Thursday, March 01, 2012

Red-Gray Chips Tested and Determined Not to Be Thermite

I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.  Here's the report; there is active discussion going on at JREF. Main point:

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.
 (Bolding added for emphasis).  Kudos to Chris Mohr for pursuing this matter and to all the folks who contributed funds to the effort.  So far no response from the supermagiconanothermite team of Jones, Ryan or Harritt.


Labels: , , , , ,

75 Comments:

At 01 March, 2012 12:14, Blogger plague311 said...

"So far no response from the supermagiconanothermite team of Jones, Ryan or Harritt."

All twoofers have been trying to downgrade the experiment and it's results. Ryan has a "Mohr is less" article, but over all this is just another nail in the already nail filled coffin. More evidence to deny for the twoofers.

 
At 01 March, 2012 12:46, Blogger John said...

Par for the course. Give truthers evidence from a reliable source, and they'll dismiss it instantly. Thankfully, none of them have any real political power or clout, so nothing will happen.

I'll say it again and again. There will never be another investigation.

 
At 01 March, 2012 13:31, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

In other words, it was some other explosive substance that produces melted iron, cannot be identified, and which no non-debunker has referred to as 'thermite' in quite some time.

you know, THAT type of "paint".

Keep trying, Pat.

 
At 01 March, 2012 13:59, Blogger plague311 said...

"In other words, it was some other explosive substance that produces melted iron, cannot be identified, and which no non-debunker has referred to as 'thermite' in quite some time."

No, dummy, that's not what it's saying. It's saying that it is no explosive, and there was nothing related to explosives found. No thermite, nanothermite, hush-a-booms, or any other magic that you may think was used. It means, you're wrong.

 
At 01 March, 2012 14:17, Blogger Pat said...

Neils Harritt, debunker:

"But the bottom line, notes Dr. Harrit, is that “Nano-thermite shouldn’t have been there.”

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/07/interview-with-dr-niels-harrit-on-discovery-of-nano-thermite-in-wtc-dust/

Richard Gage is another debunker; he mentioned nanothermite just the other day to the Nation of Islam.

 
At 01 March, 2012 15:14, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

In other words, it was some other explosive substance that produces melted iron, cannot be identified

Nobody (not even Jones) has described the red stuff as being explosive. The presence of of iron does not indicate that the substance produced the iron. And unidentified is not the same as unidentifiable.

Neurological evidence demonstrates that 22-year-olds are relatively poor critical thinkers.

 
At 01 March, 2012 17:59, Blogger Ian said...

Poor Pat Cowardly. He'll never get laid, he'll never get a job, and he'll never clear up his acne. This was the only thing he had going for him, so we need to be understanding when he's still babbling about how this doesn't prove him wrong.

I'm sure the manager at Burger King had to deal with this too when he fired Pat Cowardly.

 
At 01 March, 2012 19:07, Blogger John said...

Ian, how do you know Pat Cowardly has acne? You lie and lie and lie.

 
At 02 March, 2012 09:14, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Pat whiffs yet again. Still waiting for something to be 'debunked' here, Caped Curley Fatass.

You seem to think you're familiar all of the possible formulations of energetic nanocomposites, some of which don't require aluminum at all. Did the study figure out what the substance was or not, Pat? So much for your 'debunking'. You only proved me right that no one except you and James talk about 'thermite' anymore.

Try again, coward!

 
At 02 March, 2012 09:33, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Hey Fat Hurl-ey, don't forget that separate studies did confirm nano- aluminum in the red layer. You're just arguing from your vast wealth of ignorance, and you and Millette still have an awful lot of work to do, son.

Your porcine posterior has debunked nothing YET AGAIN. What's it like living in futility, day after day?

 
At 02 March, 2012 10:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

don't forget that separate studies did confirm nano- aluminum in the red layer.

Aluminum can't react with anything while embedded in epoxy.

 
At 02 March, 2012 10:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

The epoxy burns when the material is ignited.

 
At 02 March, 2012 10:34, Blogger Ian said...

The epoxy burns when the material is ignited.

What makes you think the material was ignited? Did Kevin Barrett tell you that?

