with a shotgun blast.
I guess you don't understand that devious people sometimes do devious things for devious reasons.
Ian, perhaps the function of using both thermite and explosives would be to cause confusion that would fatigue lazy and simple-minded analysts such as yourself.
Yes, perhaps. More likely, however, is that you're desperately grasping at straws because you're a delusional liar and obsessed lunatic for whom 9/11 truth is the only thing making life worth living. You're looking forward to the day when you will be vindicated, and all the "girls" who mocked you will be sorry.
Kind of like a murderer might use poison AND a knife, or a knife and a gun, or try to cover up a 9mm bullet hole with a shotgun blast.
Or kind of like how an unemployed janitor with a history of mental illness and a taste for wearing women's underwear might become interested in a loony conspiracy theory.
I guess you don't understand that devious people sometimes do devious things for devious reasons.
No, I understand that, but it's not applicable here. What is applicable, is how a paranoid lunatic and obsessed liar might fall for crackpot conspiracy theories.
That's why you should seek professional help, Brian.
Ian, either I will be vindicated or I will be shown to be wrong. The poor quality of the counterargument I get on objective issues such as the laws of thermodynamics makes me pretty confident that I'm not wrong. If you guys had any real arguments you would not need to resort to blatant lies.
I don't have a conspiracy theory. I have a stack of government reports that are incomplete and blatantly dishonest.
Ian, either I will be vindicated or I will be shown to be wrong.
You have already been shown to be wrong.
The poor quality of the counterargument I get on objective issues such as the laws of thermodynamics makes me pretty confident that I'm not wrong.
Right, because you're delusional. There's a reason you're a failed janitor and not a professor of physics.
If you guys had any real arguments you would not need to resort to blatant lies.
See what I mean? You think we're lying. Delusional.
I don't have a conspiracy theory. I have a stack of government reports that are incomplete and blatantly dishonest.
And one more example of delusional thinking. Thanks for proving my point.
Ian, I have not been shown to be wrong. The responses have been lies, bluff, and bluster.
I am not a professor of physics largely because I never wanted to be a professor of physics. If you had any real arguments you would not need to invent blatant lies.
If you want to see delusional, look in the mirror. You fit the classic criteria exactly:
certainty, incorrigibility, and falsity of beliefs.
Ian, I have not been shown to be wrong. The responses have been lies, bluff, and bluster.
False.
I am not a professor of physics largely because I never wanted to be a professor of physics.
Well, whatever you wanted to be, you failed at it, given that you're unemployed, live with your parents, and spend all day posting spam about magic thermite elves all over the internet.
If you want to see delusional, look in the mirror. You fit the classic criteria exactly:
certainty, incorrigibility, and falsity of beliefs.
My, such squealing!
The Death Star widows have 327 unanswered questions. Here are only a few:
Why did the Empire leak the plans to the Bothen spies in the first place?
They track the plans to a ship from Alderan carrying a "princess" whom we later learn is the daughter of Darth Vader, the Neo-Syth head of Empire security. Vader claimed he didn't know she was his daughter at the time, why should we believe him?
The "princess" loads the plans into a droid, and this droid escapes to Tattooine (the planet below) accompanoied by a protocol droid named C3PO. C3PO was build from scratch by Darth Vader as a child. Did he put a tracking device inside the droid? If so, why didn't he know his own droid was on the ship?
The droids are soon "captured" by Jawas and "sold". Not just to anyone, Darth Vader's step-brother Owen. In fact Vader's protocol droid, C3P0 is crucial in the sale of R2D2 to Owen, even though the droid has no prior experience with moister vaporators. Why does no one find this strange?
Darth Vader was born on Tattooine, yet seemed oblivious to the planet's political structure? Why?
Then the droids are handed over to Luke Skywalker, or all people, who allows a droid to escape, and this droid leads him to one of the two remaining Jedi Knights still alive in the entire galaxy. Are we to believe Vader, a Neo-Syth, was clueless his son would receive stolen plans from his daughter, and take them to Obiwan Kenobi?
What about reports stating at one point before the attack both Skywalker children were onboard the Death Star, yet allowed to escape with an Empiral tracking beacon? Why were they allowed to escape? The Empire reported Vader "killed" Kenobi, but there was no body.
Why was Vader allowed to fly intercept during the attack?
