Bits and Pieces
Uncle Fetzer, Kevin Barrett and Joshua Blakeney are hosting a Truther confab in Vancouver:
The Vancouver Hearings is designed to expand the range of inquiry in relation to the issues addressed at The Toronto Hearings. Those hearings limited themselves to presenting what the organizers considered the “best evidence” against the official version of 9/11, without considering questions of who actually perpetrated the attacks and why. Only limited attention was given to the Pentagon charade, for example, while problems related to the planes and the passengers were not confronted. It was not intended to address the more controversial aspects of 9/11 research.The Vancouver Hearings, by contrast, will present the worst evidence, such as Directed Energy Weapons, North of Citgo, No Planes, etc. And yes, Blakeney will present his "Israel's fingerprints are all over 9-11" evidence:
Joshua Blakeney, “The Likudnik Origins of 9/11” (One hour)The 9-11 Citizen's Commission website is back up, sans any mention of Mike Gravel, or what happened to the approximately $25,000 that was donated to the old website and which Gravel transferred to another campaign. They are now talking about a Massachusetts ballot initiative for the 2014 (!) elections. Should give them plenty of time to raise the dough.
Speaking of an effort that's going to require a little time to gather the loot, consider this $1.5 billion proposal:
Personally, I think it's brilliant. And I suggest to make it an even more powerful testament to the TRUTH, Richard Gage and his gaggle of clowns should be stationed, say, on the fiftieth floor of the rebuilt building, to demonstrate their confidence that the building could not collapse from the fire.
posted by Pat @ 10:57 AM
158 comments
158 Comments:
That video HAS to be a joke, right? There is no way it's a serious proposal, right? I mean, "all you need is courage and money". Sure, all you need is someone who wants to pilot a plane into a building, and the billions of dollars to rebuild a tower for no purpose except to obliterate it.
I'm sure there will be investors lining up around the block for this. GE's commerical aircraft leasing business would love to blow up a plane for no reason. I'm sure Silverstein or a rival like Brookfield want nothing more than to blow up a building for no reason.
They'd be better off asking Brian Good to drop a bird's nest on a post or to try to catch some meatballs on a fork.
Oh, and the video closes with a mangling of the lyrics to "The Star-Spangled Banner". Nice job, everyone involved in this video.
It would almost be worth cost of the plane ticket to go and deluge fetzer with all of the questions and rebuttals I had psoted on the VT story you linked to. If you'll notice towards the end of the comments, fetzer was talking to himself. That's because he deleted every single comment I made over the course of 3 days. The guy is a real tool.
Are they serious?
$1.5 billion dollars? On the one hand it's a beautiful scam because if you're gonna go - go big.
Let's look at this like adults. That's a lot of money. Life-changing/world-changing money. It would be immoral if by some far-flung chance this ever got financed.
This is one time I hope it's a joke or a scam, because if this is serious it is just sad on so many levels.
ummm
consensus 911 vs Toronto Hearring vs Vancouver Hearring
How to make different with the same arguments of the last 10 years of conspiracy
"It can easily be rebuilt"
Unbelieveable.
Also, why not build 10 of them, just so every truther "theory" can be tested? Brian Good's spray-on nanothermite should be tested. Bill Deagle's micro-nukes too. And don't forget Judy Wood's death ray beam from space. And they should also build one that's just a hollow model, as Richard Gage suggested the towers were.
In other news, Pat still can't figure out why anyone would question the report of Jim Millette, a man accused of fraud in relation to his previous government work on the environmental effects of WTC dust.
...but he was the ONLY scientist ANYONE could find to do it! No really! Someone on jref even SAID SO!
a man accused of fraud in relation to his previous government work on the environmental effects of WTC dust
Accused by whom? Source?
This comment has been removed by the author.
"Pay PREVIEW broadcasting" and mangled Star Spangled Banner lyrics . . . and we're supposed to trust these morons with $1.5 billion? Right.
Another sourceless assertion from Cowardly.
For those playing at home, remember Cowardly's rules:
James' and Pat's lack of sources = they're lying.
Cowardly's lack of sources = he's telling the troof, but it's not his job provide sources. Do your own homework.
Mr Homonym whines, "...In other news...[blah][blah][blah]."
It never ends with this gasbag.
This is another naked attempt to hijack the thread with off-topic nonsense.
So Pat, when do you plan to extract your head from your colon and BAN the son of a bitch?
Need I remind you that the babbling of an Internet troll is NOT debate?
RGT wrote, "...Accused by whom? Source?"
The accusation was made by water boy, Kevin Ryan. And we all know water boy is a proven liar; thus, his baseless assertions can be dismissed without further "research."
Cate Jenkins' "complaint" only mentions Dr. Millette in a lone footnote--she never directly accused Dr. Millette of fraud.
So much for Cowardly's hollow accusations.
This comment has been removed by the author.
NOTE:
And need I remind you that accusations aren't proof?
Cate Jenkins made the accusations in 2007. The allegations, however, have never been proven.
Is anyone surprised that the troofers would resort to cheap, dirty smear tactics as opposed to addressing Millette's research head on? If so, you're too naive to be let out alone at night.
The only thing Cowardly and Brian have are baseless accusations and (excuse the expression) cowardly acts of stupidity.
And does it concern Mr. Homonym when we point out that Kevin Ryan was fired by UL for lying?
To my knowledge, Dr. Millette has never been fired for fraud or lying.
So who's the credible source in this instance? Only an asshole like Mr. Homonym would conclude that Ryan is the "credible" source.
Once again, you FAIL--you zit faced virgin (or was that vermin?).
Now, can we get back to the subject of the OP?
Dr. James Millette:
"The red/gray chips found in the WTC dust at four sites in New York City are consistent with a carbon steel coated with an epoxy resin that contains primarily iron oxide and kaolin clay pigments.
There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles of any size in the red/gray chips, therefore the red layer of the red/gray chips is not thermite or nano-thermite."
End of story and Cowardly loses, big time.
I bet Cowardly & Brian like sucking on the Scarecrows corncob, if you catch my drift. LOL!
Troofer/Conspracy Loon Rule #40. Subsection A:
An accusation is the same as a conviction in a court of law. Anyone can make an accusation as long as they think the same as you do and believe in the exact same things you do.
Otherwise it's an conditional accusation.
** Actual convictions against individuals we agree with are always to be considered groundless AND part of the larger conspiracy.**
"So Pat, when do you plan to extract your head from your colon"
-Gut-string Mumblebitch
Yeah, Pat. It's not just me asking now. It's your best friend GB. You'd better WAKE UP, fat man. You don't want HIM pissed off!! GOD HELP YOU!!!!!!4
Oh, and do you still think it was fly ash, after backing off the cutting torches? What's your source, porksome?
Is your source still GutterCock Fatass? Because he thinks your head is in your colon, and you're both still incorrect.
Are you going to clarify, or are you and James still just DINOs, who can't seem to get the facts quite right?
As usual Cosmo slurps up whatever tripe helps him live in his fantasy world. Guess thats the way it goes when you have to fake being a family member to get someone to pay attention to you.
