Insane
That's my vote with regard to this headline:
The writer, who apparently worked for CNN at one point, goes on to talk about one of the silliest tropes:9/11 Conspiracy Theory–Insane or Insightful?
I keep coming back to one question in the 9/11 conspiracy story: How did two jets knock down three New York City skyscrapers?Answer: They didn't. They caused a fire which knocked down the first two buildings, which damaged many surrounding buildings, including the third skyscraper, which burned uncontrollably for about 7 hours and finally collapsed.
posted by Pat @ 1:12 PM
176 comments
176 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
WTC7 hardly burned uncontrollably. It burned uncontrolled because FDNY was unwilling to fight the fire. Even uncontrolled, the videos and photos show, the fires were wimpy. NIST says that only six floors burned persistently. This in contrast to fires like the Beijing CCTV building where the entire building was engulfed, or the Caracas Towers were the fire burned 17 hours and spread ot 26 floors--and neither one of those fell down.
Two witnesses inside the building reported explosions. A reconnaissance team went into the building and found two elevator cars had been ejected from their tracks and were lying out in the hall. It was thus reasonable for FDNY to refuse to order men into the building. They said they had no water, but in fact they had 3 19,000 gpm fireboats in the WFC harbor, and they had run the hoses to West Street at least, with relay pumper trucks in the line. Perhaps they needed the water at Ground Zero, so perhaps that was not an option. You would expect FDNY to have access to the most sophisticated back-pack fire-suppressing sprayers in the world.
Brian for a guy who spends so much time claiming other people are not experts you sure do spend a lot of time pretending your opinion matters.
To the OP, I imagine truthers are equally perplexed by twins. Two babies, 1 penis!
Once again, a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State gives his delusional, ignorant opinion on WTC 7 for no particular reason. It's almost as if he thinks people will care what he says. Like Carol Brouillet said, he's delusional.
"Wimpy fires" @ 3:23, 3:45, 4:50 & 5:15. If you live in a delusional world I guess they might classify as "wimpy".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtkWNHSG3MY
Someone Brian you aren't bright enough to realize that all the pictures of fires truthers peddle are taken at night, which will naturally make them appear brighter than during the day, meanwhile you seem to be totally lost on the fact that in the middle of the day the light for the fires in WTC was readily visible with smoke billowing out of ~12 floors. What do you think that tells you? Don't worry...being the coward you are we all know you won't answer. You'll just parrot the BS you always run too and make claims based on your 0 epxertise.
Ian, I offered facts. The only opinion I offered was the speculation that FDNY has available means for fighting fires other than water and fire hydrants. If you have reason to believe this speculation is unreasonable, by all means provide some evidence. All you have is lies.
Wimpy fires, GMS. Somehow you seem to not be bright enough to realize that a building burning on 6 floors is not as bright as a building burning on 26 floors or 34 floors--whether by day or by night. Has it not occurred to you that a fire on one floor might generate smoke that exits from windows on other floors?
Ian, I offered facts
False. "Fires were wimpy" is not a fact. It is a judgment call, and one that is based on nothing but the delusions of a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
The only opinion I offered was the speculation that FDNY has available means for fighting fires other than water and fire hydrants.
This speculation is also based on nothing but delusions and ignorance. I would expect nothing else from a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves.
If you have reason to believe this speculation is unreasonable, by all means provide some evidence.
I have. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
Wimpy fires, GMS. Somehow you seem to not be bright enough to realize that a building burning on 6 floors is not as bright as a building burning on 26 floors or 34 floors--whether by day or by night. Has it not occurred to you that a fire on one floor might generate smoke that exits from windows on other floors?
See what I mean? Nothing but ignorant, delusional babbling.
This comment has been removed by the author.
an, you lie and lie and lie and lie. For instance, you lied about what I said about San Jose State, claiming that "I never said I failed out of San Jose State" can be construed as "I failed out of San Jose State." You also lied in saying I never repudiated your misquotation.
What's the matter, goat fucker? Does it bother you when your dirty, filthy quote mining tactics are used against you--you duplicitous scumbag?
Ian, you lie and lie and lie and lie. For instance, you lied about what I said about San Jose State, claiming that "I never said I failed out of San Jose State" can be construed as "I failed out of San Jose State." You also lied in saying I never repudiated your misquotation.
This hysterical squealing is about what I expect from you. Brian, anyone can see that you said "I failed out of San Jose State". Your alleged repudiation of said quote has questionable authenticity. For example, you said many times that you share your IP address with hundreds of people. How do we know it was you who repudiated the quote?
You would expect FDNY to have access to the most sophisticated back-pack fire-suppressing sprayers in the world.
How big a fire do you think you could put out with a "back-pack fire-suppressing sprayer"?
How big a fire do you think you could put out with a "back-pack fire-suppressing sprayer"?
It appears Brian was high on glue while watching "Ghostbusters" in his parents' basement at 3 am yesterday, as I can't think of any other explanation for this little bit of insanity.
Although I'm not really a Stones fan...
It burned uncontrolled because FDNY was unwilling to fight the fire.
So you're saying the FDNY made the choice not to fight the fire? And, in the process, let members of the FDNY die?
ButtGoo, I didn't quote-mine anybody. You clowns are inventing a phony excuse to try to justify lying about me.
Skidmark, I said "I never said I failed out of San Jose State". There's a difference.
bpete, how big a fire would depend on how many spray packs you had available.
John, nobody died at Building 7, unless you believe the tales about the Secret Service guy.
ButtGoo, I didn't quote-mine anybody. You clowns are inventing a phony excuse to try to justify lying about me.
Stop lying, Brian.
Skidmark, I said "I never said I failed out of San Jose State". There's a difference.
False. You said "I failed out of San Jose State". Then there are other quotes attributed to you, but with questionable authenticity, in which you deny this. It's not up to me to prove that you failed out of San Jose State. It's your responsibility to disprove it. C'mon, be a hero.
bpete, how big a fire would depend on how many spray packs you had available.
Also, it would help if you had many modified attack baboons who had been trained to fight fires.
John, nobody died at Building 7, unless you believe the tales about the Secret Service guy.
Correct, which is why it's so laughable that truthers cling to WTC 7 so desperately. Hey, two iconic skyscrapers have been destroyed and thousands killed, but Dick Cheney knew the American population wouldn't have been willing to go to war until he demolished some building nobody heard of, with no loss of life. THEN the gloves came off.
snug, even your fellow Truthers have had enough of this. Alienating and exasperating people on purpose is a waste of your life. Why not allow your intellect to radiate its full potential by adopting some humility and self-critique?
RGT wrote, "...Why not allow your intellect to radiate its full potential by adopting some humility and self-critique?"
Since when is pettifoggery defined as "intellect"?
Don't get me wrong, RGT, I think you're a fine person, but you give the scumbag far too much credit.
I self-critique constantly, RGT. That's why I'm never wrong.
The scumbag brays, "...That's why I'm never wrong."
On the contrary, scumbag.
You never self-critique, that's why you're an arrogant pettifogger who's constantly wrong.
E.g.,
Tell us more about ΔT, charlatan.
ButtGoo, your continuing belief that there's something magical about ΔT only proves your idiocy.
Goat fucker, your continuing belief that I think there's something "magical about ΔT" only proves that you're an arrogant liar who relies on straw man arguments as opposed to logic and facts.
FACT: You refused to answer the ΔT question for one reason and one reason only: You didn't know the answer. And you didn't know the definition of ΔT until I explained it to you.
And your arrogant "[t]hat's why I'm never wrong" malarkey proves that you don't have a background in physical science.
Now go soak your liver-spotted head--you arrogant old fart.
David F. Kyte FDNY Chief Hayden:
"By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse."
I have lost count how many times I have posted this here and on conspiracy theorist sites and it gets ignored by the truther. Hayden was there, he saw a 47 story building that was leaning and measured the lean with a "Transit" He saw a three story bulge in that same building! And truthers wonder how they knew the building may collapse?
I se Brian has not gotten any smarter.
"the speculation that FDNY has available means for fighting fires other than water and fire hydrants. "
Really? and how would you do that. C02? Halon?
Putting an idiot like Brian in charge would really screw things up.
ButtGoo, your belief that because I didn't answer your stupid question, therefore I didn't know the stupid answer, only proves your idiocy.