 
At 02 March, 2012 10:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

If the aluminum reacts with the iron, the material is ignited. If the material is ignited, the epoxy burns.

I'm sorry your doggy-like mind lacks the capability of comprehending conditional propositions, but that's not my fault.

 
At 02 March, 2012 11:00, Blogger Ian said...

If the aluminum reacts with the iron, the material is ignited. If the material is ignited, the epoxy burns.

So you have evidence that the material was ignited, right? And you also have evidence that this was what brought the towers down, right? Incendiary paint, put on when the towers were constructed in the early 70s, was apparently the culprit, according to the delusional liar who wears women's underwear and squeals endlessly about invisible widows.

I'm sorry your doggy-like mind lacks the capability of comprehending conditional propositions, but that's not my fault.

And there's the babbling about "conditional propositions" that we expect from the liar and lunatic who was banned from wikipedia for vandalizing the Chinese gymnastics team page.

 
At 02 March, 2012 11:02, Blogger Ian said...

Here's a conditional proposition:

If Brian had a job, and if he stopped dressing like a homeless person, and if he stopped wearing women's underwear, and if he stopped babbling about magic thermite elves, and if he stopped stalking Carol Brouillet, and if Carol Brouillet's husband didn't exist, he might actually be able to have a normal relationship with her.

Of course, none of these things are true, so Brian will continue to squeal about invisible widows and call people "girls" while sniffing glue and wearing women's underwear.

 
At 02 March, 2012 11:28, Blogger Ian said...

OT, but sure enough, Alex Jones has found a new conspiracy theory: Obama murdered Andrew Breitbart:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/03/02/meet_the_breitbart_truthers.html

 
At 02 March, 2012 11:35, Blogger plague311 said...

"If the aluminum reacts with the iron, the material is ignited. If the material is ignited, the epoxy burns.

I'm sorry your doggy-like mind lacks the capability of comprehending conditional propositions, but that's not my fault."

Ok, Pat Cowardly and snug.bug. Try to learn to read the chemical composition. There is nothing that will react, whether ignited or not. I know it takes a bit for you lesser forms of life to catch on to things, and I know since you couldn't get ass with a toilet lid on your face makes it lonely so you have to cling to whatever attention you'll get. However, it's over. There was no explosives.

 
At 02 March, 2012 12:29, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

So much ad hominem foolishness, no wonder no one ever took this blog seriously.

And now plague insists that the low ignition temps, energetic spikes, and melted iron are really properties of ordinary paint. Yeah. Nice try, son.

Why don't you suggest Pat paint his house with the stuff?

 
At 02 March, 2012 12:46, Blogger Ian said...

So much ad hominem foolishness, no wonder no one ever took this blog seriously.

And yet you continue to post here. I guess it's an outlet for all of your rage over the fact that jocks beat you up and the girls laugh at you.

I know, life is tough when you're a zit-faced scrawny virgin with no job, but you need to find more constructive ways of improving your situation than stalking Pat. Otherwise, you'll end up like Brian Good.

 
At 02 March, 2012 12:54, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Hey look: Ian wrote something irrelevant, based on his fantasy, and no one cares. Shocking!

In other news, Pat Curley still believes the melted iron came from fly ash that wasn't there, and which doesn't contain iron. Or was it clean-up torches that don't produce melted iron? Facts don't matter to Pat. He's a "DEBUNKUH"
So where did the melted iron come from, you obese shit-for-brains? YouknowImean...

 
At 02 March, 2012 13:43, Blogger plague311 said...

"Hey look: Ian wrote something irrelevant, based on his fantasy, and no one cares. Shocking!

In other news, Pat Curley still believes the melted iron came from fly ash that wasn't there, and which doesn't contain iron. Or was it clean-up torches that don't produce melted iron? Facts don't matter to Pat. He's a "DEBUNKUH"
So where did the melted iron come from, you obese shit-for-brains? YouknowImean..."

Congratulations, you have now proven that you are, quite possibly, the most incompetent twoofer I have ever encountered. I hate to tell you, jackass, but just because you say stupid shit doesn't make it true. It just means you are so stupid you can't comprehend or utilize information that is presented to you. I am glad my brain is awesome, and I am also glad your brain sucks. It makes me laugh inside.