Why didn't he shoot down the fighter piloted by his son?
What about the reports of a Carillion freighter seen shadowing the remaining attack force?
It thinks it's funny. That's pathetic.
Where was the Emperor during the atack?
Why did they take so long after they analyzed the attack strategy to scramble fighters?
How could the attacking X-Wing hit a small exhuast port after it had turned off it's targeting computer?
It's impossible to mak the Kessel Run in less than 12 Parsecs, I don't care what you're flying.
I love the Star Wars 9/11 Question parody too, but ironically, you've got to admit, there are actually some pretty sinister answers to some of those questions if you start to answer them.
It thinks it's funny. That's pathetic.
And Brian is calling people "it" again. Brian really reminds me of Buffalo Bill from The Silence of the Lambs, especially with all the cross-dressing, the creepy stalking of women, and his weird loner personality.
Brian, do you dance naked in front of a mirror asking the reflection if it would fuck you? Actually, don't answer that question. There are a lot of things I don't want to know about you.
It thinks it's clever.
It thinks it's clever.
Poor Brian. He's been reduced to squealing and calling people "it". That's how much of an abject failure his "truth" efforts have been.
I suppose this wouldn't be the best time to ask if your invisible "widows" have had their questions answered....
To my knowledge I have no invisible widows. You're just babbling. You live in your own fantasy Unianverse.
To my knowledge I have no invisible widows. You're just babbling. You live in your own fantasy Unianverse.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Poor Brian. He's a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and believes in modified attack baboons.
Say, speaking of just making stuff up, did Chris Kyle ever produce any corroborating witnesses to his alleged punching of Jesse Ventura?
He said he was going to produce them.
Will y'all maintain your belief in Mr. Kyle's veracity even if he fails to produce the witnesses he said he was going to offer?
Isn't it kind of dishonest to write a gloating feature about a guy and then fail to follow up with his apparent inability to corroborate it?
So Brian, are you going to follow up with Dr. Sunder to see if he believes the towers fell at free-fall? How about following up with with Dr. Assanteh-Asl to see if he thinks there was molten steel in the towers?
I mean, you're a serious researcher, so you want to make sure you've confirmed your claims, right? You aren't just desperately grasping at straws, right?
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...Isn't it kind of dishonest to write a gloating feature about a guy and then fail to follow up with his apparent inability to corroborate it?"
No, it's not "dishonest" at all.
It's not SLC's responsibility to "follow up" on Kyle's testimony. Nor was it SLC's responsibility to confirm Kyle's story. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the broadcasters of the original radio program, Opie and Anthony.
In fact, it's dishonest for you to shift the burden of responsibility for corroborating Kyle's story from Opie and Anthony to SLC--to say nothing of your continued attempts to hijack the thread with off-topic nonsense.
Thus, we can see another clear example of the dishonesty that characterizes every comment you make to SLC.
"Say, speaking of just making stuff up, did Chris Kyle ever produce any corroborating witnesses to his alleged punching of Jesse Ventura?"
Translation:
Did Chris produce witnesses to misdemeanor assult that could land him in the can for 6 months, face fines, and a lawsuit?
Yeah, I'll hold my breath.
*Hint*: What has Jesse said?
Chris said he was going to produce corroborating witnesses
So he was lying? He's not going to prodice witnesses?
RGT, thanks for the link to the article on Wired. Interesting stuff.
I am not a professor of physics largely because I never wanted to be a professor of physics
And yet the dipshit throws out physics anyways.
I have a stack of government reports that are incomplete and blatantly dishonest.
It's funny how those Government documents are classified still to protect National Security.
So Brian ignores me when I called him out about being "SuperLogicalThinker" on JREF. Figures he doesn't want to even respond to me about that.
RGT, dust samples containing microspheres were recovered before the cleanup operations began. Pray tell, how did cutting torch microspheres wind up in Janette MacKinlay's apartment across the street?
Brian, when did Janette Mackinlay collect her samples? Hmmm?
Pat, great question but everyone here knows that Brian will have a long winded excuse and continue to ignore any questions directed at him.
BTW: I'd like someone to go over to JREF and confront Brian, aka "SuperLogicalThinker". You should see the silliness there and it's the same lame boring BS that Brian posts here on a daily basis.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=7979092#post7979092
Pat, you know full well that Janette collected her samples about a week after 9/11. You didn't answer my question. How did microspheres from cleanup operations get into her apartment across the street from WTC 4? Do iron microspheres blow around on the breeze?