DK, what you're missing about Chief Hayden's story is that though he claims there was a bulge at the SW corner of the building at floor 10 to 13, according to the NYPD helicopter photo there was no SW corner at 10 to 13. And NIST ignores Chief Hayden's story--because if the building were truly bulged as he claims, then it should have fallen over to the SW instead of coming straight evenly down as it did.
The goat fucker squeals, "...your belief that because I didn't answer your stupid question, therefore I didn't know the stupid answer, only proves your idiocy."
The question was not "stupid"--you lying geriatric case. The question was germane to the "debate." Thus, you refused to answer the question because you didn't know the answer. As a result, it's obvious that you don't have a background in physical science.
As I've stated many times in the past, real scientists LOVE to discuss any subject that's relevant to our chosen field of study. A charlatan, on the other hand, who doesn't know his head from his ass, will steadfastly refuse to answer questions that are relevant to the topic of discussion for one reason and one reason only: He doesn't know the answer. In other words, you're a fraud.
Thus, the only person who has proven his "idiocy" can be found between your chair and the semen-encrusted keyboard which you abuse on a constant basis.
Now squeal and lie--you arrogant, brain-dead old fart.
And why does the NIST report contain a schematic of WTC 7 that clearly shows a bulge in the building between floors 7-14 if, as you falsely claim, "NIST ignores Chief Hayden's story"? (See NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14, View From West, Buckling of the lower exterior columns, floors 07-14)
Lying again--you filthy old pervert?
ButtGoo, your question about ΔT was stupid. Real scientists don't like to waste their time debating lying, ignorant poseurs like you.
Figure 3-14 shows no bulge in the SW corner, ButtGoo. In fact the exterior wall is buckling inward, exactly the opposite failure mode than that expected had there been a bulge. You really are an ass.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The goat fucker squeals, "...your question about ΔT was stupid. Real scientists don't like to waste their time debating lying, ignorant poseurs like you."
Really? Then why couldn't you answer the question? The proof is in the pudding, pervert. And you failed.
The goat fucker lies, "...Figure 3-14 shows no bulge in the SW corner, ButtGoo. In fact the exterior wall is buckling inward, exactly the opposite failure mode than that expected had there been a bulge. You really are an ass."
Another bald faced lie--you filthy old pervert?
This is a direct link to NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14:
NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14, View From West, Buckling of the lower exterior columns, floors 07-14.
I clearly stated "View From West," not "View From South"--you shiny pated pervert.
So who's the ass--you lying, uneducated poseur?
Once again, you've proven that you're a compulsive liar who constantly misrepresents his "source."
Now cherry pick the NIST Report again--you filthy old pervert.
I self-critique constantly, RGT. That's why I'm never wrong.
So is this "self-critique" why you stopped babbling about "meatball on a fork" and lie about being petgoat? Is it why you don't babble about volcanic eruptions at the WTC anymore? Or about SAMs at the Pentagon? Or about how the WTC was designed with explosives in place? or about how you would have escaped from the upper floors of WTC one by breaking through the floors or by creating a parachute?
Brian, the list of utterly insane things you've babbled about here goes on forever, and yet you quietly drop most of them. Well, except for your nonsense about "widows" and about WTC 7.
Here's a quote from Brian over at Troof Action:
Some people (like me, for instance) have an interest in physics and construction and chemistry and the scientific method, and thus find the many puzzles in the buildings' destruction and in the behavior of the official investigators fascinating. Probably most people with that skill set have little historical awareness and thus little patience for or interest in the intel side.
http://truthaction.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7545&start=0&sid=cc3910431f078360eb1b63512b66c8dc
Once again, the Troofers prove impervious to parody.
ButtGoo, your belief that because I didn't answer your stupid question, therefore I didn't know the stupid answer, only proves your idiocy. Maybe if you'd actually read the posts to which you are responding, then your posts wouldn't be so dumb and repetitive.
Anybody who looks at your picture at Fig. 3-14 can see that not only does it not show an outward bulge at the SW corner, it shows a dramatic INWARD deformation. Can we add an inability to read simple diagrams onto your list of anti-skills? The View from the West shows no outward bulge on the SW corner.
Pat, your belief that because the fires at WTC7 were uncontrolled, therefore they were uncontrollable is certainly not impervious to parody.
Anybody who looks at your picture at Fig. 3-14 can see that not only does it not show an outward bulge at the SW corner, it shows a dramatic INWARD deformation. Can we add an inability to read simple diagrams onto your list of anti-skills? The View from the West shows no outward bulge on the SW corner.
Hey, if a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State says so, it must be true. I mean, it's not like Brian has a history of lying about everything in a pathetic attempt to keep his delusions about 9/11 alive.
Pat, your belief that because the fires at WTC7 were uncontrolled, therefore they were uncontrollable is certainly not impervious to parody.
Brian, nobody cares about WTC 7. You do, but that's because you're a deranged failed janitor who was such a liar and lunatic that he was banned from the truth movement. You do nothing all day but post dumbspam on the internet and call people "girls". Nobody cares what you say or what you think.
Which, of course, is why everyone just laughs at you when you babble about your invisible widows.
Has it not occurred to you that a fire on one floor might generate smoke that exits from windows on other floors?
Pretty impressive you get all that smoke starting from 1 alleged floor with a wimpy fire coming out of 12 others. I think thats the reason why so many people can't stand truthers, its the ability of people like yourself to do mental backflips to maintain such delusions.
Sad for you Brian a fire will apear much brighter at night than during the day; a child understands this. You can dance around all you want but you're simply parading delusions.
Ian, all you've got is lies about me. Can't you find something more interesting to lie about? Or if you insist on lying about me, can't you at least make your lies more interesting? Is your imagination so feeble? Your cartoon world is so boring!
I am wondering what criteria Brian is using in determining these as "wimpy fires" . I am sure its from a fully reputable source and not some BS CT website or purely form his ass.
GMS, wimpy fires can make a lot of smoke. Have you never sat next to a wet campfire in the rain? Also, since the wind was coming from the NW, it is pretty clear that a low-pressure area on the s side of the building was sucking up smoke from the WTC6 and WTC5 and WTC1 fires so it looks like it's coming from WTC7.
The same phenomenon can be seen after the collapse of WTC2, where every window on the south side of WTC1 appears to be belching white dust.
Ian, all you've got is lies about me. Can't you find something more interesting to lie about? Or if you insist on lying about me, can't you at least make your lies more interesting? Is your imagination so feeble? Your cartoon world is so boring!
My, such squealing!
Brian still hasn't proved that he didn't fail out of San Jose State, nor does he have any evidence that the widows have questions, so he'll try to bury my points in spam.
GMS, wimpy fires can make a lot of smoke. Have you never sat next to a wet campfire in the rain? Also, since the wind was coming from the NW, it is pretty clear that a low-pressure area on the s side of the building was sucking up smoke from the WTC6 and WTC5 and WTC1 fires so it looks like it's coming from WTC7.
Brian, he asked for evidence that the fires were wimpy, not pointless, desperate speculation.
The same phenomenon can be seen after the collapse of WTC2, where every window on the south side of WTC1 appears to be belching white dust.
For a few minutes, not seven hours, but good try, Brian. I know how desperate you are for WTC 7 to be a controlled demolition, but this is pathetic even by your abysmal standards.
Skidmark you continue to lie and lie and lie. The widows' 273 unanswered questions are well documented at justicefor911.org Appendix 4.
The evidence that the fires were wimpy is the photos in NIST's reports. Also the fact that instead of spreading to more floors they contracted to fewer floors than at the start.
The dust in the vortex on WTC7 dissipated in a few minutes, yes. The smoke at WTC7 was continually recharged by smoke coming up from fires at WTC5 and 6 and 1.
Captain Crotchrot lies, "...Anybody who looks at your picture at Fig. 3-14 can see that not only does it not show an outward bulge at the SW corner, it shows a dramatic INWARD deformation. Can we add an inability to read simple diagrams onto your list of anti-skills? The View from the West shows no outward bulge on the SW corner."
Another lie, goat fucker?
This is a direct link to NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14:
NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14, View From West, Buckling of the lower exterior columns, floors 07-14.
The picture titled "View From West" shows an outward bulge that begins at floor 7 and extends upward along the right-hand side of the drawing.
That's the bulge mentioned by FDNY Chief Hayden.
FACT: You are pretending that the huge bulge in the picture titled "View From West" doesn't exist.
Now, I ask anyone to look at the picture titled NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14. Buckling of lower exterior columns within 1s of figure 3-13 and tell me that there isn't a bulge that begins at floor 7 and extends upward along the right-hand edge of the drawing.