I don't post here often, but what's up with the hard on you have for Pat? You seem to be infatuated. I am assuming gay but afraid to admit it?

 
At 02 March, 2012 14:05, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

Oh look, "debunkers" making gay jokes! How original!

Seems you're 'plagued' with a similar inability & failure to refute the arguments of others, resorting to childish ad-hominems. You'll feel right at home here with Pat and James.

Now tell us where all that melted iron came from, son.

 
At 02 March, 2012 14:15, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Cowardly, you're just quoting scripture. You haven't made a single substantive argument on this topic; you've merely declared that Millette must be wrong because Jones and Harritt are correct.

 
At 02 March, 2012 14:22, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 March, 2012 14:26, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 02 March, 2012 14:32, Blogger plague311 said...

"Oh look, "debunkers" making gay jokes! How original!

Seems you're 'plagued' with a similar inability & failure to refute the arguments of others, resorting to childish ad-hominems. You'll feel right at home here with Pat and James.

Now tell us where all that melted iron came from, son."

You are a walking billboard for hypocrisy. Your name is blatantly mocking someone, you do nothing but call names, and you have the nerve to try and call someone else out? Nice work ass hat.

Do you have a source that shows the melted iron? I would like to see it. Anything you can possibly bring that isn't from one of the tin foil hat brigade websites?

If you weren't so infatuated with another man maybe you wouldn't be the target of gay jokes.

 
At 02 March, 2012 15:10, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

And the "debunking" just keeps on not happening...

Continue to defend your gay jokes, Plague. They're clever and mature, just like you. Pat agrees.

Mark Roberts also just called, and told me he's never seen more effective 'debunking' in his life.

Oh yeah, nice job discussing the melted iron, too, and for asking me to do your homework for you. Looks like you found the right blog for your staggering ineptitude. Good luck with that.

 
At 02 March, 2012 15:43, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Oh yeah, nice job discussing the melted iron, too, and for asking me to do your homework for you.

Millette's work has you extremely agitated. You're never up this late.

 
At 02 March, 2012 15:47, Blogger plague311 said...

"And the "debunking" just keeps on not happening...

Continue to defend your gay jokes, Plague. They're clever and mature, just like you. Pat agrees.

Mark Roberts also just called, and told me he's never seen more effective 'debunking' in his life.

Oh yeah, nice job discussing the melted iron, too, and for asking me to do your homework for you. Looks like you found the right blog for your staggering ineptitude. Good luck with that."

So your continued hypocrisy shines like a beacon in the twoofer night. You criticize others about name calling, while your entire post consists of nothing but name calling. Good work, I see you must be one of the leaders of the twoofers.

Just to clarify, stupid, you're the one making the comment. It's on you to prove it, nice job at trying to spin it though. I'm not one of your moron twoofer friends though, I can think. Bring forth your evidence and I will absolutely crush you. The whole thought that 9/11 was a conspiracy has been proven false for 10 years. The twoofer movement is dead, no one cares except those of us that enjoy proving people wrong for the sport. The troll movement has made no progress, has no evidence, and has no backing by any reasonable professional. You may insult me all you want, at the end of the day I still get to go home to my awesome house, with my wonderful wife, and kids. You live with a family too I would assume. Mom's basement, nothing like home. Good work slugger, keep it up.

 
At 02 March, 2012 20:17, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

So PCowardlt has already moved his flaccid goal posts back and Bwian has retreated into his shell-game mode of defense.

Typical.

Don't cry guys, maybe a new conspiracy will come along and you two can ride that train in circles too.

Weeeeeeeeeee!

 
At 03 March, 2012 09:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Looks like it was another slow night in Castroville. Whassamatter, MGF, the Viagra shipment was delayed so your friends at Franco's stayed home?

 
At 03 March, 2012 09:36, Blogger Ian said...

Looks like it was another slow night in Castroville. Whassamatter, MGF, the Viagra shipment was delayed so your friends at Franco's stayed home?

Poor Brian. He's failed to get his "widows" questions answered, he's failed to get "meatball on a fork" published, he's failed to get a new investigation, and for his troubles, the truth movement banned him from associating with them.