Fact is that Jenkins never accused Millette of wrong doing. She only cites a study which he had some involvement in. In her letter she never claims Millette's or his lab ever did anything fraudulent. In fact elsewhere she refers to his WTC studies as "credible" & his lab as prestigious:
There are 2 credible studies that determined the concentration of concrete in the smallest WTC dust particles, and the concentrations of concrete in the larger particles [102]...Both the Delta Group at the University of California at Davis, and MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. are highly prestigious groups, having received numerous EPA grants for similar studies on fine particulates. MVA was a major contract laboratory to EPA in the evaluation of WTC dust after 9/11, but performed its study of the concrete content of WTC dust independently
Keep cherry picking your way through reality.
source:
http://peer.org/docs/ny/9_8_11_PEER_WTC_dust_petition.pdf
Regardless...this entire bit of twoof drooling is just another example of how someone said something so truthers inherently believe it, and in this case go even further by claiming she said something she never did.
Fact is that Jenkins made a claim...thats it.
Is your source still GutterCock Fatass? Because he thinks your head is in your colon, and you're both still incorrect.
Blah blah blah. No new investigation = you still lose.
Back on topic, I like Pat's suggestion. If every truther believed that fire didn't bring down the towers, they should fund this project, and stand in the towers as the plane hits. Else, they're just blowing smoke.
Ultimately, I hope it's a scam. and I hope truthers donate to it in droves.
Because I probably have to specify this, the truthers should stand below where the planes hit the building not on the same floors or above.
I would like for every truther to put their money where their mouth is & test to see if fire wasn't the main cause of collapse for those Towers'.
Otherwise they can all STFU & let the people who died in those Towers' alone.
Mr Homonym lies, "...Oh, and do you still think it was fly ash, after backing off the cutting torches? What's your source, porksome?"
There was no fly ash in the WTC towers lightweight concrete?
Really? No kidding?
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
So what were you saying, scat muncher?
NOTE:
And what part of the schematic titled Fig 3. Anchorages eliminate inside braces do you fail to understand?
Notice that the "Concrete Floor Slabs" are made with "a mixture of high-early strength [Portland] cement, water and fly ash."
And what is a "mixture of high-early strength [Portland] cement, water and fly ash"?
The answer is simple: The formula for lightweight, fly ash-based concrete.
The same formula for lightweight concrete that was used to build the Hoover Dam.
So what were you saying, shit-for-brains?
UtterFail, you're just demonstrating your foolishness again.
I understand Fig 3. just fine--I understand that it's irrelevant to your point.
Fly ash was used in the grouting for the tie-back tendons. So what? That doesn't mean it was used in the lightweight floors.
I understand Fig 3. just fine--I understand that it's irrelevant to your point.
Brian, you've demonstrated beyond any doubt that you understand nothing. That's why you live with your parents. You're too incompetent to take care of yourself.
Fly ash was used in the grouting for the tie-back tendons. So what? That doesn't mean it was used in the lightweight floors.
See what I mean? You're babbling pointlessly about fly ash because your desperation has reached hysterical levels.
I can't believe people are still arguing over the source of the "iron rich microspheres". Are there truthers still out there that are so insanely stupid that they think that they can only come from thermite?
I can't believe people are still arguing over the source of the "iron rich microspheres". Are there truthers still out there that are so insanely stupid that they think that they can only come from thermite?
Not just thermite. Magic, spray-on thermite that acts as an explosive sometimes and an incendiary at other times.
Remember, in the "mind" of Brian Good, it's more likely that the WTC collapsed because a magical substance was sprayed on the columns of the towers (a magical substance which hasn't been found at the WTC site) than that they collapsed because of the impact of jetliners and the subsequent fires.
Ian, your deceptive, empty posturing is as devastating to the credibility of this blog as are your blatant lies.
There's nothing magic about thermite. It's a mixture of aluminum and rust.
GMS, nobody has demonstrated that fly ash was used in the lightweight concrete floors. UtterFool is reduced to citing fly as in tieback grout and implying that this shows it was used in floors. That's shameful.
I could really care less Brain. Iss the idiocy of truthers that contends that "iron rich spheres" are somehow remarkable. Any number of processes expected to have gone on during construction, maintenance, and the fires would have caused them. Its no different than creationists who assume "god dunnit".
Ian, your deceptive, empty posturing is as devastating to the credibility of this blog as are your blatant lies.
Brian now will squeal pathetically because I've humiliated him yet again.
There's nothing magic about thermite. It's a mixture of aluminum and rust.
Right. Also, it's not an explosive, it's not used to demolish buildings, and none of it was found in the WTC site.
You can babble delusionally about magic thermite elves all you want, but it won't change the facts, like the fact that you're a failed janitor who was expelled from AE911Truth for stalking Carol Brouillet.
Being new to the comment section, can someone provide a roster of which people to ignore for not having a clue as to what they're talking about? I don't have time to run through years of comments...I have to get to my blog and post about Uncle Fetzer's latest tripe and link to the Irish Imam's latest go round with Morgan Reynolds.
"I can't believe people are still arguing over the source of the "iron rich microspheres". Are there truthers still out there that are so insanely stupid that they think that they can only come from thermite?" SpamMasterFeckless.
Translation: I have no clue where the evidence came from, so I'll declare it an 'anomaly' so I won't have to explain it. I'll also throw out some plausible-sounding explanations, but never really "debunk" anything at all, because I'm a pseudoskeptic, and that's what we do.
Thanks, SpamDrek! You're coming thru loud and clear, just like Pat and JamesB!
For Dr Millete's samples, there's no established chain of custody, so the different results may be due to the fact that the chips in his samples were deactivated in some way. -- ScootleRoyale, who offers no mechanism by which nanothermite can be "deactivated" while retaining its original chemical composition and appearance
ScootleRoyale, who offers no mechanism by which nanothermite can be "deactivated" while retaining its original chemical composition and appearance
You'll have to just trust him on this one. After all, we're talking about a magical substance that acts as an explosive sometimes, and as an incendiary other times. It also has the ability to cut through steel beams just by being sprayed-on in paint. It's amazing stuff.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...I understand Fig 3. just fine--I understand that it's irrelevant to your point."
You don't understand anything, goat fucker. After all, you're a college dropout, compulsive liar and an insane failed janitor who associates with men who wear women's underwear.
And how many times must I tell you that your incredulity is not an argument. Hand waving and nay saying while offering nothing to substantiate your argument isn't "debate," it's babbling and trolling.
And you can squeal and lie until you're blue in the face but the facts will never change: A "mixture of high-early strength [Portland] cement, water and fly ash" is the formula for lightweight concrete.
The concrete schedule, moreover, proves beyond a doubt that the 3,000 psi light weight concrete was used on floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106. That's a grand total of 89 floors which were made from 3,000 psi lightweight concrete.
Face it, Duchess, you're full-of-shit.
End of story. Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
GutterBitch fails again! You're not even trying anymore, fatass.
At least Shek had the good sense to flee from the stench of his pseudoskeptic horseshit.
I guess you're not able to recognize your own lies as well as he is.
Thanks, SpamDrek! You're coming thru loud and clear, just like Pat and JamesB
...and Cosmo is back to stamp his feet.
Sorry Cosmo...you are the fools who are duped into thinking "iron rich" = pure iron.
I guess Cosmo had to come back to cry because he is upset that his Millette fantasies were unfounded. Get back to gulping the kool aide Cosmo. I hear Jones made a fresh batch.
You'll have to just trust him on this one. After all, we're talking about a magical substance that acts as an explosive sometimes, and as an incendiary other times.
And it's undetectable, except to Truthers who want to see it.
After three years of insisting that aluminum and iron microspheres seal the case for thermite, they're now claiming that absence of elemental aluminum merely indicates some kind of non-aluminum thermitic material. Goalposts, anyone?
Fucktard squeals, "...GutterBitch fails again! You're not even trying anymore, fatass."