You don't mention that another sample was collected by Mr. Frank Delessio ten minutes after WTC1 collapsed. That sample also contained microspheres, and they could not have been from cleanup operations.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/articles/WTCHighTemp2.pdf
Who cares?
What about the samples at the Pile?
That sample also contained microspheres, and they could not have been from cleanup operations.
Iron microspheres are common. There's no indication that those two samples contained abnormally high concentrations. They do not even appear consistent with each other.
The authors of that paper additionally conclude, without evidence, that the microspheres were formed at the time of the WTC event.
Pat, you know full well that Janette collected her samples about a week after 9/11. You didn't answer my question. How did microspheres from cleanup operations get into her apartment across the street from WTC 4? Do iron microspheres blow around on the breeze?
See what I mean?
Pat asked a question and all he got back were more questions. Typcial clueless brain dead zombie you are Brian.
Towers constructed near water (both fresh and salt) = iron oxide
Clean-up efforts taking 9 MONTHS and weatherization = iron oxide
Water being poured on burning debris for about 2 months = iron oxide
Torches used in clean-up effort = iron spheres and iron oxide
Brian never stops to think of the concequences of these actions.
RGT, what gives you the idea that iron micropsheres are common? RJ Lee found them singular enough that they used them as a marker to distinguish WTC dust from ordinary dust.
Why would you expect the samples to be consistent? One was taken from across the street, two were taken from about 6 blocks away, and one was taken at about 8 blocks away. Wouldn't high-density components like iron microspheres tend to settle out of the dust as it moved through the city? Wouldn't you expect different-sized particles to show different rates of cooling and thus differing properties?
Toothless and Always Wacko, Pat declined to answer my question and he responded with an irrelevant question. I answered his question and added a relevant question.
One of the dust samples in question was taken within minutes of the collapse of WTC1. Two were taken within a few days, and the fourth was taken after a week. Your months of salt air have nothing to do with the iron microspheres.
Brian, your obsession with iron microspheres is hilarious like your obsession with Dr. Sunder and Dr. Assanteh-Asl's quotes. They're thin straws that you desperately grasp at because they allow you to keep your truther delusions going.
Automobile breaks - Iron dust.
Does anybody know if they have cars,and trucks in Manhattan? Are there a lot?
Pat declined to answer my question and he responded with an irrelevant question. I answered his question and added a relevant question.
Ahhh, no you didn't and yes he did.
One of the dust samples in question was taken within minutes of the collapse of WTC1. Two were taken within a few days, and the fourth was taken after a week.
By whom? Provide a source or STFU.
Your months of salt air have nothing to do with the iron microspheres.
Prove me wrong you little faggot. Show me a source the prove me wrong. Come on limp dick.
Brian, your obsession with iron microspheres is hilarious like your obsession with Dr. Sunder and Dr. Assanteh-Asl's quotes.
Ian, you should see him crying about iron microspheres at JREF (SuperLogicalThinker). Hilarious!
Does anybody know if they have cars,and trucks in Manhattan? Are there a lot?
MGF, according to Brian (the brainless wonder) cars and trucks don't exist because they don't rust.
Ian, straws are organic. Iron is inorganic. There's nothing thin about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Assanteh-Asl's quotes. They are quite solid. You're babbling.
MGF, where did you get the idea that automobile "breaks" are made of iron?
The Duchess of Palo Alto lies, "...RGT, what gives you the idea that iron micropsheres are common? RJ Lee found them singular enough that they used them as a marker to distinguish WTC dust from ordinary dust."
Still trying to hijack the thread and pass off iron-rich micropsheres as "iron micropsheres"?
There were no "iron micropsheres" found at Ground Zero. I've proven this over-and-over again. And you're still a thread hijacking degenerate.
Iron is inorganic.
Iron and steel contains the same material that us humans have: CARBON.
So we're "inorganic" now? Tell us about how we are fag.
Ian, straws are organic. Iron is inorganic. There's nothing thin about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Assanteh-Asl's quotes. They are quite solid. You're babbling.
See what I mean? Desperately clinging to delusions that normal people dismiss out of hand.