This is thus the howling of an abject failure who still can't accept defeat, even as the rest of the world has moved on.

 
At 03 March, 2012 13:40, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

See ... nothing...Brian's got nothing...not like he ever did...nothing left to do but rearrange the deck furniture on the troofer Titanic and wave bye bye

 
At 04 March, 2012 08:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get the idea there's a "Troofer Titanic"--other than that its arrival would be the answer to your prayers?

 
At 04 March, 2012 09:28, Blogger John said...

Note that according to Cowardly, when Pat has no source he's making up his evidence.

But when Cowardly has no source, it's because he's not doing our homework for us.

 
At 04 March, 2012 09:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Under journalistic standards, legal standards, scientific standards, and academic standards, one is expected to support one's claims.

PC has no obligation to support his opinions. He's simply pointing out that when Pat doesn't support Pat's claims, then Pat's claims are merely in the realm of opinion.

 
At 04 March, 2012 11:06, Blogger Ian said...

Under journalistic standards, legal standards, scientific standards, and academic standards, one is expected to support one's claims.

Right, which is why the truth movement has gotten nowhere over the last decade. You've not supported any of your claims with any evidence. You've just babbled about invisible magic thermite and silent magic explosives.

You can squeal all you want about invisible widows with "questions", but you shouldn't expect anyone to take you seriously.

 
At 04 March, 2012 14:19, Blogger snug.bug said...

Skidmark, you lie and lie and lie.

 
At 04 March, 2012 14:29, Blogger Ian said...

Skidmark, you lie and lie and lie.

Poor Brian. I've humiliated him so many times. I've laughed at his hideous haircut and his penchant for dressing like a homeless person. I've mocked his obsession with "widows". I've taunted him for running away from debates with Craig Ranke and Willie Rodriguez.

No wonder he's so upset.

 
At 04 March, 2012 14:30, Blogger Ian said...

Brian, I have one more question.


Have the widows had their questions answered yet?

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

 
At 04 March, 2012 15:35, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Where do you get the idea there's a "Troofer Titanic"--other than that its arrival would be the answer to your prayers?"

The RMS Troofer Titanic (Retard Moron Shithead) set sail when that French idiot published his book about how 9/11 was an inside job. It promptly began ramming into icebergs of fact, over, and over, and over again.

Even though most abandoned the ship once it began taking on water, the die-hards remain remain believing the deepening water is proof they are close to revealing the "troof" for all to see.

On the Titanic the cries were "women & children first", on Trooftanic they hold 9/11 widows hostage by reopening old wounds in the name of their version of justice.

The only reason the Troofer Titanic hasn't gone to the bottom is because shit floats.

 
At 04 March, 2012 17:51, Blogger snug.bug said...

OK, so as far as you're concerned it was "Game Over" in 2002 when Thierry Meyssan published "The Big Lie".

And it doesn't bother you one bit that NIST's explanation of the behavior of the towers is inconsistent with Newton's 1st and 3rd laws, and the 1st and 2d laws of themodynamics.

Thanks for making clear where you stand: on a pedestal built of sand. Maybe if you weren't so embarrassed about having been an idiot conspiracy theorist you would be able to think about these things rationally.

 
At 04 March, 2012 18:20, Blogger Ian said...

OK, so as far as you're concerned it was "Game Over" in 2002 when Thierry Meyssan published "The Big Lie".

That's not what he said. Learn to read, Brian. If Meyssan had any evidence whatsoever for his claim, the "truth" movement wouldn't be in exactly the same spot 10 years later: nowhere.

And it doesn't bother you one bit that NIST's explanation of the behavior of the towers is inconsistent with Newton's 1st and 3rd laws, and the 1st and 2d laws of themodynamics.

No, none of us are concerned that a delusional liar and failed janitor doesn't understand the laws of physics.

If you did, you wouldn't be a truther. You also might not be an unemployed janitor.

Thanks for making clear where you stand: on a pedestal built of sand. Maybe if you weren't so embarrassed about having been an idiot conspiracy theorist you would be able to think about these things rationally.

My, such squealing!