If I failed you've certainly offered not a scintilla of evidence to prove me wrong.
Let's see, I offer evidence from credible sources (e.g, ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD and the original concrete schedule dated 1 March 1968) and you offer 100% fact-free squealing as a rebuttal.
Why is that, shit-for-brains.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Zit-faced vermin.
Hmmm... not a scintilla of evidence that fly ash was used in the cement, not a scintilla of evidence that the spheres are iron oxide (what you'd find in fly ash), and not a scintilla of evidence that they look anything like what was found in the dust.
...but believe GutterBitch, because he's a "DEBUNKER"!!! He doesn't NEED to analyze the dust, or anything else!! FEAR HIS UNINFORMED IDIOCY, COWARDS!!!
Too funny.
Shit-for-brains squeals, "...not a scintilla of evidence that fly ash was used in the cement [SIC], not a scintilla of evidence that the spheres are iron oxide (what you'd find in fly ash), and not a scintilla of evidence that they look anything like what was found in the dust."
Really? No kidding?
What's this, shit-for-brains?
"...Fly ash material solidifies while suspended in the exhaust gases and is collected by electrostatic precipitators or filter bags. Since the particles solidify while suspended in the exhaust gases, fly ash particles are generally spherical in shape and range in size from 0.5 µm to 100 µm. They consist mostly of silicon dioxide (SiO2), which is present in two forms: amorphous, which is rounded and smooth, and crystalline, which is sharp, pointed and hazardous; aluminium oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (Fe2O3). Fly ashes are generally highly heterogeneous, consisting of a mixture of glassy particles with various identifiable crystalline phases such as quartz, mullite, and various iron oxides." -- Wikipedia, fly ash
Thus, fly ash is perfectly consistent with the microspheres described in the RJ Lee Report.
In addition, the article from ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD proves that fly ash was a component of the 3,000 psi lightweight concrete--and I quote:
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
Finally, the concrete schedule proves that 3,000 psi concrete was used on floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106--which is a grand total of 89 floors produced from 3,000 psi lightweight concrete.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr. Zit-faced vermin.
NOTE:
"...Considering the high temperatures reached during the destruction of the WTC, the following three types of combustion products would be expected to be present in WTC Dust. These products are:
"• Vesicular carbonaceous particles primarily from plastics
"• Iron-rich spheres from iron-bearing building components or contents
"• High temperature aluminosilicate from building materials."
RJ Lee Report, Page 16.
"...The conflagration activated processes that caused materials to form into spherical particles such as metals (e.g., Fe, Zn, Pb) and spherical or vesicular silicates or fly ash."
RJ Lee Report, Page 3.
And around we go yet again.
This is where we always have to inform GB that rust (iron oxide) isn't the same as regular iron. This is why people ANALYZE things instead of reaching into their pants, throwing their shit at the wall, and seeing if it sticks.
Watch his head explode in 3...2...1
he tries this lame-ass shit every day...and he likes to call himself a debunker? Pathetic.
And wash your hand, GB. Pat doesn't like eating from it when it's like that.
Shit-for-brains lies, "...This is where we always have to inform GB that rust (iron oxide) isn't the same as regular iron."
Moving the goal post and trying to pass of elemental iron as iron-rich, cretin?
Elemental iron was not present at Ground Zero. And you have not a scintilla of evidence to show that so much as one "iron microsphere" was found at Ground Zero.
So where's your evidence for the presence of "iron microspheres" at Ground Zero, Mr. Zit-faced vermin?
I won't hold my breath waiting for your alleged "evidence."
Face it, cretin, you LOSE.
Once again, you FAIL, Mr Zit-faced vermin.
NOTE:
"pass of" should read pass off.
NOTE:
Photomicrograph made with a Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM): Fly ash particles at 2,000x magnification.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sorry Cosmo...you are the fools who are duped into thinking "iron rich" = pure iron.
This is where we always have to inform GB that rust (iron oxide) isn't the same as regular iron.
YAHTZEE!!!
You see, I'm absolutely convinced that there are only two possible explanations for the data in the Harrit et al paper: 1. The red/gray chips are nanothermite. 2. The data is fraudulent.
-- ScootleRoyale, Skilled Critical Thinker
You see, I'm absolutely convinced that there are only two possible explanations for the data in the Harrit et al paper: 1. The red/gray chips are nanothermite. 2. The data is fraudulent.
-- ScootleRoyale, Skilled Critical Thinker
So the red/gray chips are either a magical substance that does whatever truthers need it to do when convenient, or the data is lying. How do we know this? A zit-faced unemployed virgin in his mother's basement says so.
Now Chet Fatkins asserts that "iron-rich" must mean "made of rust".
Born this stupid, or just a typical "debunker"? You be the judge!
Shit-for-brains lies, "...Now Chet Fatkins asserts that 'iron-rich' must mean 'made of rust'."
That's a straw man argument.
I never said "iron-rich" means "made of rust."
The iron-rich microspheres found at Ground Zero are not composed of elemental iron (ie., the mythical "iron microspheres"), they are, in fact, composed of many elements including oxygen, potassium, aluminum, iron and most problematic of all, silicon.
Now stop playing intellectually dishonest games, shit-for-brains and answer the question: Where's your evidence for the presence of "iron microspheres" at Ground Zero?
Once again, you FAIL, Mr Zit-faced vermin.
ButtGale, you seem to think that providing a picture of iron microspheres is sufficient to prove your case that they were present in the WTC concrete. It's not. Your logic is loony.
Showing that fly ash was used in tieback grout in no way shows that it was used in the floors.
You're not equipped to do original research. You're fooling yourself, and those who are dumb enough to take your word for anything.
Where did you get the idea that I dropped out of college?
NOTE:
Fly ash is not "rust."
The fly ash found in lightweight concrete is the product of coal burning power plants. Fly ash is also produced by a variety incineration processes, including office fires.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...Showing that fly ash was used in tieback grout in no way shows that it was used in the floors."
Learn to read, goat fucker.
The concrete schedule proves that 3,000 psi concrete was used on floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106--which is a grand total of 89 floors produced from 3,000 psi lightweight concrete.
Where did I get the idea that you're a college dropout? Because you can't read and you don't understand elementary logic or the meaning of ΔT. In fact, I doubt that you ever attended college, because you couldn't pass a course in elementary chemistry or logic.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Being new to the comment section, can someone provide a roster of which people to ignore for not having a clue as to what they're talking about?
Pat Cowardly is histrionically preoccupied with iron microspheres and the blog owners (Pat & James). He makes unsourced and baseless assertions, while demanding sources from others.
snug.bug plays a good devil's advocate at times, but much more often can be found connecting dots in eccentric ways. He tends to alienate even other Truthers.
Those are the two most troubled regular posters (my opinion only). Draw your own conclusions though.
UtterFail, you only dig yourself deeper. Your concrete schedule says nothing about fly ash.
I understand ΔT just fine--both in its scientific context and in the context of your attempt to make it seem like something complicated--which it's not.
ButtGale, you seem to think that providing a picture of iron microspheres is sufficient to prove your case that they were present in the WTC concrete. It's not. Your logic is loony.
Brian, it's quite amusing when you use the word "logic" in an attempt to sound smart. You should really leave this stuff to the adults.
You're not equipped to do original research. You're fooling yourself, and those who are dumb enough to take your word for anything.
Speaking of "original research", have you gotten "meatball on a fork" published in an engineering journal yet?
Where did you get the idea that I dropped out of college?