After looking at the picture, I challenge anyone to deny the existence of the bulge.
Any takers?
FACT: You're a shameless liar with the morals of an alley cat, goat fucker.
Now lie to us again, scumbag, and pretend that the HUGE bulge along the right-hand side of the drawing doesn't exist.
Once again, you FAIL, shit-for-brains.
Skidmark you continue to lie and lie and lie. The widows' 273 unanswered questions are well documented at justicefor911.org Appendix 4.
False.
The evidence that the fires were wimpy is the photos in NIST's reports. Also the fact that instead of spreading to more floors they contracted to fewer floors than at the start.
Thanks for proving my point. The idea that the fires were "wimpy" is nothing more than delusions. And given that you've proven yourself time and again to be a delusional liar, this is not unexpected.
The dust in the vortex on WTC7 dissipated in a few minutes, yes. The smoke at WTC7 was continually recharged by smoke coming up from fires at WTC5 and 6 and 1.
Nobody cares.
Can anyone honestly look at the drawing titled NCSTAR1A, Figure 3-14. Buckling of lower exterior columns within 1s of figure 3-13 and not conclude that the building was poised for collapse?
Bear in mind that the damage between floors 10-13 was under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors.
You're out of your mind, goat fucker.
There is no way the building could have withstood that enormous gravitational load--period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
FDNY Chief Hayden misspoke when he said "bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13." Clearly he mean to say "bulge in the northwest corner between floors 10 and 13."
C'mon, do you think this will matter to Brian? He's going to babble endlessly about how the FDNY chief said southwest corner, just as he babbles endlessly about what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said even though it's irrelevant.
But we know why Brian does this, as he told us himself. He failed out of San Jose State.
So what has the goat fucker managed to prove?
Answer: Nothing.
Obviously the drawing titled "View From South" doesn't show the NW corner of the building. Only until the drawing is rotated 90 degrees to the west does the bulge appear in the "View From West" drawing.
So what has the goat fucker managed to prove?
Answer: FDNY Chief Hayden misspoke when he said "bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13." Clearly he meant to say "bulge in the northwest corner between floors 10 and 13."
So how does that simple mistake change the outcome of the damage?
Answer: It's doesn't.
Conclusion: Once again, you're playing semantic games.
And your idiotic semantic games don't change the facts: The damage between floors 10-13 was under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors.
There is no way the building could have withstood that enormous gravitational load--period.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ian wrote, "...C'mon, do you think this will matter to Brian? He's going to babble endlessly about how the FDNY chief said southwest corner, just as he babbles endlessly about what Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh-Asl said even though it's irrelevant."
Yep, point taken. You'll get no argument from me, my friend.
All he has are semantic games. And he has the unmitigated gall to call his detractors "pedants."
Again, how does that simple mistake change the outcome of the damage to WTC 7?
The answer is obvious: It doesn't.
Now watch while he avoids my question like plague.
ButtGale, you can't read simple diagrams. The View from the South DOES show the NW corner. Also, that figure, Fig 3-14, is a picture of a collapsing building, not a pre-collapse condition. Also, there is no bulge shown in the SW corner as you claim. The bulge above the 14th floor is beyond the middle of the south face, as you can see by the fact that the spandrels are angling upward. There is no bulge in the SW corner from 10 to 13.
All you're demonstrating is that you see what you want to see, and then you rewrite the witnesses' testimony to fit your erroneous inferences.
Bwa ha ha.
ButtGale, you can't read simple diagrams. The View from the South DOES show the NW corner. Also, that figure, Fig 3-14, is a picture of a collapsing building, not a pre-collapse condition. Also, there is no bulge shown in the SW corner as you claim. The bulge above the 14th floor is beyond the middle of the south face, as you can see by the fact that the spandrels are angling upward. There is no bulge in the SW corner from 10 to 13.
See what I mean? Brian will forever be posting his pathetic, desperate dumbspam. He thinks if he sticks his fingers in his ears and screams "I can't hear you", then 9/11 truth nonsense can still be plausible.
Unfortunately for him, nobody cares what he thinks. He exists merely to amuse people like us with his delusions about magic thermite elves and invisible widows.
Skidmark, your kneejerk defense of the many errors in ButtGoo's analysis only further discredits you.
The goat fucker squeals, "...The View from the South DOES show the NW corner."
Sorry, you need to rotate the drawing at least 1 quadrant (90 degrees) to see the northwest corner of the building.
And, as predicted, you're avoiding the question.
Again, how does FDNY Chief Hayden's testimony change the outcome?
Do you deny that floors 10-13, which suffered extensive damage, were under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors?
Now squeal, lie and avoid the questions.
And while you're squealing and lying, what affect would the removal of the southwest perimeter column have on the building? And don't forget that the perimeter columns are CRITICAL columns.
And here's the photographic evidence that shows the southwest perimeter column was removed from floor 18 to the ground.
Photo: SW Corner Damage Starting At Floor 18.
The goat fucker squeals, "...Also, that figure, Fig 3-14, is a picture of a collapsing building, not a pre-collapse condition."
I'm well aware that chapter 3 of the NIST Report states the following:
"...Figure 3-10 through Figure 3-14 depict the state of the WTC 7 structure at various times as the structure collapsed."
But that's beside the point.
Again, answer the questions:
[1] How does FDNY Chief Hayden's testimony change the outcome?
[2] Do you deny that floors 10-13, which suffered extensive damage, were under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors?
[3] What affect would the removal of the southwest perimeter column have on the building? And don't forget that the perimeter columns are CRITICAL columns.
Now squeal, lie, obfuscate and change the subject.
Skidmark, your kneejerk defense of the many errors in ButtGoo's analysis only further discredits you.
Who am I discredited with, Brian? You? You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State and now spends every waking hour spamming the internet with gibberish about magic thermite elves and invisible widows.
Why on earth should I care if I'm "discredited" with someone as worthless as you?
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...WTC7 hardly burned uncontrollably. It burned uncontrolled because FDNY was unwilling to fight the fire. Even uncontrolled, the videos and photos show, the fires were wimpy. NIST says that only six floors burned persistently. This in contrast to fires like the Beijing CCTV building where the entire building was engulfed, or the Caracas Towers were the fire burned 17 hours and spread ot [SIC] 26 floors--and neither one of those fell down."
That's a ridiculous analogy.
Why?
Nether building, the Beijing CCTV building or the Caracas Towers, suffered extensive damage to their critical columns.
WTC 7, on the other hand, suffered extensive damage to one of it's critical columns--the southwest perimeter column to be specific.
Thus, you're comparing apples-to-oranges.
So when do you plan to answer my questions, goat fucker?
[1] How does FDNY Chief Hayden's testimony change the outcome?
[2] Do you deny that floors 10-13, which suffered extensive damage, were under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors?
[3] What affect would the removal of the southwest perimeter column have on the building? And don't forget that the perimeter columns are CRITICAL columns.
Now squeal, lie, obfuscate and change the subject.
ButtGoo, you can go on and on about nothing like nobody's business.
You brought up Chief Hayden's testimony as if it were meaningful,
then you said he misspoke, and now you ask if it's meaningful.
Whassamatter, Ace? Did your 3-year-old beat you at checkers again?
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
First, you haven't proven that Chief Hayden's testimony is incorrect.
Why?
Only a portion of WTC 7's SW corner was destroyed. That doesn't invalidate his "bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13" claim.
Furthermore, Figure 3-14 only deals with the columns and trusses, not the South parapet wall. As a result, his testimony could very well be accurate.
That's the difference between me and you, goat fucker. I acknowledge that I wasn't in New York City on that day. As a result, I'll accept Chief Hayden's testimony. You, on the other hand, try to pass yourself off as an expert, while you were no closer to New York City than I was on that fateful day.
Are you calling Chief Hayden a liar? Are you trying to imply that Chief Hayden was in on the "conspiracy"? If so, you've presented not a scintilla of evidence to substantiate your assertions, ass.
So when do you plan to answer my questions, goat fucker?
[1] How does FDNY Chief Hayden's testimony change the outcome?
[2] Do you deny that floors 10-13, which suffered extensive damage, were under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors?
[3] What affect would the removal of the southwest perimeter column have on the building? And don't forget that the perimeter columns are CRITICAL columns.
We always know when your back is against the wall. You won't answer legitimate questions. Instead, you change the subject and go into obfuscation mode.