Brian, if you didn't want us laughing at you and using you as a crude form of entertainment, maybe you should stop being such an object of ridicule and seek psychiatric care.

 
At 04 March, 2012 18:49, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"OK, so as far as you're concerned it was "Game Over" in 2002 when Thierry Meyssan published "The Big Lie"."

Yup. The guy sees Jews behind everything. There's a word for that, and reason why those people sit at the kiddie table.


"And it doesn't bother you one bit that NIST's explanation of the behavior of the towers is inconsistent with Newton's 1st and 3rd laws, and the 1st and 2d laws of themodynamics."

If Newton were here he'd tell you to fuck off. There is nothing inconsistent with Newton. If the buildings fell up, then we'd have something to talk about.

I'm pissed off NIST wasted money on the subject at all. The cause of the collapse is obvious.


"Thanks for making clear where you stand: on a pedestal built of sand. Maybe if you weren't so embarrassed about having been an idiot conspiracy theorist you would be able to think about these things rationally."

It's precisely because I'm embarrassed for my years as an idiot conspiracy theorist [which is redundant] that I do see things so much more rationally. It's all about you, Brian. You could care less about 9/11, you can't admit you've been fooled. Instead of acknowledging your mistake(s) and apologizing you continue to paint yourself into a tighter and tighter corner.

You are a prisoner of your own, sad, damaged mind

 
At 05 March, 2012 02:27, Blogger snug.bug said...

So the guy who thinks Newton wrote the laws of thermodynamics thinks he knows what Newton would say.

Perhaps you'd like to explain the
cause of the collapse to the 1675 architects and engineers--50 of them structural engineers, 40 of them high-rise architects, 40 of the them PhD engineers, 10 of them Stanford engineers?

 
At 05 March, 2012 05:54, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Perhaps you'd like to explain the
cause of the collapse to the 1675 architects and engineers--50 of them structural engineers, 40 of them high-rise architects, 40 of the them PhD engineers, 10 of them Stanford engineers?


Perhaps you can get 1 of them to submit a critique of NIST or what they think should of happened to any of the reputable journals on the planet. I guess the never ending appeals to authority, youtube videos, and fake journals will be good enough though.

 
At 05 March, 2012 06:05, Blogger Ian said...

Perhaps you'd like to explain the
cause of the collapse to the 1675 architects and engineers--50 of them structural engineers, 40 of them high-rise architects, 40 of the them PhD engineers, 10 of them Stanford engineers?


Nobody cares about your tiny group of crackpots and frauds and liars.

 
At 05 March, 2012 08:04, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"or what they think should of [sic] happened to any of the reputable journals on the planet [sic]".
ManDisasterDreck

or maybe you 'should of' learned how to write basic English phrases before advising anyone about anything.

It's the pseudointellectual pseudoskeptics that are the most pathetic, trying to sound knowledgeable, and falling flat on their fat asses (cutting torches & fly ash, anyone?).

 
At 05 March, 2012 08:07, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It's the pseudointellectual pseudoskeptics that are the most pathetic,

Don't you mean who are the most pathetic, cockservant?

 
At 05 March, 2012 12:30, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

Ahhhhh, I just love the smell of Truthers rotting in their own shit stew they've created for themselves.

Like I say: "Told ya nutbags so!"

Also I'd like to say thank you to those Truthers who contributed to the experiment. We all know the radical/insane Truthers will call you "shills" for contributing.

 
At 05 March, 2012 17:50, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"Perhaps you'd like to explain the
cause of the collapse to the 1675 architects and engineers--50 of them structural engineers, 40 of them high-rise architects, 40 of the them PhD engineers, 10 of them Stanford engineers?"

Simple.

Each Tower was struck by a speeding 767 aimed at each structure.

Planes go boom.

Fire ensues, key core support damaged.

Buildings fall down-go boom (not bang bang bang like a controlled demo).

A can't make it any simpler without sippy-cups and big-boy rubber pants.

 
At 05 March, 2012 22:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

How do you know "key core columns" were damaged? What makes some of the 47 columns "key" and some of the others ones not-key? Which ones were key and which ones not? If the building is built with a safety factor of three you could take out 16 core columns and it wouldn't hurt the building one bit.