You obviously flunked out of college after you did massive amounts of drugs that permanently damaged your brain. That's why, despite your affluent and privileged upbringing, you ended up a burnt-out lunatic who couldn't hold down a job as a janitor.
UtterFail, you only dig yourself deeper. Your concrete schedule says nothing about fly ash.
False. You're just a lying desperately. It's quite amusing.
I understand ΔT just fine--both in its scientific context and in the context of your attempt to make it seem like something complicated--which it's not.
Brian, you understand nothing. That's why you babble about magic thermite elves destroying the WTC.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...you only dig yourself deeper. Your concrete schedule says nothing about fly ash."
Learn to read, goat fucker.
What part of the following quote do you fail to understand, cretin?
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
Now lie to us again and inundate us with more dumbspam, cretin.
The goat fucker lies, "...I understand ΔT just fine--both in its scientific context and in the context of your attempt to make it seem like something complicated--which it's not."
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
Then why did you run squealing and crying and repeatedly refuse to answer my question about ΔT?
You couldn't answer the question until AFTER I gave you the definition.
You're a fraud and a charlatan who couldn't pass an elementary examination in physics, chemistry or logic.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Ian, the concrete schedule says nothing about fly ash.
ButtGale seems to think that if the tieback grout contains fly ash and is 3000 psi concrete, therefore any 3000 psi concrete contains fly ash. His failings in basic logic show him to be incompetent.
Your silly incredulity, ad hominems, and lies show you to be unable to mount a fact-based argument.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...ButtGale seems to think that if the tieback grout contains fly ash and is 3000 psi concrete...[blah][blah][blah]."
The ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD article clearly states that the tieback grout was made of 3,000 psi lightweight concrete.
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
Learn to read, goat fucker.
And I won't allow you to bury the proof in an avalanche of squealspam--you two-bit charlatan.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Ian, the concrete schedule says nothing about fly ash.
Nobody cares.
ButtGale seems to think that if the tieback grout contains fly ash and is 3000 psi concrete, therefore any 3000 psi concrete contains fly ash. His failings in basic logic show him to be incompetent.
Brian, your hysterical squealing about fly ash is amusing. Also, you keep using "logic" incorrectly. You should leave this stuff up to people who aren't unemployed janitors living with their parents.
Your silly incredulity, ad hominems, and lies show you to be unable to mount a fact-based argument.
Poor Brian. I humiliate him by pointing out that he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents, and all he can do is squeal about it.
Hey Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
ButtGale, your belief that the spec for tieback grout has some relevance to floor composition is stupid, incompetent, irrational, and loony.
Ian, your belief that the widows' continued frustration is the stuff of humor is disgusting.
The idiot squeals, "...your belief that the spec for tieback grout has some relevance to floor composition is stupid, incompetent, irrational, and loony."
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
Another 100% fact-free pile of excrement from Captain Crotchrot. Again, hand waving and nay saying isn't debate, it's babbling and trolling.
Get back to us when you learn to read or have some evidence to support your lying propaganda, Captain Crotchrot.
Until then, you FAIL, goat fucker.
The only hand-waving is yours, ButtGale.
Upon what do you base your belief that the composition of tieback grout reflects the composition of lightweight concrete?
ButtGale, your belief that the spec for tieback grout has some relevance to floor composition is stupid, incompetent, irrational, and loony.
Brian, your hysterical babbling is amusing to all of us. As is your penchant for dressing like a homeless lunatic.
Ian, your belief that the widows' continued frustration is the stuff of humor is disgusting.
My, such squealing!
Speaking of disgusting, you should hear the kind of things Carol Brouillet said you did while on the phone while you were calling her 20 times a day. Let's just say that adult diapers don't go well with SS uniforms.
Ian, I have called Carol Brouillet fewer than ten times in the 6 years I have known her. You make up your facts.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Upon what do you base your belief that the composition of tieback grout reflects the composition of lightweight concrete?"
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
Learn to read, goat fucker.
Get back to us when you learn to read or have some evidence to support your lying propaganda, Captain Crotchrot.
Until then, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Thanks for the info..I'll try to steer clear of them lol
So ButtGale's idea of supporting his claims is to fart out "learn to read".
Thanks for making yourself clear, StinkBreeze. Your sources do not support your claims.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Your sources do not support your claims."
Still trying to bury the evidence in an avalanche of dumbspam, cretin?
I've already supported my claims up thread.
You, on the other hand, have not provided a scintilla of evidence to prove the quotes I provided from ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD and the concrete schedule are in error.
Again, your incredulity is not an argument. And as usual, I provide irrefutable evidence from impeccable sources and all you offer is 100% fact-free squealing, hand waving and nay saying.
Now the burden of proof rests squarely on YOUR shoulders. And so far, you've provided nothing to refute the evidence I presented up thread.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Ian, I have called Carol Brouillet fewer than ten times in the 6 years I have known her. You make up your facts.
Brian, everyone knows you're a hysterical liar. You claim you're not petgoat, remember?
Anyway, everyone knows you were thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet. Squealing about it won't change the facts
Thanks for making yourself clear, StinkBreeze. Your sources do not support your claims.
Poor Brian. You can see the tears running down his face as he slams the keyboard of his computer in anger and frustration. Life is hard when you're a failed janitor who constantly gets mocked by more intelligent and successful people.
ButtGale, neither ENR nor the concrete schedule supports your claim that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete floors, and your inability to recognize this simple fact shows you to be incompetent.
The mendacious moron squeals, "...neither ENR nor the concrete schedule supports your claim that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete floors, and your inability to recognize this simple fact shows you to be incompetent."
No, goat fucker, the exact opposite is the truth, and we know this because you're unable to substantiate your assertion (heavy emphasis on ass when dealing with the goat fucker).
In fact, you can always tell when the goat fucker has no viable argument: He resorts to argument from incredulity, while providing not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate his specious argument.
Well, if nothing else, your desperation is palpable.
So when do you plan to offer evidence in support of your idiotic and illogical argument?
Oh that's right! When Hell freezes over. Right, goat fucker?
Once again, you FAIL, Duchess.
ButtGale, neither ENR nor the concrete schedule supports your claim that fly ash was used in the WTC concrete floors, and your inability to recognize this simple fact shows you to be incompetent.
This is my favorite part of Brian's ridiculous babbling. He gets so lost in arguing pointless things that he loses all sight of what he was supposed to be arguing.
So Brian wants us to believe that the WTC was destroyed in a controlled demolition on orders from the Bush administration. His evidence? There's no proof that fly ash was used in the concrete floors of the WTC.
OK, that might make sense if you're an unemployed janitor with severe mental illness, but normal people are just going to laugh.
Still no evidence from GB that fly ash was used in the wtc concrete, and documented evidence that shale was used as the aggregate. Yet somehow he still thinks he's won.
He also convinced Pat of it, but then Pat was looking for ANYTHING to get out of his "cutting torches or you're retarded" argument.
Remember that nonsense, Pat? Sure you do. It was your finest hour as a "debunker".
This comment has been removed by the author.
UtterFail, pointing out that your sources do not say what you claim they do is not an argument from incredulity. It is simple scholarship, and it shows your scholarship to be incompetent.
If you think the ENR or the concrete schedule say that fly ash was used in the floors, please quote the part that says so. It's not there.
UtterFail, pointing out that your sources do not say what you claim they do is not an argument from incredulity. It is simple scholarship, and it shows your scholarship to be incompetent.
Brian, you know nothing about scholarship. You're an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents.