Now squeal, lie, obfuscate and change the subject again, fool.
Chief Hayden says there was a bulge from 10 to 13 on the SW corner.
But according to your own photo, there was no SW corner from 18 to the ground.
According to your own diagram from NIST, the SW corner buckled INWARD, which is inconsistent with a bulge outward. It's a waste of time to argue with you. You don't know what you're talking about, and you bury the truth under pantloads of liespam.
The goat fucker squeals, "...But according to your own photo, there was no SW corner from 18 to the ground."
That's not an answer, goat fucker, it's an evasion.
The photo only shows a portion of the SW corner. That does not, by any means, invalidate Chief Hayden's testimony. You simply can't see the entire SW corner, nor can you see the South parapet wall.
Do you have X-Ray vision, too?
Thus, your assertions aren't worth the ASCII characters you waste to post them.
Should we believe the testimony of a clown who was in Palo Alto, CA on 11 September 2001, or a firefighter who participated in the rescue and firefighting operation?
I think the choice is obvious. But then again, the obvious is never obvious to a liar with a hidden political agenda.
The goat fucker squeals, "...According to your own diagram from NIST, the SW corner buckled INWARD, which is inconsistent with a bulge outward."
No, that's not necessarily the case. As I said above, Figure 3-14 only deals with the columns and trusses, not the South parapet wall. As a result, Chief Hayden's testimony could very well be accurate.
The goat fucker squeals, "...You don't know what you're talking about...[blah][blah][blah]."
That means a lot when coming from a liar who makes specious assertions like "[t]his in contrast to fires like the Beijing CCTV building where the entire building was engulfed, or the Caracas Towers were the fire burned 17 hours and spread ot [SIC] 26 floors--and neither one of those fell down," when, in fact, neither building, the Beijing CCTV building or the Caracas Towers, suffered extensive damage to their critical columns.
So when do you plan to answer my questions, goat fucker?
[1] How does FDNY Chief Hayden's testimony change the outcome?
[2] Do you deny that floors 10-13, which suffered extensive damage, were under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors?
[3] What affect would the removal of the southwest perimeter column have on the building? And don't forget that the perimeter columns are CRITICAL columns.
Now stop trying to shift the burden of proof, ass. You made the outrageous and unsubstantiated claims as concerns Chief Heyden's testimony, while offering not a scintilla of evidence to support your assertions, so the burden of proof rests squarely on your shoulders and your shoulders alone.
You won't answer the question, because to do so will destroy your idiotic conspiracy theory.
Honestly, who do you think you're fooling, goat fucker? Because I can assure you that you're fooling no one, with the exception of yourself.
Now answer the questions, Pinocchio.
Now I know that you'll never answer the questions because you're a lying psychopath with a hidden political agenda; thus, I'll answer the questions for you.
[1] How does FDNY Chief Hayden's testimony change the outcome?
The answer is simple: It doesn't. After all, Chief Heyden PREDICTED the collapse of WTC 7 hours before the collapse actually occurred. So who was right?
Again, the answer is obvious: Chief Heyden was right.
[2] Do you deny that floors 10-13, which suffered extensive damage, were under the enormous gravitational load of 34 floors?
Again, the answer is obvious to sane people: The complete removal of the southwest perimeter column forced the redistribution of the enormous gravitational load it supported to the remaining columns. Columns that were subjected to a fierce fire that weakened them considerably. Thus, the damage to the southwest corner of the building guaranteed the eventual collapse of WTC 7.
[3] What affect would the removal of the southwest perimeter column have on the building? And don't forget that the perimeter columns are CRITICAL columns.
Again, the removal of the southwest perimeter column forced the redistribution of the enormous gravitational load it supported to the remaining columns. When column 79A buckled the east penthouse crashed through the building's top floor destroying everything in its path as it fell to the bottom floor. This event forced the redistribution of column 79A's gravitational load to the remaining columns. As a result, columns 80, 81, 82 and 83 buckled. This was simply more than the remaining columns could bear because they too were severely weakened by fire. As a result, an internal collapse ensued and the building collapsed.
Face it, goat fucker, your argument is threadbare. And you have not a scintilla of evidence to bring the NIST Report on WTC 7 into question.
Now squeal, lie, obfuscate and change the subject again, fool.
Where do you get the idea that floors 10-13 suffered extensive damage? NIST doesn't say they did.
NIST says that any structural impact damage played no part in collapse initiation. If the damage you greatly exaggerate had any bearing on the issue, the building would have toppled over to the SW.
You live in a fantasy world.
The goat fucker squeals, "...Where do you get the idea that floors 10-13 suffered extensive damage? NIST doesn't say they did."
This isn't extensive damage?
Where did the southwest perimeter column's gravitational load go? Into the ether?
It was redistributed to the remaining columns.
Of course the destruction of the southwest perimeter column contributed to the collapse. I never said it initiated the collapse.
Furthermore, your argument is a straw man. I stated above that the failure of column 79A initiated the collapse, which is into total agreement with the NIST Report. Learn to read, idiot.
You just can't "debate" without resorting to deliberate misinterpretation of my argument, can you, scumbag?
The goat fucker squeals, "...NIST says that any structural impact damage played no part in collapse initiation. If the damage you greatly exaggerate had any bearing on the issue, the building would have toppled over to the SW."
False. The gravitational load imposed by the 34 stories of the building above the damage would have pulled the building straight down.
The only person who lives in a fantasy world can be found between your chair and the semen-encrusted keyboard you abuse on a daily basis.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Where do you get the idea that the destruction of the SW corner contributed to the collapse? NIST didn't say it did.
You're just making this stuff up, trying to bullshit yourself away from what fool you made of yourself with your figure 3-14 analysis where you couldn't even find the NW corner on the w elevation with both hands, misread all the bulges, misread the time frame, and had to claim that Chief Hayden misspoke.
Where did the southwest perimeter column's gravitational load go? Into the ether?
Answer the question.
Does the word cumulative mean anything to you?
Furthermore, I never said that the destruction of the perimeter column caused the collapse.
The collapse began when the truss "walked off" the truss seat that was attached to column 79A. I have never disputed that conclusion.
So give up the straw man arguments, goat fucker.
Besides, you don't give a damn about 9/11 or the "widows."
Isn't it interesting that you didn't begin to show up at SLC on a regular basis until after Pat, James, Willie and Ian exposed your conspiracy to destroy Carol Brouillet's marriage and her political campaign?
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
Thus, the real reason you're here has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the "widows."
You're here to harass the people who exposed your disgusting conspiracy to destroy Carol Brouillet's marriage and her political campaign.
Thus, you're not driven by a love of "the truth." You're driven by an insane desire to harass and denigrate the people who embarrassed your sorry ass, the real defenders of the truth: Pat, James, Willie and Ian.
Your real motives are as transparent as a piece of Saran Wrap.
Now go peddle your conspiracy prattle to the chinless jerkoffs who frequent 911Flogger.
Hmm, more hysterical spam from Brian. Can anyone figure out exactly what he's trying to accomplish? I'm sure it has to do with his mental illness and his need to feed his ego, but still, it's bizarre that he'd waste years of his life posting the same nonsense again and again at this blog.
Ian, see my post at time stamp 12 April, 2012 20:58 for the goat fucker's real motive.
Now let the squealing begin.
Why should I squeal? You squeal enough for ten of us. You make a fool of yourself. I don't have to do a thing.
Weak.
So you don't have a word to say in your defense? And all you can do is spew straw man arguments?
Your silence is a tacit admission of guilt.
I rest my case.
You're sick, goat fucker.
Seek psychiatric intervention.
You don't know what you're talking about, your inability to read a simple diagram suggests advanced dyslexia, and you want to rewrite the witness's testimony to fit your incomprehension. You haven't got a case to rest.
I thought you weren;t going to squeal, asshole?
So much for that crap. Right Pinocchio.
I can read a schematic just fine, goat fucker. And all you've provided as evidence so far, are straw man arguments. And straw man arguments, wherein you twist and distort my argument beyond recognition, aren't proof of anything other than your dishonesty and unwillingness to "debate" in good faith.
Your inability to mount an argument based on FACTS, as opposed to your worthless, 100% fact-free opinion, proves that you're a nut-bag with a hidden political agenda.
Like I said, you have not a shred of evidence that brings Chief Heyden's testimony into question.