Your logic seems to be "the building fell down, and therefore it fell down."

If it's so easy to explain, how come NIST punted?

 
At 06 March, 2012 06:07, Blogger Ian said...

How do you know "key core columns" were damaged? What makes some of the 47 columns "key" and some of the others ones not-key? Which ones were key and which ones not? If the building is built with a safety factor of three you could take out 16 core columns and it wouldn't hurt the building one bit.

So the columns weren't damaged, Brian? They were defective? Then how come the building didn't collapse while under construction?

Your logic seems to be "the building fell down, and therefore it fell down."

The buildings didn't fall down? It's really amusing how you use the word "logic" despite having no idea what it means. It's what I expect from a liar and lunatic and failed janitor who lives with his parents.

 
At 06 March, 2012 07:43, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

or maybe you 'should of' learned how to write basic English phrases before advising anyone about anything.

Typical cowardly truther running from the facts. 10+ years of fail and all they can do is cry about the grammar card.

 
At 06 March, 2012 09:03, Blogger snug.bug said...

I guess one could turn it around and say "10 years of fail and the debunkers still can't explain what happened--all they can do is engage in lying ad hominems about those who demand answers".

 
At 06 March, 2012 10:03, Blogger Ian said...

I guess one could turn it around and say "10 years of fail and the debunkers still can't explain what happened--all they can do is engage in lying ad hominems about those who demand answers".

Actually, one couldn't do that. What happened on 9/11 has been explained. Just because you don't accept it doesn't change things. You're a hysterical, desperate liar who needs 9/11 conspiracies to be true because it would, in your diseased mind, make up for all the failures in your life.

Since the truthers have no new questions about what happened and just endlessly repeat debunked nonsense, what do you expect? Rather than explain for the thousandth time why the towers fell the way they did, I'd much rather point and laugh at you for being a pathetic lunatic who lives with his parents because he can't hold down a job. Plus, the squealing and crying you do when I point this out is also hilarious.

 
At 06 March, 2012 10:11, Blogger Ian said...

I mean, just look at you. Are you trying to look like a homeless lunatic? Is that the new style?

I also love the ridiculous smile on your face. You're probably thinking that this will eventually make you internationally renowned. "I'm going to be the next Lech Walesa! Then Laurie Van Auken won't be able to resist my romantic gestures! All those girls who mocked me at Screw Loose Change will be sorry!"

 
At 06 March, 2012 15:08, Blogger TruthersrAlwaysWrong said...

I still like the idea of Brian filming his own experiments about nano-thermite melting a steel beam or column.

But that's just asking too much since he's too lazy to contribute to science.

 
At 06 March, 2012 18:10, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"How do you know "key core columns" were damaged?"

'Cuz each tower (identical in construction) collapsed AFTER impact & fire. On 9/10 both towers made it through the day without collapse. Why? Nobody'd flown a jet into them.


" What makes some of the 47 columns "key" and some of the others ones not-key? Which ones were key and which ones not?"

I'll clue you in. The unique design of the towers made them all key.

"If the building is built with a safety factor of three you could take out 16 core columns and it wouldn't hurt the building one bit."

Obviously this is incorrect. We know this because:

The towers fall down go boom

The new WTC has a reinforced core, a stronger milled steel frame (suggesting the steel in the original towers used a weaker steel), and a stronger mix of concrete. All changes based on the failings of the Twin Towers on 9/11.

A look at the change in NYC building codes, and the specific improvements in design of the new WTC suggest the original design had problems.

I don't need to stick my hand in lava to know it's hot. I don't need to get shot to know bullets hurt.

The NIST didn't need to go any further than they did because it's not their job to explain the obvious to stupid people.

 
At 06 March, 2012 20:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF, you're arguing that the towers fell down because they fell down. You say you know that key columns were damaged because the towers fell down, and you say the towers fell down because key columns were damaged. But you haven't even established that there were any "key" columns, let alone that they were damaged. You simply assume, irrationally, that if the towers fell, key columns must have been damaged.

The columns can't ALL be key. Not in a building constructed with much redundant structure, which the WTC was.