If you think the ENR or the concrete schedule say that fly ash was used in the floors, please quote the part that says so. It's not there.
See what I mean? Brian is babbling about fly ash because he's hysterical and desperate.
Ian, I have at times made my living from scholarship. You make up your facts.
I'm not babbling about fly ash. GutterBall is babbling about fly ash. He is making unfounded claims he refuses to admit are unfounded.
Worse, he buries his nonsense in endless, nonsensical posts, and accuses others of "squalspam".
Just another time-honored tactic for the puppets here at Curley's Loose Stool.
Wake me up when someone actually "debunks" something. Anything.
Well you and I seem to be a pretty good job of debunking much of the nonsense posted here, considering the time limits that benefit/cost analyses impose.
Wake me up when someone actually "debunks" something. Anything.
Yet again reality & Cosmo part ways.
Pat still can't figure out why anyone would question the report of Jim Millette, a man accused of fraud in relation to his previous government work on the environmental effects of WTC dust.
Cosmo still thinks an accusation, even if non-existent to start, deserves to be debunked. Anyway, it was done regardless if Cosmo can accept what the facts are.
There are 2 credible studies that determined the concentration of concrete in the smallest WTC dust particles, and the concentrations of concrete in the larger particles [102]...Both the Delta Group at the University of California at Davis, and MVA Scientific Consultants, Inc. are highly prestigious groups, having received numerous EPA grants for similar studies on fine particulates. MVA was a major contract laboratory to EPA in the evaluation of WTC dust after 9/11, but performed its study of the concrete content of WTC dust independently
Keep cherry picking your way through reality.
http://peer.org/docs/ny/9_8_11_PEER_WTC_dust_petition.pdf
And then the crying began from our faux family member.
SpamMaster thinks I'm Cosmo? More Curley-level research, I see.
No surprise coming from the Master of Nothing.
No mention of Fly ash or melted iron in the article he posted either. Shocker!
Here's a hint Spammy: try to stay on topic and post something of substance. Otherwise, you're just like GB, Ian, and all the other idiots. No wonder you've never debunked anything in your life, boy!
Stellar reasoning as always from our "truth" seekers
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html
And there he goes running from the facts again!
something of substance.
Aka-nothing that contradicts his fact free fantasies.
Wake me up when someone actually "debunks" something. Anything.
Throws down the gauntlet, then runs like a coward.
Ian, I have at times made my living from scholarship. You make up your facts.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, mopping the floors at Stanford is not "making your living from scholarship".
I'm not babbling about fly ash. GutterBall is babbling about fly ash. He is making unfounded claims he refuses to admit are unfounded.
False. He pwn3d you, Brian. That's why you're just babbling hysterically now.
Boy, it's hilarious to read the self-congratulations of Pat Cowardly (an unemployed, zit-face virgin who lives with his parents) and Brian Good (an unemployed janitor who dresses like an insane homeless person and also lives with his parents).
Yes, guys, you've won. The debunkers have lost. That's why President McKinney has opened a new investigation, and why the widows have had their questions answered, and why Brian Good is now the chair of Stanford Engineering based on his "Meatball on a Fork" paper.
Ian, you don't know anything about my CV, and your unjustified inferences only demonstrate your incompetence.
Your belief that UtterFail's incompetent and unsupported claims pwn anybody also demonstrate your incompetence.
Ian, you don't know anything about my CV, and your unjustified inferences only demonstrate your incompetence.
False. We know you're an unemployed janitor living on disability because you're suffering from severe mental illness.
Your belief that UtterFail's incompetent and unsupported claims pwn anybody also demonstrate your incompetence.
Brian, your hysterical babbling over GuitarBill pwning you is hilarious. Please, keep squealing and crying. It's wildly entertaining.
"He pwn3d you, Brian."
-Ian-side Jobless
As if Ian needed to offer any more proof of his maturity level...
Funny how he fails to even come up with an example, though.
Come on, Ian, try some actual citation of sources just once: How EXACTLY did GB "debunk" anything, anywhere? What was the post that finally convinced Ian that he should listen to what GB has to say?
(cowardly failflight in 3...2...1...)
As if Ian needed to offer any more proof of his maturity level...
Yes, I'm mocking you in the language of scrawny, zit-faced virgins who live in their mother's basement. Or in the language of a middle-aged man who lives with his parents and calls people "girls".
C'mon, I don't want someone of your (or Brian's) brilliant intellect misunderstanding me.
Shit-for-brains lies "...Still no evidence from GB that fly ash was used in the wtc concrete, and documented evidence that shale was used as the aggregate."
That's a balf-faced lie.
Here's what the USGS wrote--you scurrilous liar:
"...The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale." -- USGS, Particle atlas.
"...appears to be"???????
That's not proof," it's speculation.
FAIL.
Second, the presence of shale in the concrete DOES NOT exclude the presence of fly ash in the lightweight concrete mix.
Furthermore, my sources are from 1968, and they were written by people who watched the towers as they were built. They interviewed the contractors who worked on the skyscraper.
The concrete schedule is an ORIGINAL document--the same document the contractors used to build the towers.
Thus, you haven't proven anything--you zit-faced cretin.
As usual, I provide hard evidence from pristine sources and you give me bald-faced lies and speculation.
Once again, you FAIL, cowardly.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...pointing out that your sources do not say what you claim they do is not an argument from incredulity. It is simple scholarship, and it shows your scholarship to be incompetent."
You haven't substantiated your argument, and you've never proven that I'm wrong.
And your argument is hardly based on "scholarship." After all, a college dropout can hardly be defined as a "scholar." In fact, your argument is based, as always, on dishonesty.
All you've done is deliberately misinterpret the quote from ENR and misrepresent my argument.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
"...you've never proven that I'm wrong" -GB
I hate to point out the obvious (really), but you haven't even proven that fly ash was used in the concrete flooring of the WTC, fat boy. All your work is still ahead of you, and now you're accusing the USGS of not recognizing the difference between shale and iron oxide.
This, in addition to your assertion that iron oxide is indistinguishable from the melted iron found in the dust.
Were you born this helpless, son?
And why won't Ian cite your convincing arguments anywhere? I asked him to show my where he thought you said anything of value, and the poor fool ran away like a coward. I wonder why?
Shit-for-brains squeals, "...This, in addition to your assertion that iron oxide is indistinguishable from the melted iron found in the dust."
There was no "melted iron" found in the dust.
I'll ask you again: Where is the evidence for the presence of "melted iron" in the dust?
I've asked you this question over-and-over again and you steadfastly refuse to provide the "evidence."
Why is that, shit-for-brains?
Once again, you FAIL, cowardly.
Probably because they are here for anyone to check. Its only you and Brian who think the more you babble the more convincing your fantasies are.
"Cowardly"....what an appropriate name. He couldn't back up something even if it had training wheels.
Shit-for-brains squeals, "...you haven't even proven that fly ash was used in the concrete flooring of the WTC"
False.
Read it again until you get it through your thick skull:
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
Thus, the contractor grouted the bathtub with 3,000 psi lightweight concrete--the same lightweight concrete that was used on floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106 for a grand total of 89 floors.
The WTC concrete schedule is also clear and unambiguous. There's no question that the same 3,000 psi concrete was used to construct the 89 floors mentioned above.
Furthermore, lightweight concrete is used extensively by every concrete foundry in North America for grouting.
Once again, you FAIL, cowardly.
I hate to point out the obvious (really), but you haven't even proven that fly ash was used in the concrete flooring of the WTC, fat boy.