Of course, Brian is insane enough to believe in widows with questions, so this is just par for the course.
"...Iron and steel contains the same material that us humans have: CARBON."
No, iron (Fe) is an element. Steel, on the other hand, is an alloy that contains between 0.2% and 2.1% carbon by weight.
RJ Lee found them singular enough that they used them as a marker to distinguish WTC dust from ordinary dust.
RJ Lee used the high concentrations of iron plus additional elements to distinguish WTC dust. Not simple presence of iron microspheres.
Why would you expect the samples to be consistent? One was taken from across the street, two were taken from about 6 blocks away, and one was taken at about 8 blocks away.
You're answering your own question. The inconsistency between the samples indicates that their composition cannot be attributed to WTC dust alone.
Ian, you should see him crying about iron microspheres at JREF (SuperLogicalThinker). Hilarious!
I see that he's been suspended there. Heh, it never takes long for Brian's lies and insane babbling to get him kicked out of whatever internet forum he's spamming. This is the only place he can post his idiocy without repercussions, so that's why he'll never leave, no matter how much we make fun of him.
He'll continue to squeal and call us "girls" because he has nowhere else to go.
No, iron (Fe) is an element. Steel, on the other hand, is an alloy that contains between 0.2% and 2.1% carbon by weight.
Thanks! Prove that there's carbon.
I see that he's been suspended there.
Brian should look for a new hobby. He should do some bird watching.
^
^
^
My other post I meant "Proof that there's carbon."
Yes, steel contains a small amount carbon. Carbon is a common alloying element along with manganese, chromium, vanadium, and tungsten (See Engineering Materials, by Michael F. Ashby, and David R. H. Jones).
And yes, steel is an alloy that consists primarily of iron. The alloying elements are added in varying quantities in order to control the hardness and tensile strength of the steel.
My point is that iron (Fe) by itself does not contain carbon. After all, iron (Fe) is an element. Steel, on the other hand, always contains a certain amount of carbon.
Ok, since we got the carbon issue situated, does Brian have anything to say about it?
What's to say? You're an idiot, ButtGale is a pedant, SOS.
What's to say? You're an idiot, ButtGale is a pedant, SOS.
Thanks for proving our point. You're just babbling incoherently about "iron microspheres" because it sounds scientific and you can delude yourself into believing it's a smoking gun for 9/11 truth.
Also, you wear women's underwear.
Ian, I'm not babbling about anything, it's ButtGale who's trying to wax scientific, I never said the microspheres were a smoking gun, and you don't know anything about my underwear.
The microspheres have not been explained. They therefore deserve further examination. Since they were present in dust collected well before cleanup operations began, they can not be solely from cleanup operations.
Ian, I'm not babbling about anything, it's ButtGale who's trying to wax scientific, I never said the microspheres were a smoking gun, and you don't know anything about my underwear.
My, such squealing!
The microspheres have not been explained. They therefore deserve further examination.
See? You're babbling about microspheres.
Since they were present in dust collected well before cleanup operations began, they can not be solely from cleanup operations.
Nobody cares.
"Squealing", "babbling", and "nobody cares", are just your way of conceding that you don't have an argument.
"Squealing", "babbling", and "nobody cares", are just your way of conceding that you don't have an argument.
I have an argument. My argument is that there is not a shred of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.
You choose to ignore that argument and repeat the same nonsense you've been posting for years.
Why should I repeat my argument for the millionth time? It's far more fun to mock you for being a failed janitor who wears women's underwear and babbles about invisible widows.
http://911scholars.ning.com/profile/BrianGood
Just look at yourself, Brian. Even if you had evidence and logic on your side, you'd probably still have a hard time convincing anyone, just based on that hideous haircut of yours.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...I'm not babbling about anything, it's ButtGale who's trying to wax scientific, I never said the microspheres were a smoking gun...[blah][blah][blah]."
I'm not trying to "wax scientific," jackass. I made corrections to obvious mistakes and misconceptions, and in the process I pointed out that the investigation of Ground Zero yielded not one "iron microsphere."
Iron-rich and alumino-silicate microspheres were found at Ground Zero. Both are a byproduct of office fires and both were anticipated by the investigators.