And as I stated above, I don't know what he saw, because I wasn't in New York City on 11 September 2001, and neither were you. And the photo of the SW corner, WHICH I WAS HONEST ENOUGH TO LINK INTO MY POSTS, doesn't support your argument.
As I pointed out, Figure 3-14 deals only with the columns and trusses, not the parapet wall.
So you have not a shred of evidence to support your idiotic "the SW corner buckled INWARD, which is inconsistent with a bulge outward" malarkey. You have no idea what happened to the parapet wall. Only trained eyewitnesses, like Chief Heyden, know what happened that day. And all of your denial and 100% fact-free nay-saying proves NOTHING.
FACT: You haven't made a case. All you've provided is the worthless, 100% fact-free opinion of a proven compulsive liar, stalker and sex predator.
As I pointed out above, the real reason you're here has nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11 or the "widows."
You're here to harass the people who exposed your insane conspiracy to destroy Carol Brouillet's marriage and her political campaign.
9/11 Sex Stalker Brian Good Unmasked!
You're truly and undeniably sick, goat fucker.
Seek psychiatric intervention.
And here's the proof that in fact you're the one who can't read a schematic or a diagram.
"...The View from the South DOES show the NW corner." -- The goat fucker, 12 April, 2012 14:42.
How can you see the northwest wall from a FRONTAL VIEW OF THE SOUTH WALL?
Do you have X-Ray vision?
Sorry, you need to rotate the drawing at least 1 quadrant (90 degrees) to see the northwest corner of the building.
So who can't read a diagram or schematic?
The answer is simple: He can be found between your chair and the semen-encrusted keyboard you abuse on a daily basis.
Any more straw man arguments for us, liar?
You live in a fantasy world, liar.
Now go peddle your conspiracy prattle to the chinless jerkoffs who frequent 911Flogger.
You can see the northwest corner from a view of the south wall because, as everyone knows, WTC7 has a trapezoidal floor plan so the south view includes a view of the west wall.
Sorry, there are two sides to the northwest corner of the wall. Are you still working on the concept of a trapezoid, dufus?
Must I draw a trapezoid for you, too, genius?
So all you've proven is that you can't pass a formal examination in elementary geometry.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
Ummm, you don't need to see both sides of the corner to see the corner ButtGirl.
Still trying to impress us with the breadth and depth of your ignorance, dufus?
Yes, you can see ONE side of the northwest wall from a frontal view of the SOUTH wall, but you can't see the other. That's why it's called a corner, genius.
Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.
If you can see one side, you can see the corner. Seeing two sides is called "seeing around the corner". Glad I could help. If you need any tips on tying your shoes, let me know. Also toothpaste--did you know you're not supposed to swallow it?
But let's get back to the subject post, and Pat's ridiculous claim that the WTC7 fires were "uncontrollable". Obviously even without water the fires could have been contained as forest fires are by removing the fuel in their forward path and allowing them to burn out. FDNY did not do this.
This comment has been removed by the author.
This comment has been removed by the author.
No, wrong again.
A corner, as I stated earlier, HAS TWO SIDES, dumbshit.
The south face of the building, which faced Vesey street, was 247 ft in length. The north side of the building, which faced Barclay Street, was 329 ft in length. The east and west sides of the building were 140 ft in depth, and faced Washington Street and West Broadway Street.
If you stand on the Vesey street side of the building, which faces the SOUTH face of the building, you would be able to see the north corner of the building that ran alongside West Broadway street. You would be able to see one side of the corner of that corner of the building, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING WHICH FACED BARCLAY STREET. Likewise, if you look to the other north corner of the building, you would be able to see the corner of the building, which runs along Washington Street, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIDE OF THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING WHICH FACED BARCLAY STREET.
Would you care to impress us with the breadth and depth of your ignorance again, shit-for-brains?
Is it any wonder that you're a college dropout? Is it any wonder that you're so confused about the events of 11 September 2001? Probably not.
So what's the point of discussing anything with you, goat fucker? After all, you've just managed to prove conclusively that you're an idiot who can't pass a formal examination in elementary geometry.
Now go to bed, old man, before you embarrass yourself again.
A corner has two sides, but you need only see one side to see the corner.
You are only desperately trying to avoid being wrong. And, as usual, failing.
I see you indulge your fact-dump behavior, as usual. This habit suggests your education was very poor--you know that, right?
Captain Crotchrot squeals, "...A corner has two sides, but you need only see one side to see the corner."
Squeal, squeal, squeal.
False.
That's only true if you count the edge of the corner as the corner. In that case, the corner would not have two sides, which is illogical and a contradiction of terms given that you just stated "[a] corner has two sides."
Contradicting yourself again, Pinocchio? Of course you're contradicting yourself.
In fact, you're desperately applying non-logic in your typically contrarian fashion in order to avoid admitting that you're wrong.
Furthermore, my education was top notch. That's why I have a career, a family, own a home and have a fat bank account.
You, on the other hand, are a college dropout with a mind of mush. And that's why you're an insane, failed janitor.
Now go to bed, old man, it's past your bedtime.
The edge of the corner is the corner. You're desperately trying to lawyer away your humiliation with silly semantical arguments.
You believe your education was top-notch only because you were sold on that notion to induce you to pay top-notch fees for it. The evidence you show here is that it was very poor. You seem to think that more words makes a stronger case. Only the laziest of educators would spread such notions.
Goat fucker, you just contradicted yourself when you stated "a corner has two sides."
If you can only see one side of a corner, then it follows that you cannot see the entire corner, which, as you just admitted, has two sides.
Thus, the view from the south DOES NOT show the entire NW corner as you falsely claim. And that's why it's necessary to rotate the drawing at least 1 quadrant (90 degrees) to see both sides of the corner on the northwest side of the building.
Of course, as always, you're wrong. And you still can't read a schematic or a diagram.
But look on the bright side, you now have the opportunity to Google the word quadrant and learn its meaning.
Then again, since you're impervious to logic, the exercise is pointless.
And, as always, you're trying to bury the posts where I exposed your campaign to destroy Carol Brouillet's marriage and her political campaign in an avalanche of squealspam. But that's okay, because I'll rub it in your ferret face tomorrow.
Now go to bed old man. After all, you have a long day of lying, spamming and making an ass of yourself ahead of you. And you wouldn't want to be late for that, now would you, Pinocchio?
it is pretty clear that a low-pressure area on the s side of the building was sucking up smoke from the WTC6 and WTC5 and WTC1 fires so it looks like it's coming from WTC7.
Brian your ability to regurgitate what other people say is not impressive. Truthers try to parade around that ridiculous argument to say the smoke on the south side of WTC 7 is from 6. Sadly photos and video exist showing the smoke coming out of 7. Not to mention how the hell does such a vacuum allow smoke to travel north when the wind is blowing south? Yah the know the video, & picture which you contend are "winpy fires". Sorry Brian, but as is usual you simply demonstrates you just make shit up and parrot other morons.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXa5uATKrwY
I also love Brian's repeated appeals to silence on the part of NIST when ever the facts don't jive for him. As is typical for da twoof NIST is an all encompassing report of anything and everything when its convenient.
I am wondering what criteria Brian is using in determining these as "wimpy fires" . I am sure its from a fully reputable source and not some BS CT website or purely form his ass.
Where are you getting your facts from Brian? Surely you not being an expert at anything have some sort of reputable source on your ramblings.
This comment has been removed by the author.
But let's get back to the subject post, and Pat's ridiculous claim that the WTC7 fires were "uncontrollable". Obviously even without water the fires could have been contained as forest fires are by removing the fuel in their forward path and allowing them to burn out. FDNY did not do this.
So you're admitting that fires brought the tower down, and not thermite? Maybe you're not as delusional as you appear.
On second thought, even if Brian realizes that fires brought down WTC 7, he's still completely insane. He thinks the FDNY should have risked the lives of more of their firefighters to put firebreaks in an empty building that was likely damaged beyond repair anyway.
I self-critique constantly, RGT. That's why I'm never wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chVPi-CZ34E
I prefer The Who. Who's next is better than any Stones album.
I self-critique constantly, RGT. That's why I'm never wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chVPi-CZ34E
This works well too, John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iaysTVcounI
That's a good idea. Today is Dedicate a Song to Truthers day. This one is for snug.bug. And every word of this one goes sincerely out to Jon Gold.
GMS, NIST tells us that the fires only persisted on 6 floors. Do you really think NIST is covering up the existence of fires on more than 6 floors? Why would they do that?