The evidence for fly ash is stronger than the evidence for thermite. That settles the matter for mentally healthy people.
UtterFail, your mount an aggressive attack only in a vain effort to disguise the fact that PC is right, you have no evidence for fly ash in the floors. In that context, your demands for proof to the contrary are ludicrous.
Your belief that the concrete used to grout tiebacks necessarily has some connection to the concrete used to make floors is also ludicrous.
Another argument from incredulity, goat fucker?
Sorry, your incredulity is not an argument. It's a naked attempt to shift the burden of proof--which, at this point, rests squarely on your shoulders and your shoulders alone. Either substantiate your argument, or piss off.
Is that simple enough for you, cretin?
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
you have no evidence for fly ash in the floors.
I'm dubious on why iron microspheres are invalid as evidence of fly ash, but valid as evidence of a thermite reaction. Isn't the fly ash scenario inherently more plausible?
Newsflash for GB again: Shale isn't rust, no matter how much you wish otherwise. USGS knows this. You don't seem to.
Now that your deception is plainly obvious, it's time to start asking why you cling so doggedly to your beliefs. Can you really be that gullible? Can Pat?
Okay, I'll ask it since this seems to keep getting punted back and forth without being answered. SB and PC, are you saying that the lightweight concrete had to be an actual part of the concrete FLOOR for it to produce these iron-rich microspheres? Wouldn't the fact that the buildings contained ANY lightweight concrete containing fly ash (which the cited documents obviously show) account for those microspheres? As much as I hate to wade into the horse-shit and name-calling, it's bugging me, so I thought I'd ask.
Okay, I'll ask it since this seems to keep getting punted back and forth without being answered. SB and PC, are you saying that the lightweight concrete had to be an actual part of the concrete FLOOR for it to produce these iron-rich microspheres? Wouldn't the fact that the buildings contained ANY lightweight concrete containing fly ash (which the cited documents obviously show) account for those microspheres? As much as I hate to wade into the horse-shit and name-calling, it's bugging me, so I thought I'd ask.
It's really pointless to ask these questions of these two geniuses.
Scar: It's really quite simple. Iron oxide (rust) is a component of fly ash, which GB believes was in sufficient quanitites (as concrete aggregate) to account for the melted iron cited in the RJ Lee report (6% of the dust they studied).
His first failure comes from his assumption that it was used in the floors, and not just the tieback grout. His second failure is that he thinks the melted iron cited in the report is actually the same as the rust found in fly ash, when it's not. He's in denial of the fact that the USGS' own analysis pointed to shale (NOT iron oxide) as the aggregate used in the concrete.
And yet he'd still have you believe that rust (iron OXIDE) from fly ash (NOT used in the concrete, per USGS) is the same as melted iron. It's not. You may know this, but GB doesn't. Either he's staggeringly gullible, or he's intentionally trying to conflate rust and iron, without ever having done any analysis at all. Why would he do that?
What a coincidence that Ian gave a stupid non-answer!
Who's next?
And let's not forget Pat, who insisted that oxyacetylene torches caused the melted iron cited by RJ Lee in the dust. Those torches don't produce iron either, but iron oxide (surprise!). He was so convinced he even posted an entry asking "how retarded do you have to be?" not to believe his cutting torches "explanation".
When the impossibility of his nonsense was pointed out to him, he backpedaled, claimed it was fly ash, and never spoke of torches again. A humiliating moment for him, but he never acknowledged or retracted his error, and continues to mislead and deceive with impunity.
Again: can Pat and James REALLY be that gullible, over and over again, or is there something else going on?
Yes, there's something else going on. A scrawny, zit-faced virgin who lives in his mother's basement and spent all of high school getting laughed at by the girls and beaten up by the jocks has latched onto a conspiracy cult that he thinks will give his life meaning and he'll be able to take revenge on those that humiliated him, so he spends all day stalking people on a blog and posting nonsense.
Hey, I didn't say the guy was smart.
Also, said zit-face teams up with a burnt-out mentally ill casualty of the 1960s who sees Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover in his breakfast cereal each morning. Said unemployed burnout hasn't gotten laid since he date-raped a drunk chick at Altamont, so he thinks his heroic pursuit of the "truth" will get him a romantic relationship with some 9/11 widows.
Hey, I didn't say he was sane.
the melted iron cited in the RJ Lee report (6% of the dust they studied)
Wow, impressive. This is the first time Cowardly has *ever* sourced a claim. Millette's has him feeling quite desperate.
Of course the data is not in the source he provides, and would not support a thermite theory if it were. But at least he's trying.
RGT, RJ Lee certainly supports the presence of iron-rich microspheres as 6% of the particles studied.
They also state that these were produced during the WTC event--which would seem to rule out the proposition that they were pre-existing in the concrete.
Perhaps you should read the RJ Lee reports for yourself and not take UtterFail's word for it as to what's inside.
Shit-for-brains lies, "...Scar: It's really quite simple. Iron oxide (rust) is a component of fly ash, which GB believes was in sufficient quanitites [SIC] (as concrete aggregate) to account for the melted iron cited in the RJ Lee report (6% of the dust they studied)."
That's a lie. The RJ Lee Report says no such thing.
I'll ask you again for the 100th time, shit-for-brains: Where is your evidence for the presence of "iron microspheres" at ground zero?
Even your buddy, Steven Jones, admits the microspheres always contain oxygen--and I quote:
"...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
So I'll ask you again: Where is your evidence for the presence of "iron microspheres" at Ground Zero?
Your continued refusal to answer the question proves that you're lying and deliberately misleading the reader.
Get it through your thick skull, shit-for-brains: Trying to pass off iron rich microspheres as "elemental iron" is fraud. And the RJ Lee report says ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT ELEMENTAL IRON IN THE WTC DUST--PERIOD.
You're a liar and a fraud.
Once again, you FAIL, shit-for-brains.
The Duchess of Palo Alto lies, "...RGT, RJ Lee certainly supports the presence of iron-rich microspheres as 6% of the particles studied...They also state that these were produced during the WTC event--which would seem to rule out the proposition that they were pre-existing in the concrete."
This statement is another naked attempt to mislead the reader.
The collapse of the towers, which produced the pulverized dust, is also part of the "WTC event." The RJ Lee Report NEVER attempted to determine the origin of so much as ONE alumino-silicate or iron rich microsphere.
Perhaps you should read the RJ Lee Report instead of lying and misleading the reader--you fraud.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Shit-for-brains lies, "...Shale isn't rust, no matter how much you wish otherwise. USGS knows this."
Shale is not a substitute for fly ash in concrete.
Furthermore, the USGS never proved anything, and their language is proof that they're speculating.
Here's what the USGS wrote--you scurrilous liar:
"...The aggregate material in WTC concrete sample appears to be expanded shale." -- USGS, Particle atlas.
I hate to break this to you, shit-for-brains, but there's a big difference between "appears to be" and "is."
Try to provide real evidence as opposed to 100% fact-free speculation.
Once again, you FAIL, cowardly.
Yo Cowardly,
Why does Rich Lee, the author of the RJ Lee Report, say you're WRONG about the iron rich microspheres?
You wouldn't lie and deliberately mislead the reader, would you?
Of course you would lie to the reader. After all, you're a lying "truther."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Once again, you FAIL< shit-for-brains.