You're trying to con the reader by deliberately omitting the word rich from iron-rich microspheres. The deliberate omission is made in order to offer the "thermitic reaction" con as "the only probable explanation," where you'll point to the following thermitic reaction as the source of the mythical "iron microspheres:"
Fe2O3 + 2Al → Al2O3 + 2Fe
But that's a con because the iron-rich microspheres are not composed of elemental iron (e.g., "iron microspheres"), they are, in fact, composed of many elements including oxygen, potassium, aluminum, iron and most problematic of all, silicon.
And as long as the microspheres are composed of the aforementioned elements your "thermitic reaction" dog won't hunt.
Now stop trying to hijack the damned thread and behave like an adult, Duchess.
"The microspheres have not been explained. "
Yeah they have over at the JREF, your belief , like all troofers, is religious in nature and not fact based.
You just don't like the answer because it takes away your precious nanothermite-bullshit theory.
Ian, since I never said 9/11 was an inside job, your argument is a straw doll.
Re: haircuts--tell it to Einstein, Scheisskopf.
UtterFail, what evidence have you that iron-rich microspheres are a normal product of office fires?
Why do you think the presence of other elements is problematic? The red-gray chips had many elements in them, and sol-gel nanothermitic formulations might involve a whole lot of silicon.
MGF, I have no nanothermite theory, and have no need of one.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Duchess of Palo Alto squeals, "...what evidence have you that iron-rich microspheres are a normal product of office fires?"
How many times do you plan to ask that stupid question, Duchess? You're going to get the same answer.
Answer: The RJ Lee Report.
"...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.
There's nothing strange or unusual about the presence of iron-rich or alumino-silicate microspheres at Ground Zero. Both are a byproduct of office fires and both were anticipated by the investigators, as the RJ Lee Report makes clear.
But that idiotic question doesn't explain why you constantly mislead the reader with the propaganda term "iron microspheres."
Nor does it explain why you constantly hijack the threads with off-topic nonsense.
You're a conspiracy theory spewing nut, a liar and a troll who wears women's underwear.
Ian, since I never said 9/11 was an inside job, your argument is a straw doll.
So why do you endlessly babble about magic thermite and invisible, silent explosives if you don't think it was an inside job?
Re: haircuts--tell it to Einstein, Scheisskopf.
Einstein was a revolutionary thinker who changed science. You're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.
MGF, I have no nanothermite theory, and have no need of one.
So you want the government to start a new investigation into....what exactly? You have no theory.
And of course you have no theory. You don't have a shred of evidence that "nanothermite" was used to destroy the towers. You're just babbling about it because it allows you to keep your delusions about 9/11 going.
ButtGale, what evidence other than the RJ Lee report do you have that iron-rich microspheres are normally found in office fires? How do you know that RJ Lee didn't simply work backwards from the fact that they found iron-rich spheres to the assumption that they are normally found in office fires?
Ian, I don't babble about magic anything or silent explosives. There's nothing magic about thermite. Explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would not transmit much noise to the outside.
So how often do you go to the hairdresser, Ian?
I want a new investigation into the 7 essential mysteries that NIST dodged, squealing and crying.
There is certainly evidence of nanothermite in the form of the red-gray chips. There is much evidence in the form of publications of LLNL researchers that nanothermite exists. There is also much evidence in the form of the behavior of the buildings that explosives and/or incendiaries were used.
Ian, I don't babble about magic anything or silent explosives. There's nothing magic about thermite. Explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would not transmit much noise to the outside.
Since there's nothing magic about thermite, you'll concede that it isn't used to demolish buildings?
Also, how did the explosives manage to demolish the buildings if they weren't even powerful enough to breach their own containers?
So how often do you go to the hairdresser, Ian?
Brian, we're not talking about me. We're talking about you and that hideous homeless mullet you have.
I want a new investigation into the 7 essential mysteries that NIST dodged, squealing and crying.
Nobody cares. The government isn't in the business of investigating the delusions of a failed janitor and glue-sniffing liar who wears women's underwear.
There is certainly evidence of nanothermite in the form of the red-gray chips.
False.
There is much evidence in the form of publications of LLNL researchers that nanothermite exists.
Nobody cares.
There is also much evidence in the form of the behavior of the buildings that explosives and/or incendiaries were used.
Brian, I've already told you 100 times that your delusions are not evidence of anything other than your own mental illness.
Explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would not transmit much noise to the outside.
I think this needs to be re-posed for the glorious insanity of it.