Only very ignorant people think the cause of the destruction of the towers is obvious. And only very stupid people can be ignorant of their ignorance.

 
At 06 March, 2012 21:09, Blogger Ian said...

MGF, you're arguing that the towers fell down because they fell down.

False. You're just an illiterate liar and lunatic, so this is what you wish he said.

But you haven't even established that there were any "key" columns, let alone that they were damaged. You simply assume, irrationally, that if the towers fell, key columns must have been damaged.

Brian babbling about "irrationality" again, as if he knows what he's talking about.

Of course, he won't answer the question: why did the towers collapse if they were not damaged?

The columns can't ALL be key. Not in a building constructed with much redundant structure, which the WTC was.

Asserted without evidence, as always with our liar and failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.

Only very ignorant people think the cause of the destruction of the towers is obvious. And only very stupid people can be ignorant of their ignorance.

Poor Brian, his squealing has become so hysterical because he knows he's been pwn3d.

 
At 06 March, 2012 21:10, Blogger Ian said...

I also noticed that you won't address my points, Brian. Obviously, I've humiliated you so many times because you're a liar and lunatic who squeals about magic thermite elves, and you don't want to address my points anymore.

You think sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I can't hear you!" is an argument.

 
At 06 March, 2012 22:26, Blogger M Gregory Ferris said...

"MGF, you're arguing that the towers fell down because they fell down."

Nope, Duchass, I'm stating a fact. The towers came down after being rammed by commercial jets.


"You say you know that key columns were damaged because the towers fell down, and you say the towers fell down because key columns were damaged."

Yes. The proof of this is the continued non-existence of either tower. If the key support wasn't damaged the tower(s) would still be there.

Duh.

" But you haven't even established that there were any "key" columns, let alone that they were damaged. You simply assume, irrationally, that if the towers fell, key columns must have been damaged."

Look, I get it. You want to fuck Richard Gage. Send him flowers.

Just so everyone is clear, Bwian-fucktard - Goode thinks an undamaged building will collapse. Show me empirical evidence for this, Bwian. Show me where a building just up and collapsed one sunny morning.

You have a mental problem, it won't allow you to grasp basics. Go back to your kiddie table friends.

"The columns can't ALL be key. Not in a building constructed with much redundant structure, which the WTC was."

...and yet it wasn't enough was it, Captain Oblivious. The building's designer has even admitted the success of the structure depended on nothing going wrong.

"Only very ignorant people think the cause of the destruction of the towers is obvious."

Oink oink oink. Whatever, war criminal. Look, I get it, the rectal thermometer broke while it was up there and you suffer from mercury poisoning. I have bad news, Bwian, you and a sad minority are the only ones confused about 9/11.

"And only very stupid people can be ignorant of their ignorance."

You mean like sexually harassing Carol, yet saying you didn't when she clearly says you did? That kind of ignorance?

 
At 07 March, 2012 05:20, Blogger Grandmastershek said...

Asserted without evidence, as always with our liar and failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.


Indeed...Brian spends so much time asking people for credentials, meanwhile just declaring what he wants ot believe as fact. Typical truther delusions.

 
At 07 March, 2012 08:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

MGF wrote: "The towers came down after being rammed by commercial jets."

Have you ever heard of the "post hoc ergo propter hoc" fallacy?

You continue to demonstrate your irrational belief that since the towers fell, key columns must have been damaged. You have not shown that there were any key columns, you have not identified the key columns that you believe were damaged, and you have not demonstrated that they were damaged. You have not explained why the towers endured for up to 102 minutes despite damage to key columns.

I can show you where a building just up and collapsed one sunny afternoon. Building 7.

Only very ignorant people think the cause of the destruction of the towers is obvious. NOVA tells us that most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell. The NYT tells us that engineers were baffled by the collapse of WTC7.

Carol didn't say I sexually harassed her. She complained that I was thinking evil thoughts. Apparently this belief was based on phone calls some prankster made to her family. I wasn't thinking evil thoughts, and I didn't make any of those phone calls.

GMS, I used to present evidence here, but when I saw my work instantly buried under many column inches of dumbspam and liespam I quit wasting my time.