NOTE:
"...The formation of iron and other type spheres at temperatures obtainable by the combustion of petroleum and coal based fuels is not a new or unique process. These spheres are the same as iron and alumino-silicate spheres in the well-studied fly ash formed from contaminants in coal as it is burned in furnaces." -- Rich Lee, author of the RJ Lee Report.
Check and mate.
Go for it, cowardly, lie to us again--you scurrilous liar.
Once again, you FAIL, shit-for-brains.
Shit-for-brains lies, "...His first failure comes from his assumption that it was used in the floors, and not just the tieback grout."
False.
I just proved that lightweight concrete is sold by concrete foundries as grout.
Shit-for-brains lies, "...His second failure is that he thinks the melted iron cited in the report is actually the same as the rust found in fly ash, when it's not."
False.
So where's your evidence for the presence of "iron microsphers" in the WTC dust? I've asked you repeatedly to produce the evidence, yet, you steadfastly refuse to produce the evidence to support your specious assertions.
Why is that, shit-for-brains?
Show me the spectra for the "iron microspheres," which will consist of one--AND ONE ONLY--peak for iron (Fe)?
You can't? Then may I suggest that you STFU?
Shit-for-brains squeals, "...He's in denial of the fact that the USGS' own analysis pointed to shale (NOT iron oxide) as the aggregate used in the concrete."
The USGS "analysis" doesn't prove anything as I proved above. "[A]ppears to be" is not the same as "is." Nor does the USGS "analysis" attempt to prove the concrete was shale-based. Again, speculation is not "evidence."
Perhaps you should examine all the evidence?
Working backward from a predetermined conclusion and cherry picking the evidence in support of your predetermined conclusion is not science, it's fraud.
Once again, you FAIL, shit-for-brains.
Bill, you really take them too seriously.
I prefer a different approach.
Look at this handsome devil!
Look at this handsome devil!
They both have so much going for them. They're good looking, they've got great jobs, they're smart and funny. I just can't imagine why they're so unsuccessful with women.
Yo Shit-for-brains,
Here's your vaunted thermitic reaction:
Fe2O3 + 2Al → Al2O3 + 2Fe
Thus, the reaction of Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) and finely ground aluminum (Al) will produce aluminum oxide (Al2O3), molten elemental iron (Fe) and, since the reaction is highly exothermic, a great deal of heat.
So I'll ask you again: Show me the spectra for the "iron microspheres," which will consist of one--AND ONE ONLY--peak for iron (Fe)?
Here's a link to the RJ Lee Report. Go for it, dufus.
I won't hold my breath waiting for your evidence.
Shit-for-brains squeals, "...He's in denial of the fact that the USGS' own analysis pointed to shale (NOT iron oxide) as the aggregate used in the concrete."
Irrelevant. A red herring to be precise.
Recall the quote from the ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD article, which states,
"...The contractor then grouted the socket from the bottom to a distance about 2 ft above rock with a mixture of high-early strength cement, water and fly ash. The required 3,000 psi concrete was usually obtained in 72 hours. The contractor could then stress the tendons." -- ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD, 31 October 1968.
FACT: "High-early strength cement" is Portland cement. Here's expert testimony from Cement.org:
"...Different types of portland cement are manufactured to meet various physical and chemical requirements. The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Specification C-150 provides for eight types of portland cement. Type I portland cement is a normal, general-purpose cement suitable for all uses. It is used in general construction projects such as buildings, bridges, floors, pavements, and other precast concrete products. Type IA portland cement is similar to Type I with the addition of air-entraining properties. Type II portland cement generates less heat at a slower rate and has a moderate resistance to sulfate attack. Type IIA portland cement is identical to Type II and produces air-entrained concrete. Type III portland cement is a high-early-strength cement and causes concrete to set and gain strength rapidly. Type III is chemically and physically similar to Type I, except that its particles have been ground finer. Type IIIA is an air-entraining, high-early-strength cement. Type IV portland cement has a low heat of hydration and develops strength at a slower rate than other cement types, making it ideal for use in dams and other massive concrete structures where there is little chance for heat to escape. Type V portland cement is used only in concrete structures that will be exposed to severe sulfate action, principally where concrete is exposed to soil and groundwater with a high sulfate content." -- an excerpt from Cement.org's History & Manufacture of Portland Cement
Thus, "high-early strength cement" translates to Portland cement.
And the following excerpt from the same article:
"...The first step in the portland cement manufacturing process is obtaining raw materials. Generally, raw materials consisting of combinations of limestone, shells or chalk, and shale, clay, sand, or iron ore are mined from a quarry near the plant." -- an excerpt from Cement.org's History & Manufacture of Portland Cement
That's expert testimony, Cowardly.
Thus, shale-based Portland cement is routinely mixed with fly ash, as the ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD quote proves beyond a doubt.
More expert testimony:
"...Over 15 million metric tons of fly ash were added to portland cement concrete in 2006." -- an excerpt Cement.org's Fly Ash in Concrete
As a result, it's obvious that the presence of shale aggregate DOES NOT exclude the presence of fly ash in the lightweight concrete mixture. In fact, in the case of the World Trade Center towers, fly ash was a component of the 3,000 psi lightweight concrete.
Thus, all your whining about "shale aggregate" is irrelevant nonsense.
Once again, you FAIL, shit-for-brains.
So much spam, so little substance.
Somebody got time on his hands?
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...So much spam, so little substance."
Weak.
So when do you plan to offer something other than 100% fact-free hand waving, nay saying and arguments from incredulity, Mr. Logical Fallacy?
I won't hold my breath waiting for "substance" from the likes of you, goat fucker.
Tell us more about ΔT, Mr. Bogus "scientific reputation."
This comment has been removed by the author.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...Somebody got time on his hands?"
It's called a point-by-point refutation--which I'm sure you don't recognize because you have no experience with the concept.
That said, we know where your hands have been...and it's not pretty or sanitary. I certainly hope you don't prepare food.
RGT, RJ Lee certainly supports the presence of iron-rich microspheres as 6% of the particles studied.
That's nowhere in the report. The table of analytes on Page 7 of the December 2003 report doesn't even mention elevated levels of iron.
They also state that these were produced during the WTC event--which would seem to rule out the proposition that they were pre-existing in the concrete.
You're reading "WTC Event" too narrowly. It wasn't just fire, it was also "extreme forces" and "pulverizing".
UtterFail, there's really nothing to tell about ΔT. It's a trivial concept, and your attempt to pass it off as something profound is silly.
He's in denial of the fact that the USGS' own analysis pointed to shale (NOT iron oxide) as the aggregate used in the concrete.
Straw man much? Assuming fly ash is ruled out, that gets you no closer to thermite.
So much spam, so little substance.
Somebody got time on his hands?
Mind you, Brian has spent over 3 years on this blog lying about widows, lying about NIST, lying about Dr. Sunder, lying about Willie Rodriguez, etc. etc.
I wouldn't expect anything else from a mentally ill unemployed janitor living on disability. His utter lack of self-awareness is the funniest part. That's why he thinks the "truth" movement might actually accomplish something someday.
UtterFail, there's really nothing to tell about ΔT. It's a trivial concept, and your attempt to pass it off as something profound is silly.
It might be a trivial concept, but you wouldn't know because you don't understand it. You're too incompetent to mop floors correctly.
RGT wrote, "...Assuming fly ash is ruled out..."
Fly ash is not, by any means, ruled out, as my comment at time stamp 09 March, 2012 13:08 proves beyond a doubt.
Fly ash is routinely mixed with portland cement; portland cement is made with shale.
Thus, Cowardly's prattle about "shale aggregate" is irrelevant nonsense.