Brian claims explosives brought down the towers. We point out that there was no sound of explosions as the towers collapsed. His solutions?
1, The sound of the explosions were drowned out by the roar of the collapsing buildings. Apparently on planet petgoat, demolition charges go off after the building starts to collapse
2, The explosions were kept inside their own containers and thus could not be heard. Apparently on planet petgoat, explosives that are too weak to breach their containers can nevertheless be strong enough to knock down skyscrapers. Not sure how that works. Maybe they've invented a way to teleport shockwaves?
This is why you're so wildly entertaining, Brian. It's not just your terrible haircut that has me laughing. It's the way you confidently propose batshit insane theories as to why the WTC towers collapsed. You're simply too stupid and insane to understand how stupid and insane you are. Dunning-Kruger at its finest.
And of course, you were too stupid and insane to understand why everyone laughed at your idiotic/insane "meatball on a fork" scribbles at Democratic Underground.
The idiots here and at JREF think that the RJ Lee report said melted iron was 'expected in office fires', yet no one can substantiate this ridiculous claim from the report itself. It clearly says melted iron was expected to be found in the dust from the WTC, which is a totally different statement. Why can't Fat Pat and GurgleBile understand this?
"Explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would not transmit much noise to the outside."
Does Brian live alone, or does he have someone to take care of him? I'm a little worried.
What's to say? You're an idiot, ButtGale is a pedant, SOS.
We know Brian, you like to remind usthat you're still a 5 yr. old inside a 50+ yr. old body.
The microspheres have not been explained.
The RJ Lee report said they were EXPECTED. Learn to read you illiterate jackass.
Ian, since I never said 9/11 was an inside job
Brian's trying to act like his idol/hero Dylan Avery.
It clearly says melted iron was expected.
Wow, no where in the RJ Lee report does it say that. Unless you're trying ot read between the lines then that's on you fool.
Does Brian live alone, or does he have someone to take care of him? I'm a little worried.
He lives in an apartment. That's all I know.
I got this from WhyAskQuestions last night:
http://tribune-democrat.com/bigstory/x1296875723/Former-Johnstown-school-burns
Apparently the abandoned school's roof collapsed due to a 4 alarm fire that broke out around 5 AM yesterday morning.
Brian's gonna say: "It was thermite, not fire."
The idiots here and at JREF think that the RJ Lee report said melted iron was 'expected in office fires', yet no one can substantiate this ridiculous claim from the report itself. It clearly says melted iron was expected to be found in the dust from the WTC, which is a totally different statement. Why can't Fat Pat and GurgleBile understand this?
The idiots in the troof moo-vement seem to think that any of the unsubstantiable claims they make up matter. Yeah, that's why Dick Cheney is currently in jail waiting to be hanged for rigging thermite charges in the WTC.
ZOMG! IRON HAS NEVER EVER MELTED IN HISTORY BEFORE, EVER! IT MUST BE SUPER-DUPERNANOTHERMITE! THAT'S ALL IT COULD POSSIBLY BE! MICROSPHERES ONLY COME FROM THERMITE! THIS IS %100 THE TROOF BECAUSE ME AND 2000 OTHER POOL CONSTRUCTORS AND A GUY WHO MAKES BARNS SIGNED AN INTERNET PETITION THAT SAYS SO!!!! YOU DUMMY DUMBUNKERS HAVE NOTHING!!!
It clearly says melted iron was expected to be found in the dust from the WTC, which is a totally different statement.
Page 16 says, unambiguously, that melted iron was expected to be found in the dust because of the fire. The report mentions no other sources.
One would have to be severely mentally retarded to dismiss thousands of gallons of jet fuel as an "office fire".
Ian, it's very clear that you know nothing about buckling of columns under load.
MR, do you have a point? Do you claim that explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would transmit lots of noise to the outside? ON what basis would you claim this?
Billman, Bush has admitted to crimes against the Constitution and war crimes. Shall we take the fact that he is not in jail as evidence that these crimes were never committed?
Billman, last time I checked, AE911Truth had 50 structural engineers and 40 high-rise architects, 46 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers. That was about a year ago. If you have to lie to preserve your beliefs, maybe you should question your beliefs.
Ian, it's very clear that you know nothing about buckling of columns under load.