 
At 07 March, 2012 09:27, Blogger Ian said...

It's amazing how hysterical and desperate Brian has gotten. He is now arguing that the towers fell down by themselves, by pure coincidence, on the same day they were struck by jetliners and had massive fires burning in them.

Had the jetliners not hit the towers, they would have fallen on 9/11/01 anyway.

I can show you where a building just up and collapsed one sunny afternoon. Building 7.

See what I mean? WTC 7 fell down on its own. How do we know this? A pathetic failed janitor and liar who has been banned from the "truth" movement says so.

Only very ignorant people think the cause of the destruction of the towers is obvious. NOVA tells us that most structural engineers were surprised when the towers fell. The NYT tells us that engineers were baffled by the collapse of WTC7.

Brian's lies are hysterical and hilarious. He actually expects us to take him seriously!

Carol didn't say I sexually harassed her. She complained that I was thinking evil thoughts. Apparently this belief was based on phone calls some prankster made to her family. I wasn't thinking evil thoughts, and I didn't make any of those phone calls.

See what I mean? Hysterical and pathetic lies repeated by a disgusting pervert who lives in his parents' basement.

GMS, I used to present evidence here, but when I saw my work instantly buried under many column inches of dumbspam and liespam I quit wasting my time.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. This is the only blog that lets him post. He's been banned everywhere else. And he's squealing because we mock him for his delusional babbling.

 
At 07 March, 2012 14:10, Blogger Pat Cowardly said...

"Typical cowardly truther running from the facts. 10+ years of fail and all they can do is cry about the grammar card"
-SpamMasterFeckless

Guess I hit a nerve with this boy. Hey Disaster: next time try bringing something substantive, and you won't be toyed with and humiliated all over the blog.

But instead you'll probably just say something stupid again, and "debunk" absolutely nothing, per usual.

 
At 08 March, 2012 07:31, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you provide no counterargument--only name-calling.
Your rhetorical skills are at a six-year-old level.

 
At 08 March, 2012 08:42, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you provide no counterargument--only name-calling.
Your rhetorical skills are at a six-year-old level.


What am I supposed to provide a "counterargument" to? You just babble about your delusions and debunked nonsense. Why should repeat for the thousandth time that the towers didn't collapse at free-fall acceleration when it's much more fun to mock you for your hideous haircut and your creepy obsession with widows?

 
At 08 March, 2012 08:46, Blogger snug.bug said...

I never said the towers fell at free fall. Dr. Shyam Sunder and NIST did.

You seem to think that labeling the issues babbling is sufficient so that you needn't deal with them. It's pretty obvious that you lack the capacity to deal with them if you wanted to, but you stupidly refuse to recognize your ignorance.

 
At 08 March, 2012 10:30, Blogger Ian said...

I never said the towers fell at free fall. Dr. Shyam Sunder and NIST did.

See what I mean? You say the towers fell at free-fall by lying about NIST and Dr. Sunder. It's hilarious how bad your endless lies are, petgoat.

You seem to think that labeling the issues babbling is sufficient so that you needn't deal with them. It's pretty obvious that you lack the capacity to deal with them if you wanted to, but you stupidly refuse to recognize your ignorance.

See what I mean? All you do is babble nonsensically when we mock you for being a liar and unemployed janitor who stalks women. Mocking you is fun because of the hysterical way you respond.

 
At 08 March, 2012 10:58, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 08 March, 2012 11:12, Blogger snug.bug said...

I didn't lie about NIST and Dr. Sunder. Your empty posturing fools only the lazy and the stupid.

I don't babble nonsensically or hysterically. I don't babble at all. You lie and lie and lie, and you're only proving that you lack the capacity (knowledge and education) to deal with the issues.

 
At 08 March, 2012 11:24, Blogger Ian said...

I didn't lie about NIST and Dr. Sunder. Your empty posturing fools only the lazy and the stupid.

Brian, all you do is post desperate, hysterical lies in order to delude yourself into believing 9/11 "truth".

I don't babble nonsensically or hysterically. I don't babble at all. You lie and lie and lie, and you're only proving that you lack the capacity (knowledge and education) to deal with the issues.

See what I mean?

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home