There's nothing ridiculous about the argument that the smoke came from WTC6. You can see the same phenomenon in the case of WTC1 here: http://postimage.org/image/71xagsbev/
I can assure you that WTC1 is not belching dust from every window on the south side.
It's a real hoot that you guys try to pretend that there's something dishonest about quoting NIST. Imagine a courtroom trial where the lawyers were not allowed to refer to the witnesses presented by the other side.
Hey, since I dedicated one Rollins Band song to Brian, I should dedicate one to Jon Gold:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o28dyt7w3As
GMS, NIST tells us that the fires only persisted on 6 floors. Do you really think NIST is covering up the existence of fires on more than 6 floors? Why would they do that?
Nobody thinks NIST is covering anything up. We just think you're a delusional liar and insane failed janitor.
It's a real hoot that you guys try to pretend that there's something dishonest about quoting NIST.
There's nothing inherently dishonest about quoting NIST. You just happen to be a pathetic liar who lies endlessly about NIST and quote mines them until they say something you don't like, at which point they become dishonest and unbelievable.
None of this really matters, since nobody cares what a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State thinks of NIST.
Ian, GMS clearly believes that smoke is exiting WTC7 on the south side and reflects fires on more than 6 floors. If that were true, then NIST would be covering up the existence of fires on 6 floors.
You don't even have any evidence that I ever attended San Jose State, let alone that I "failed out of" it. All you do is lie and lie and lie.
Ian, GMS clearly believes that smoke is exiting WTC7 on the south side and reflects fires on more than 6 floors. If that were true, then NIST would be covering up the existence of fires on 6 floors.
False.
You don't even have any evidence that I ever attended San Jose State, let alone that I "failed out of" it. All you do is lie and lie and lie.
Brian, you told us, on April 2 at 10:33, "I failed out of San Jose State". All this hysterical denial does is convince me that I'm on the right track.
Ian, you lie and lie. I never said I failed out of San Jose State.
Ian, you lie and lie. I never said I failed out of San Jose State.
Brian, anyone can Google and see that you said "I failed out of San Jose State". Why are you so afraid of the truth?
At least you're not denying being a mentally ill unemployed janitor since everyone was already aware of that.
Anyway, enough about the fact that you failed out of San Jose State.
When you came up with your "meatball on a fork" model, were you high on model airplane glue or rubber cement?
Anybody can google it and see that you're lying, just like always.
Anybody can google it and see that you're lying, just like always.
If that's the case, how come you're the only one who says I'm lying? You're well known for being a mentally ill unemployed janitor, so nobody is going to listen to you. It's funny how nobody will back you up on this.
Face it, Brian. You told us "I failed out of San Jose State". Everyone saw it. No matter how much you squeal about it, you can't change the facts.
I'm the only one who says you're lying because I'm the only one here who minds that you lie. You lie blatantly about me, about the widows, about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh and the molten steel and I'm the only one who objects--because I'm the only one who cares enough about truth to object.
I never told you "I failed out of San Jose State". You're a liar.
I'm the only one who says you're lying because I'm the only one here who minds that you lie. You lie blatantly about me, about the widows, about Dr. Sunder and Dr. Astaneh and the molten steel and I'm the only one who objects--because I'm the only one who cares enough about truth to object.
Thanks for proving my point. You're delusional.
I never told you "I failed out of San Jose State". You're a liar.
Squeal squeal squeal!
You lie and lie and lie
"WTC7 hardly burned uncontrollably. It burned uncontrolled because FDNY was unwilling to fight the fire."
...and why was this, Spork Boy?
Could it be the large number of the FDNY which disappeared in the wreckage of the Twin Towers? You don't think the focus of the firefighters would be their rescue, and not an empty building? Could it be the unstable nature of the WTC after the collapse? How about the huge gaping hole in the face of WTC7? Maybe a combination of all these?
A sensible person would understand.
"You would expect FDNY to have access to the most sophisticated back-pack fire-suppressing sprayers in the world."
Equipment needed to be approved by the City. The city fell short on keeping FDNY up-to-date on a lot of gear.
" I self-critique constantly, RGT. That's why I'm never wrong."
Only a psychopath would say this. Is this why they kicked you out of college?
This comment has been removed by the author.
NIST says there was no huge gaping hole in the face of WTC7. Of course they could be lying. But they have to deny the presence of a huge hole, because that would weaken the strucrure so much that the orderly collapse we observed would be impossible.
You lie and lie and lie
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
Punxsutawney Petgoat Good!
NIST says there was no huge gaping hole in the face of WTC7. Of course they could be lying. But they have to deny the presence of a huge hole, because that would weaken the strucrure so much that the orderly collapse we observed would be impossible.
Of course, the only person who thinks there was an orderly collapse is a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State, calls himself "petgoat", and was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet.
"NIST says there was no huge gaping hole in the face of WTC7. Of course they could be lying. But they have to deny the presence of a huge hole, because that would weaken the strucrure so much that the orderly collapse we observed would be impossible."
Yeah, except there are pictures of the hole. The same pictures show smoke billowing out of multiple floors.
Well, it's a beautiful spring day in New York, so I'm not going to have much time to mock Brian today, so I'll just leave him with this:
Brian, you are an unemployed janitor with mental illness who failed out of San Jose State. No matter how much spam you post, the "widows" will never have their questions answered, "meatball on a fork" will never be published in a journal, and Carol Brouillet will never leave her husband for you. All the squealing and crying in the world won't change that.
MGF, so there are "pictures of the hole"? You mean this?
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.h2.jpg
That's a diagram of a fantasy hole. There is no picture of a gaping hole. NIST denies that there is a gaping hole--because if there were a gaping hole the orderly collapse we observed could not have happened.
Ian, it's nice that you're going for a walk after spending your Friday night in NY hanging out at a forum for zit-faced losers who have some inexplicable need to demonstrate to each other their ignorance about a subject they regard as a non-issue.
I'm STILL waiting for the general strike for da troof .
You couldn't get a general strike for ice cream. What's your point?
"That's a diagram of a fantasy hole. There is no picture of a gaping hole. NIST denies that there is a gaping hole--because if there were a gaping hole the orderly collapse we observed could not have happened."
It wasn't an orderly collapse. The building came apart from the inside over a 2-hour span. The final collapse troofers bust a nut over was only the final stage of a two-hour structural failure.
You make stuff up. Where do you get this fantasy of a 2-hour collapse?
You make stuff up. Where do you get this fantasy of a 2-hour collapse?
Hey, if a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State says there was no 2-hour collapse, well, who cares?
I went to the WTC memorial for the 1st time this weekend. I saw the name "Van Auken" there, and now I know where Brian got the name of his invisible widows. I guess he just picked a few names from the victims list and then pretended they have widows with questions.
Ian, you lie. This document shows that of the widows' 300 questions, only 27 were answered.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Ian, you lie. This document shows that of the widows' 300 questions, only 27 were answered.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
This is what I'm talking about. You make up some nonsense about "widows" with "questions" and then expect us to take your delusions seriously because you're doing this "for the widows".
Ian, you lie. This document shows that of the widows' 300 questions, only 27 were answered.
http://www.justicefor911.org/Appendix4_FSCQuestionRatings_111904.php
Brian, you do realize that you've been posting the same dumbspam about invisible widows for over 3 years now, right? And that nobody cares?
Next time you're about to post that irrelevant link, just remind yourself that you're being set up to be humiliated by me again.
Offtopic -- epic weekend pissing match between snug.bug and some other assclown* starting here. Morbidly fascinating.
*Kat Dorman actually knows the physics inside and out, but spending your weekend on Truthaction gains you instant lifetime assclown status.
RGT, that's fantastic. Kat Dorman suffers from the same problem as GuitarBill: they both take Brian seriously. I learned a long time ago to just make fun of Brian's haircut and his employment status. It drives him crazy because he doesn't get the serious attention his mental illness feeds off of.
Anyway, he's right about 5 of the 8 essential mysteries:
1) Why did the upper section of WTC2 go into orbit?
2) Why did WTC1 collapse all the way through the earth to China?
3) Why was Manhattan covered in 18 feet of dust?
4) Why were the collapses heard as far away as Tunguska?
5) Why did Dan Rather get beat up by well-dressed men?
But the 3 he missed are:
6) Why were laser burns found on the perimeter columns?
7) Why was an alien spaceship found in the wreckage?
8) Why was burnt baboon fur found in the wreckage?