See what I mean? Brian is so stupid and insane, he thinks he's making sense when he posts this dumbspam.
MR, do you have a point? Do you claim that explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would transmit lots of noise to the outside? ON what basis would you claim this?
Brian, our point is that explosives that didn't breach their containers would not do any damage to the structural steel. That you can't see this goes a long way towards explaining why you're so confused about 9/11. And why you're a failed janitor who believes in invisible widows.
Billman, last time I checked, AE911Truth had 50 structural engineers and 40 high-rise architects, 46 PhD engineers, 10 Stanford engineers. That was about a year ago. If you have to lie to preserve your beliefs, maybe you should question your beliefs.
Nobody cares about your tiny crackpot movement.
And today being Groundhog Day and all, I'd like to ask Brian where he came up with his name "punxsutawneybarney".
Let me guess: you have a theory that Dick Cheney released groundhogs with spray-on nanothermite on their teeth to chew through the columns at the WTC.
Let me guess: you have a theory that Dick Cheney released groundhogs with spray-on nanothermite on their teeth to chew through the columns at the WTC.
If snug sees his shadow today, it means ten more years of Troof.
"...released groundhogs with spray-on nanothermite..."
The fact that Ian and Pat think this is hilarious says a lot about them. I guess when you can't lie about a mass-casualty event, the best thing to do is joke about it, huh Ian?
Maybe that's why your superiors didn't think enough of your services to keep you employed. Oh, and say I'm someone I'm not again. It makes you and Pat so credible.
The fact that Ian and Pat think this is hilarious says a lot about them. I guess when you can't lie about a mass-casualty event, the best thing to do is joke about it, huh Ian?
I'm far more amused by the whining of a scrawny, unemployed virgin with a ratty beard.
Maybe that's why your superiors didn't think enough of your services to keep you employed. Oh, and say I'm someone I'm not again. It makes you and Pat so credible.
Squeal squeal squeal!
C'mon Pat Cowardly, I'm waiting for you to state how you've kicked all our asses and the debunkers have lost.
I'm sure you made the same proclamations of victory over Burger King the day they fired you.
"The fact that Ian and Pat think this is hilarious says a lot about them. I guess when you can't lie about a mass-casualty event, the best thing to do is joke about it, huh Ian?"
It's better than using a mass-casualty event to advance your own political agenda. At least Al Qaeda had the balls to put it on the line. You and your bit-sniffing troofer friends want to take their work away from them so you can insert your own boogy man.
"Explosives planted inside substantial steel containers that were not breached by the explosion would not transmit much noise to the outside."
This is where Brian's lack of knowledge about steel, construction, demolition, and explosives comes together into a comment known as a turdloid ( a factoid so devoid of facts it sits and stinks).
In Bwian's wittle world one can place explosives inside a steel cotaier, excuse me, a SUBSTANTIAL steel container, would not make any noisewhen detonated. The problems are these:
1: The explosives need to breach the "substanial steel container".
2: They need to have enough focused energy to damage to steel structure of the building itself.
3: They can't make any noise.
There is only one place this can happen: Outer Space - where sound cannot travel in a vaccuum.
Down here on earth - away from Brian Good's fantasy world - that kind of blast would be what demolitions experets would label as "Fucking Loud".
Loud enough to break windows, crack plaster, set off car alarms, and generally be heard up to five miles away.
This theory has so many holes it's almost a vaccum.
And today being Groundhog Day and all, I'd like to ask Brian where he came up with his name "punxsutawneybarney". - Ian
Maybe Brian screwed Phil's cousin named Barney?!
Loud enough to break windows, crack plaster, set off car alarms, and generally be heard up to five miles away. - MGF
According to witnesses in Harrisburg, PA on July 3, 1863 the battle of Gettysburg could be heard, due to the echoes bouncing off the hillsides and winds that day from the roar of cannon fire.
But Brian would say that it wasn't cannon fire they heard, but dynamite or super secret silent (but deadly) nano thermite.
New study:
Believing the impossible and conspiracy theories
January 26, 2012
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-01-believing-impossible-conspiracy-theories.html
"Distrust and paranoia about government has a long history, and the feeling that there is a conspiracy of elites can lead to suspicion for authorities and the claims they make. For some, the attraction of conspiracy theories is so strong that it leads them to endorse entirely contradictory beliefs, according to a study in the current Social Psychological and Personality Science."