FACT: The presence of shale in the portland cement mixture DOES NOT exclude fly ash from the resulting lightweight concrete mixture (portland cement is a component of lightweight concrete).
Cowardly's entire argument is twaddle.
FACT: The presence of shale in the portland cement mixture DOES NOT exclude fly ash from the resulting lightweight concrete mixture (portland cement is a component of lightweight concrete).
Not only that, but iron ore can go into concrete, and iron ore can become elemental iron if the conditions are right.
I can see why I was warned about certain posters.
"...He's in denial of the fact that the USGS' own analysis pointed to shale (NOT iron oxide) as the aggregate used in the concrete."
FYI: Fly ash in concrete is used in place of a certain amount of portland cement. It takes the place of the cement while acting as a binder and adding strength and durability. Iron oxide is a component of fly ash.
Aggregate is crushed rock of some form and a separate ingredient. In this case it was shale as opposed to granite or gneiss because shale is less dense and weighs less and probably more available depending on the location of the quarry used by the concrete company. Shale is usually found closer to the coast and in some areas is more readily available.
Don't ask for a reference because I have worked in the engineering/mining field for the last 20 years. This is on top of working as a blacksmith in the shipbuilding industry for many years before. What I just stated about fly ash and concrete is common knowledge in the industry and have passed ACI certification for field testing and lab testing.
Fly ash is used in some concrete. It is not used in all concrete. Given the highly-engineered nature of the WTC structure, I would expect any use of a component with variable properties--such as fly ash--to be accompanied with a whole lot of testing and laborious homogenation. Given that up to 60,000 tons of the stuff would have been used (600 railroad cars worth) I would expect some kind of documentation of its presence. Despite ButtGale's repeated bleatings, no such documentation has been produced.
The issue should not be difficult to resolve. There are known samples of WTC concrete. It is indicative of the quality of the "debunking" that goes on here that GutterBall wants to declare "case closed" by inventing his facts, lying about his sources, and simply assuming the results of an investigation that has not happened yet.
I would expect any use of a component with variable properties--such as fly ash--to be accompanied with a whole lot of testing and laborious homogenation.
Actually, that isn't how it works in construction. Companies providing asphalt or concrete have mixes to meet astm/aashto requirements and their ingredients are certified to meet the requirements of the mixes. If you order concrete you tell them what strength or mix you want or the application. Building codes are going to call for it to meet a spec. and the manufacturer provides a data sheet.
It's just like the claim that UL certified the steel used in construction. Not so... the mill producing the steel certifies it to meet astm specs by sampling and testing. Concrete is concrete when it comes to a typical building floor which were in place in the towers.
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...FYI...[blah][blah][blah]."
More 100% fact-free hand waving, nay saying and arguments from incredulity, Mr. Logical Fallacy?
So when do you intend to provide evidence to substantiate your 100% fact-free assertions, ass?
Yeah, I know, when Hell freezes over. Right, goat fucker?
Until then, you're nothing more than a gasbag.
Face it, asshole, fly ash was a component of the WTC's lightweight concrete, as the ECN article proves beyond a doubt.
And all your whining about "shale aggregate" excluding fly ash from the concrete mix is nothing more than a false assumption.
Thus, your "commentary" is worse than worthless.
The felcher from Palo Alto squeals, "...GutterBall wants to declare "case closed" by inventing his facts, lying about his sources, and simply assuming the results of an investigation that has not happened yet."
If I lied about my sources, you've provided not a shred of evidence to substantiate your assertion, ass.
Get back to us when you can provide facts, as opposed to your worthless, unscientific and 100% fact-free opinion.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
bp, the WTC was a very highly-engineered structure, and your claim that concrete is concrete is, in this context, not justified. It certainly was not the case that steel was steel. Though much of the steel used in the WTC was of the ordinary A36 specification, much of it was special high-strength steel.
ButtGale, the only evidence I need to provide that your cites do not say what you claim is your own cites. Nowhere do they say that fly ash was used in the WTC floors.
And not bpete1969 sees why it's pointless to argue with Brian Good (snug.bug). It's a well-known fact that Brian is an unemployed janitor who lives with his parents at age 60 (while collecting disability). Despite that, he acts like the world's foremost expert on, well, everything. That, of course, is despite the fact that he knows about as much as you'd expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor.
So point out some facts about concrete, and Brian will say something like "your assumption that fly ash was used in the concrete is not logical" and then he'll ramble off about his "logical" assumptions, which usually include invisible men and magical substances.
snug,
Show me any source that says the concrete was highly engineered. Concrete manufacturers provide a product based on their ability to provide concrete that meets the specifications of building codes in place at the time of construction. I would be interested to see any source that states the concrete in the WTC was either highly engineered or different from concrete used in any other construction taking place at the time.
Unless of course you have proof that it was a super duper secretly scientifically engineered explosive concrete designed to react to the infusion of a jet airliner in which case it turns to dust within two hours and leaves iron-rich micro-spheres designed to throw off the testing of the residual dust to thwart any investigation as to it's design and chemical makeup.
The goat fucker lies, "...the only evidence I need to provide that your cites do not say what you claim is your own cites. Nowhere do they say that fly ash was used in the WTC floors."
False.
I've already proven that lightweight concrete is used for grouting.
And the ECN article is clear and unambiguous: The grouting was made of 3,000 psi lightweight concrete--the same lightweight concrete that was used to build floors 2, 10-40, 44-74 and 78-106.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker, because so far all you've managed to provide is your worthless opinion, semantic games and arguments from incredulity.
Get back to us when you have evidence to substantiate your lying propaganda.
Way off topic, but interesting.
Dave Mustaine is being interviewed on Prison Planet.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/dave-mustaine-unchained-–-infowars-exclusive-coming-3-15-12.html
Jones doesn't ask him about about conspiracy theories. Why is he on there? Is this an attempt by Jones to cover a wider range of subjects to make him look more legitimate?
"bp, the WTC was a very highly-engineered structure, and your claim that concrete is concrete is, in this context, not justified. It certainly was not the case that steel was steel. Though much of the steel used in the WTC was of the ordinary A36 specification, much of it was special high-strength steel."
Uh huh...then why is the new WTC1 being constructed with stronger steel than the original tower? Why is the strongest cement being used this time? Why is the use of stronger materials being emphasized this time around? Why were some of the building codes which were changed in order to build the Twin Towers changed after the disaster?
Could it be there were other investigations conducted after 9/11? How about NYC and NY state inspectors making on-site observations about why the building failed?
Those building codes changed within a year, but troofers don't seem to wonder why. It's obvious to everyone else, the Towers may have been doomed by their design, and by the very codes which were changed to facilitate their construction. I'm not saying the towers were designed poorly,I am saying the short-cuts in constructions which made the buildings light enough to stand most likely lead to their collapse after the impacts and fire.
Where Troofers fail is at the rudimentary level.
Fact: The WTC would still be standing had the attacks not occurred.
Fact: Bush would have gone into Iraq anyway. Saddam Hussein would eventually have given him another reason. So the idea 9/11 was a pretext for war with Iraq is false. If the pretext is false the allegations of controlled demo are also false.
Why didn't they simply rebuild the Twin Towers instead of a complete redesign? Why weren't the Towers copied after their completion as other high-rise structures have?
You have nothing but lies.
Dave Mustaine is being interviewed on Prison Planet.
Mustaine has some NWO paranoia and a mild Troofer streak (skip to 55:10).
Post a Comment
<< Home