I'm curious what snug does to support himself. "Research" is pretty nebulous. I can think of some things he might be good at. He can sure as hell focus on details, if only he'd learn to judge which details to focus on.
Plus he seems to alienate everybody he contacts. Even Charles Manson doesn't want to stand too close to him.
I want to know what happened to the quarter-ton of urinal cakes inside each tower.
I want to know what kind of evil CIA technology allowed Muzak to continue playing throughout the entire WTC complex after the attacks?
Had Mohamed Atta changed his mind how pissed off would he have been to find out his suitcase didn't make the plane? Would he have refused to fly United ever again?
There has never been an investigation into how Windows on the World was able to offer wonderful dining at such reasonable prices while operating in Manhattan.
Rolling Stones drummer Charlie Watts had never been to the WTC, why did he choose 9/11/2001 to also not go?
Did San Jose State refund Brian the remainder of his tuition after they kicked him out?
Is that what passes for wit at Franco's, guy? You really ought to get out more.
Has Brian given where he is getting his criteria on "wimpy fires" from?
Has Brian botehred to find out what "fully involved means yet?
Its so unusual for Brian to not back up his claims. I mean its not like he simply regurgitates what other people say. Of course he has read p. 18-21 which details the fire progression.
Is that what passes for wit at Franco's, guy? You really ought to get out more.
My, such squealing!
Brian, I know you're not the brightest crayon in the box, but one would think that after 3 years, you could have figured out that you're nothing but a source of amusement and a target of ridicule for everyone here. And no, re-posting the same nonsense about "widows" or molten steel isn't going to change that fact.
GMS, NIST says the fires persisted on only 6 floors. If you want to think that in a 47 story building that small portions of 6 floors burning is "fully involved" then you're just fooling yourself.
Ian, I haven't posted any nonsense. I don't know what purpose you think your endless lying is serving. Most likely you're just mentally ill.
GMS, NIST says the fires persisted on only 6 floors. If you want to think that in a 47 story building that small portions of 6 floors burning is "fully involved" then you're just fooling yourself.
Brian, what did I just say about nonsense? You can repeat your assertions that magic thermite elves destroyed the WTC towers, but don't expect anything but ridicule.
Ian, I haven't posted any nonsense.
False.
I don't know what purpose you think your endless lying is serving.
I don't lie.
Most likely you're just mentally ill.
It must really bother you that I keep pointing out that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State, huh? You can desperately try to toss my points about you back at me, but everyone here knows which one of us was thrown out of the truth movement for stalking Carol Brouillet, or which one of us spent hours on end "leafleting" outside Kevin Barrett's house.
And let's not get into your insane belief in invisible widows....
Ian, you lie and lie and lie. I've never been to Kevin Barrett's house.
Ian, you lie and lie and lie. I've never been to Kevin Barrett's house.
You also said you're not petgoat. Nobody cares what you say because you're a delusional liar who believes in modified attack baboons, magic thermite elves, and invisible widows.
You lie.
So Brian, have the widows had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!
I'd ask why a number of floors in WTC5 collapsed, but I suspect it had to do with a fire of some kind. Probably started in the Department of Modified Attack Baboons office.
It couldn't possibly have to do with massive structural damage caused by huge steel components from WTC1 falling through the roof. Naaaah.
It couldn't possibly have to do with massive structural damage caused by huge steel components from WTC1 falling through the roof. Naaaah.
So pieces of the towers were able to cause critical damage to WTC 5 but not WTC 7, apparently. Why? Well, because ignorant lunatics like Brian can't find any youtube videos of WTC 5 collapsing in a way that resembles a controlled demolition, so it's not important to build a convoluted, pointless conspiracy theory around WTC 5.
Ian, the structure of a roof and the structure of a load-bearing wall are different. A wall has to hold up all the walls, floors, and roofs above it. A roof only has to hold up a snow load. Debris fell through the roof of WTC5. There are huge holes. No debris fell through the roof of WTC7.
Ian, the structure of a roof and the structure of a load-bearing wall are different. A wall has to hold up all the walls, floors, and roofs above it. A roof only has to hold up a snow load. Debris fell through the roof of WTC5. There are huge holes. No debris fell through the roof of WTC7.
That's nice, Brian.
You asked a question and I answered it.
"It couldn't possibly have to do with massive structural damage caused by huge steel components from WTC1 falling through the roof. "
Oops, you've just admitted wreckage from Tower 1 fell far enough to do serious damage to WTC7, which is the same distance as WTC5.
Then you step on your dick and ignore the RAGING fire which caused the collapse.
I realize Bwian won't look at this footage because he's an idiot. However non-mentally ill folks should take a look as it shows the buckling of the steel support beams caused by the fire in this building (4:15), and illustrates the lack of fire-proofing on the beams (5:15).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDaqBecJhr8&feature=player_embedded#!
Oops--WTC5 is 100 feet from WTC1, and WTC7 is 400 feet from WTC1. I guess as usual you just make shit up.
You asked a question and I answered it.
Actually, you didn't. You just posted a bunch of incoherent nonsense. All you ever do is post incoherent nonsense, as one would expect from a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
Oops--WTC5 is 100 feet from WTC1, and WTC7 is 400 feet from WTC1. I guess as usual you just make shit up.
Squeal squeal squeal!
So now Brian is denying that WTC 7 was hit with debris from the collapse of WTC 7 along with denying that there were uncontrolled fires in WTC 7. Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night....
You asked a question and I answered it.
Can you answer this one:
Have the widows had their questions answered yet?
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!!
Brian dies have an interest in physics, he just does not have the brains to understand that kind of stuff.
That is why Brain is such a fine example of a useless human. Sponging off mom and dad. Poor little retard boy.
Ian you are, as usual, trying to create confusion by lying. I don't deny that WTC7 was hit by debris. I merely corrected MGF's fantasy invention when he claimed that WTC5 was as close as WTC7.
I also corrected GMS's false claim that there was a huge hole in WTC7.
I don't deny that there were uncontrolled fires in WTC7. They were uncontrolled because the fire fighters didn't even try to fight them. They were not "uncontrollable" as Pat claims.
DK, actually I am quite useful. I can build a house from the foundation to the roof, I have rebuilt engines and electrical generators, I am an editor of text and video and an astute fact-checker.
Ian you are, as usual, trying to create confusion by lying. I don't deny that WTC7 was hit by debris. I merely corrected MGF's fantasy invention when he claimed that WTC5 was as close as WTC7.
Nobody cares.
I also corrected GMS's false claim that there was a huge hole in WTC7.
False.
I don't deny that there were uncontrolled fires in WTC7. They were uncontrolled because the fire fighters didn't even try to fight them. They were not "uncontrollable" as Pat claims.
Nobody cares.
You also didn't answer my question, I see. Laurie Van Auken is in tears somewhere.
DK, actually I am quite useful. I can build a house from the foundation to the roof, I have rebuilt engines and electrical generators, I am an editor of text and video and an astute fact-checker.
Stop lying, Brian. You're an unemployed mentally ill janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
Ian you lie and lie and lie.
"I don't deny that WTC7 was hit by debris. I merely corrected MGF's fantasy invention when he claimed that WTC5 was as close as WTC7. "
You deny this all the time.
You imply WTC7 mysteriously burst into flame. WTC5 only received a glancing blow, the bulk of wreckage raked the front of WTC7, and when your talking about an 11000 foot-tall building 400 feet means it got hit harder from debris falling from a higher level.
I won't waste everyone else's time explaining basic gravity vs acceleration stuff because you won't get it anyway.
I like how you ignore the video completely. It reveals your LACK of attention to RELEVANT details.
MGF, you make shit up. Glancing blow? WTC5 had two huge gaping holes in the roof, and one wall sheared all the way to the ground.
When you lie like that, why should anybody waste time watching your videos?
Why does everybody here find it necessary to lie? What kind of debunkers are you?
Why would I let you explain anything to me? You claim to be a geologist but you don't know what the energy of fusion is. You're bullshit.
Ian you lie and lie and lie.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Brian, you still haven't answered my question: have the widows had their questions answered?
MGF, you make shit up. Glancing blow? WTC5 had two huge gaping holes in the roof, and one wall sheared all the way to the ground.
So the debris from the collapsing towers could damage nearby buildings, but just not WTC 7?
When you lie like that, why should anybody waste time watching your videos?
Running away squealing and crying again, I see.
Why does everybody here find it necessary to lie? What kind of debunkers are you?