Ian, your belief that explosives must breach the hollow columns to damage them shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Simply bulging the walls out would cause stress concentrations that might well induce buckling.
MGF, you don't know what you're talking about. Explosives need not breach the hollow core columns.
It doesn't necessarily take focused energy to damage the columns--bulging the walls might be sufficient--especially if those column walls had been softened by spray-on nanothermite.
The explosives can make noise, and since people heard explosions, we can suppose that they did. However, nobody has demonstrated that explosives going off inside a hollow steel box column would transmit a lot of noise to the outside.
bje, sometimes endorsing contradictory beliefs is the sign of a superior and/or scientific mind, such as the belief that light acts like a wave and that it acts like a particle.
The explosives can make noise, and since people heard explosions, we can suppose that they did.
It sounded like a train is what many witnesses described. Are you suggesting that it was a train that they heard?
However, nobody has demonstrated that explosives going off inside a hollow steel box column would transmit a lot of noise to the outside.
Put a fire cracker in your hands, what happens? You burn your hand. Put a firecracker and close your fist, what happens? You blow off your fingers.
Sure Brian, and those explosives failed to damage the "fingers" of the outter columns. You're a fucking idiot you know that, right?
Put a firecracker in a box column built of 4" steel plates and the explosion does nothing at all.
Ian, your belief that explosives must breach the hollow columns to damage them shows that you don't know what you're talking about. Simply bulging the walls out would cause stress concentrations that might well induce buckling.
Even though these explosives aren't powerful enough to breach their containers, they're somehow powerful enough to "bulge" structural steel. Like I said, maybe this is possible on planet petgoat, but not this planet.
The explosives can make noise, and since people heard explosions, we can suppose that they did.
So now we're back to the explosives making noise, even though nobody heard these explosives when the towers collapsed, and even though Brian just babbled about how his explosives could be silent.
bje, sometimes endorsing contradictory beliefs is the sign of a superior and/or scientific mind, such as the belief that light acts like a wave and that it acts like a particle.
Brian, we're not talking about the nature of light. We're talking about explosives, and your idiotic claims that they were heard except when they weren't, that they detonated after the towers began to collapse, and that they destroyed structural steel despite being too weak to breach their containers.
So in other words, we're not talking about a superior mind. We're talking about a mentally ill unemployed janitor.
Put a firecracker in a box column built of 4" steel plates and the explosion does nothing at all.
So now you're arguing that the explosives in their containers couldn't have damaged the structural columns?
That's what we've been saying. Thank you for finally grasping reality.
Put a firecracker in a box column built of 4" steel plates and the explosion does nothing at all.
If it does nothing at all then you're theory is garbage.
Any explosive, when contained in a smaller space, can result in massive damage to any structure it's around.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian, the box column is the container. You're playing dumb in the hopes of confusing people even dumber than you pretend to be.
Explosions can make noise. No one has demonstrated that explosions that do not breach the walls of the box columns inside which they are planted would make significant noise inside.
I didn't say "the explosives" were heard or were not heard. I don't know if there were explosives or not. You are constantly lambasting me on the basis of things I never said.
Truthless, I have no theories involving firecrackers.
Ian, the box column is the container. You're playing dumb in the hopes of confusing people even dumber than you pretend to be.
So in other words your invisible, silent explosives did no damage at all to the structural steel.
Well, that settles it!
Explosions can make noise. No one has demonstrated that explosions that do not breach the walls of the box columns inside which they are planted would make significant noise inside.
Brian, could you cut back on the glue sniffing and try writing this again in English?
I didn't say "the explosives" were heard or were not heard. I don't know if there were explosives or not. You are constantly lambasting me on the basis of things I never said.
Well, if you learned to Google, you'd know there were no explosives. Normal people already know this.
Of course, you're an obsessed lunatic who wears women's underwear who is absolutely convinced that 9/11 was an inside job, so no wonder you babble about invisible, silent explosives.
Ian, that's not what I said. I said that explosives planted inside the hollow box columns might have bulged out the walls of thermite-weakened columns, creating stress concentrations leading to buckling of the columns.
No one has yet provided any evidence that explosives sealed up inside hollow box columns that did not breach the walls of those columns would create significant noise outside the columns.
Post a Comment
<< Home