Poor Brian. He's hysterical because he knows his beliefs about 9/11 are ridiculous, so all he can do is post spam like this, all while he lies about being "petgoat".
Ian, you have no idea what my beliefs are about 9/11.
Ian, you have no idea what my beliefs are about 9/11.
False, you've made it quite clear that you believe that the Bush Administration was responsible for the destruction of the towers via controlled demolition and that they did this in order to get the American public to back wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
You can squeal and cry all you want, but that's what you believe. And you believe such nonsense because you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.
Ian, you're only proving that you have no idea what my beliefs are about 9/11--and that you're a liar.
Ian, you're only proving that you have no idea what my beliefs are about 9/11--and that you're a liar.
Poor Brian, he's hysterical because I've exposed his beliefs as those of an insane liar and ignoramus.
"When you lie like that, why should anybody waste time watching your videos? "
Translation: No I did not watch the video as it clearly shows buckling of steel girders caused by office fires, and this undermines the whole conspiracy thing. I can't admit I'm wrong about 9/11
"You claim to be a geologist but you don't know what the energy of fusion is. You're bullshit."
I'm a Marine Geology major, dumbass, and I would point out you don't understand energy of fusion, gravity, or any of the other physics you want people to think you do. It is clear to all who read your posts you do not understand most of what Guitar Bill posts as you ignore 90%.
This is not something a person with a physics background does, it what a philosophy drop-out does.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF, that wouldn't be that stupid video that shows bent window frames and tries to claim they're buckling girders, would it? You do know the difference between a window frame and a girder, don't you?
I understand the energy of fusion just fine. It's a very simple concept, just like delta T. Just ask any competent Marine Geology major.
I don't understand most of what GutterBall posts for two reasons:
1) much of it doesn't make sense
2) so little of it is worth reading I rarely bother
"MGF, that wouldn't be that stupid video that shows bent window frames and tries to claim they're buckling girders, would it? You do know the difference between a window frame and a girder, don't you? "
Translation: No I didn't watch the video. Why bother with facts?
"I understand the energy of fusion just fine. It's a very simple concept, just like delta T. Just ask any competent Marine Geology major."
We all think you're hilarious.
"I don't understand most of what GutterBall posts for two reasons:
1) much of it doesn't make sense
2) so little of it is worth reading I rarely bother"
Translation: I don't understand a thing about physics because I was a philosophy major before I got kicked out of college.
If Bill's posts and links were so inane a competent physics or engineering major could take him apart...you never have. You cherry-pick data out of context, or just change the subject completely. Bill has solid science behind him, and a solid base of fact in the form of no conspiracy behind the attacks of 9/11 beyond Al Qaeda's hijacking teams and Arab backers. You have nothing. No evidence of explosives, no witnesses who saw explosives being planted/set off, no evidence of their use in the wreckage of any of the buildings, and no motive for anyone other than Al Qaeda to attack the WTC.
So you're just whistling Dixie...literally.
This comment has been removed by the author.
MGF, if you'd had more philosophy on college you might not make a fool of yourself so much. Also, you might be more confident in your ability to distinguish a window frame from a girder--a distinction which seems to intimidate you.
I've torn UtterFool apart with almost everything he claims, from his belief that fly ash in grout has something to do with fly as in concrete floors to his belief that RJ Lee's 6% iron micropheres reflected mass instead of particle number, to his mystifying belief that there's something profound about delta T.
Bill shows no evidence that he's ever had any science at all. He had vocational training in IT. Now it's obsolete. Poor Bill. They tried to warn him, but he didn't care.
MGF, if you'd had more philosophy on college you might not make a fool of yourself so much. Also, you might be more confident in your ability to distinguish a window frame from a girder--a distinction which seems to intimidate you.
Brian, what do you know about college? You failed out of San Jose State, and now you're a pathetic unemployed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves and starts squealing hysterically when we mock you for those beliefs...like right now.
I've torn UtterFool apart with almost everything he claims, from his belief that fly ash in grout has something to do with fly as in concrete floors to his belief that RJ Lee's 6% iron micropheres reflected mass instead of particle number, to his mystifying belief that there's something profound about delta T.
Brian, you've done no such thing. You've just squealed hysterically like the mentally ill unemployed janitor you are. We just come here to mock you for believing in invisible widows, for your hideous haircut, and for the fact that you were thrown out of the truth movement for being a pervert and stalker.
Bill shows no evidence that he's ever had any science at all. He had vocational training in IT. Now it's obsolete. Poor Bill. They tried to warn him, but he didn't care.
See what I mean about the hysterical squealing?
So Brian, do you think the widows questions will be answered today? You've spent 3 years spamming this blog, and they still don't have answers. That's pretty pathetic, don't you think?
Ian, I know a lot abut college. I know a lot of people who have PhDs or went to law school, I can tell you the cities and states where most of the well-known colleges and universities are located, and I have visited college campuses from Bowdoin to the University of Washington. I have taken college courses in New York, Illinois, and California.
Your claim that I failed out of San Jose State is one you have not documented. Upon what information do you base this claim?
I have demonstrated faulty logic and faulty factual basis in most of UtterFool's claims.
I was not thrown out of the truth movement. There were times when I pissed people off by pointing out the dishonesty of some people in the movement who were very popular. The only defense those people were able to mount was a campaign of lies--much like your campaign of lies against me, only smarter. Some of those lies are still circulating, but only stupid people believe them. My criticisms have been vindicated.
I don't know if the widows' questions will be answered today. I do know that this country has lost its way, most Americans agree with that assessment, and I believe that it will not recover its moral stature until the widows' questions are honestly addressed.
Ian, I know a lot abut college. I know a lot of people who have PhDs or went to law school, I can tell you the cities and states where most of the well-known colleges and universities are located, and I have visited college campuses from Bowdoin to the University of Washington. I have taken college courses in New York, Illinois, and California.
Your claim that I failed out of San Jose State is another one of your lies that you can not document.
I have demonstrated faulty logic and faulty factual basis in most of UtterFool's claims.
I was not thrown out of the truth movement. There were times when I pissed people off by pointing out the dishonesty of some people in the movement who were very popular. The only defense those people were able to mount was a campaign of lies--much like your campaign of lies against me, only smarter. Some of those lies are still circulating, but only stupid people believe them. My criticisms have been vindicated.
I don't know if the widows' questions will be answered today. I do know that this country has lost its way, most Americans agree with that assessment, and I believe that it will not recover its moral stature until the widows' questions are honestly addressed.
Ian, I know a lot abut college. I know a lot of people who have PhDs or went to law school, I can tell you the cities and states where most of the well-known colleges and universities are located, and I have visited college campuses from Bowdoin to the University of Washington. I have taken college courses in New York, Illinois, and California.
But you never actually attended college, or more precisely, failed out of San Jose State after doing massive amounts of drugs that wrecked your mind.
Your claim that I failed out of San Jose State is another one of your lies that you can not document.
False.
I have demonstrated faulty logic and faulty factual basis in most of UtterFool's claims.
False. You've demonstrated yourself to be an obsessive liar and lunatic.
I was not thrown out of the truth movement.
False. You're a disgusting pervert and sex stalker and the truthers expelled your because you were stalking Carol Brouillet.
I don't know if the widows' questions will be answered today.
Nobody cares.
I do know that this country has lost its way, most Americans agree with that assessment, and I believe that it will not recover its moral stature until the widows' questions are honestly addressed.
Nobody cares. You're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. Your opinions on things are irrelevant.
You lie and lie and lie and lie. Stupidly.
Hey Brian, is that actually you on the right?
http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/d/6/0/8/highres_22614792.jpeg
I mean, that's a pretty good photo. You still look like a burnt-out insane loser dinosaur from the 1960s, but at least you appear to have bathed in this photo.
GMS, NIST says the fires persisted on only 6 floors. If you want to think that in a 47 story building that small portions of 6 floors burning is "fully involved" then you're just fooling yourself.
Has Brian given where he is getting his criteria on "wimpy fires" from? ( <<< asked about 3 times)
Nope...he has none. His ignorance is his evidence.
Has Brian bothered to find out what "fully involved means yet? ( <<<< again, asked about 3 times)
Nope...reading reputable sources is not a requirement for da twoof. His ignorance is his evidence.
New question:
Has Brian bothered to read p. 18-21 of the NIST Reprot on WTC 7?
Unlikely..he is too busy regurgitating what he hears on youtube & fills in the gaps with his ignorance.
Post a Comment
<< Home